Jesus or Jail?

I suppose an alternate title could be "Ignoring the separation of church and state for fun and profit!"

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/27/jesus-or-jail-alabama-town-offers-options-for-serving-time/

My biggest complaint is that, in effect, this is the government mandating people going to church. It's not clear from the article whether the criminals given this option are assigned to a church, or get to choose their own, and what if they're not Christian?

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Face Palm.

Somebody get the ACLU (and I don't really like to say that).

I am now known as Flyboy.

Oh, fuck the South.

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt." - Some guy with a snazzy hat.

Well, they're not mandating it, they're just offering the option as an alternative.

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!

Huh. Well this is a thing that I am most skeptical about in terms of it doing any good.

...I DEMAND LONG TERM STUDIES ON THIS TO SEE THE RESULTS OF IT.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I suppose if the law was "you may go to the church of your choice," but then non-religious people would be left out. So, no, it cannot be done in a way that does not violate the First Amendment.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@ Aon: what about a choice between jail and Buddhist monastery?

"Atheism is the religion whose followers are easiest to troll"

so essentially, slap on the wrist as long as you fake being devout?

We must do studies on that as well. Wait are you talking about just visits to a monastery or actually staying at the monastery? Because I'm thinking of staying there. Either as someone taking on The Eight Precepts of someone taking on The Ten as a novice as a way to repent.

That might be an interesting way of dealing punishment though I'm not sure it would work well. Still letting the person choose a year of work as a novice monk complete with all the being used as a gopher would be an interesting thing I think.

If you get this option let's not let them think it's a slap on the wrist. We'll be working you to the bone.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:11:54 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

From what the article leads me to believe, sleeping through church would technically be cool so long as you check in.

Honestly, I think I'd pick prison. Get my time served all in one go, plus have something to write about.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

See, THIS is where a choice of "jail, fine, or community service" would be perfect. Church is not a punishment. Community service is, won't get into First Amendment snarls, and even if the person re-commits at least they did something to help society first.

It doesn't sound awful, really. I'd totally go to church once a week instead of going to prison for however long they'd want me. I mean, shit, anything is better than prison. And I'm Agnostic, so I can just go "yeah, sure, you're right in your own way," and just keep walking a free man.

If people want to abuse this, it's not their fault. Alabama is just making it easy.

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

But if they go to church they'll magically become good people because all christians are gud people.

I'd imagine the intent is to force you to convert and or some misguided ideal that church can fix all the worlds woes.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:21:54 PM by Midgetsnowman

You know I'm thinking that this would be a really cool idea if you had to be a constant volunteer at the church doing ass loads of community service work. So like my "Year as a novice monk" idea, but with church and maybe without the strong regulations on eating, sleeping, dressing, and so on.

As it is it doesn't seem to be that. Depressed.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:23:01 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

inb4 joyflower and Karmakin

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!

snoman@Its that not that Christians are all good people but its to help people to get their lives on track.Remember Jesus did talk with the sinners so isn't it better than doing the usual judgemental thing.

That's kinda looking at it pretty cynical and assuming churches have never done anything right. You still have to understand that Christianity still praises good morals most of the time, and forcing someone to sit through them once a week is a lot better than throwing them into a house full of gangsters, killers, and psychos assuming they're going to come back alive.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:28:59 PM by HeavyDDR

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

It's not unconstitutional because it's an option that the accused chooses, not one the judge imposes.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Thats less an argument for throwing them into church and more an argument for not throwing people into jail over misdemeanors.

and churches do encourage "good morals" in the sense of what they consider moral. But they dont have the resources to fix the world, and this WILL be used by people willing to fake devoutness for 52 days and then not give a damn.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:30:24 PM by Midgetsnowman

@Aon If it was a church that did a lot of community work (Habitat for Humanity, soup lines, etc.) then yeah, I can see that as a good route to take.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:30:21 PM by Ratix

Ah, but Mad, it's an endorsement of religion by government. That's Establishment, which is a no-no.

I am now known as Flyboy.

And sadly it's not that so...meh on this idea.

I would like to see that, and equivalents for other religions, being made an option though. I like the sound of this idea...

NOVICE MONKHOOD FOR A YEAR. GLORIFIED GOPHER WHO CAN ONLY SLEEP SIX HOURS A DAY AND EAT ONE MEAL BEFORE NOON.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Just sayin'. As Madrugada pointed out, it's their choice, and I think sending someone to a church 52 times a year - just once a week - is a lot better than sending them to prison for, say, 18 weeks - what, 112 days? - and surrounding them with people even more dangerous than them.

And again, you're assuming churches never do anything right or they're just some brainwashing facility to make more cross-throwing clones.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:34:23 PM by HeavyDDR

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

Depends on the church.

I really doubt most churches are bad enough to encourage people to do worse crimes than what the people this applies to have done.

I mean, at least at church they might learn something valuable. Of course some people aren't going to pay attention, but that's still better than putting them around people that will just make them worse and incapable to meld back into society.

Not to mention that they're going to church for a whole year. That's being surrounded by the same people for a year, talking with them, and potentially getting involved with good projects. Again, still better than prison.

edited 27th Sep '11 5:38:01 PM by HeavyDDR

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior