Jesus or Jail?

Indeed, if it wasn't unconstitutional (and creepy in an Orwellian fashion) I'd actually support this law thingy here, because I think that the way we handle crime in this country is batshit insane half the time. But, well, see the aforementioned points.

I could also argue that paying a fine is discrimination against the poor. I could also allowing someone to go to counseling is discriminatory against Scientologists.

Big difference in that is possible an unconstitutional issue based on much more laws and presidents, national scope vs small local community, possible lifelong depraving of happiness vs punishment for single infraction, etc…

I DID. Taxes require money and therefor a drain on resource that not everyone has equal amounts of. Generally EVERYONE has time (and lets not start humoring hypothetical involving terminally ill people, please)

And NO, I’m not trying to make some grand point with that question. I’m legitimately interested in what people have to say.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:02:50 PM by Justice4243

You answer my questions first. The reason it's not going anywhere is because every time I point out the inconsistencies in your position, you change the subject. That's why I think you're arguing in bad faith. You're not actually responding to some of the most powerful things I'm arguing. You're not explaining how a punishment is different from a tax in this context.

Actually, I basically already answered the question before you even asked it.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:02:58 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Did, did twice.

How does "money is not changing hands" make it different in this context? (I'll admit I missed that line initially)

You are reducing the cost to a given individual on the basis of their faith. The cost is the thing that is similar between the punishment and the tax-that is, it is something that an individual wants to avoid.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:04:42 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I just explained that in my second to last post.

They're still loosing an equal amount of time, so there is an equal amount of cost. They may feel differently about how that time is spent, but people may feel differently about spending time in jail.

Given the demographic make up, "option three" is probably something regarded almost the same be the entire community.

Obviously, things fall apart of the person being punished ALREADY attends Church weekly, or near weekly. I would hope that there's a plan for that. However, the plan isn't even in effect, and may not see the light of day. So it's difficult to speculate on such things.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:08:00 PM by Justice4243

Personally, instead of church attendance (which is probably the least helpful part of it anyway) I'd say community service, and include church-run ones as options on the list because community service is community service.

I also would try not to include things like 2 AM road maintenance; jobs like that have no personal feedback whatsoever and are effectively just hollow labor as far as the criminal goes. If you want to make sure someone doesn't jump any further off the deep end, give them something that lets them tie themselves to other people.

Everyone has the same number of hours, but the cost of those hours is different between the theist and the non-theist. If all the law said was "You have to stand here while observed by a policeman for five hours" then that analogy would follow. But it's "You have to stand here surrounded by cats" when some people are allergic to cats. Time is not equal, even if the amount is theoretically the same.

FURTHERMORE it doesn't actually address the point I'm getting at. The point is, there is a cost to an individual, and you are granting one group of individuals an ability to avoid that cost on the basis of their religion. Giving atheists the ability to avoid the cost by going to church still counts as discrimination.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:09:26 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

We're also disusing a population where it seems almost no one is "allergic to cats".

Also, there's a bit of hyperbole in that statement, unless you know someone who actually starts sneezing uncontrollably, gets itchy eyes, etc... when in a church.

INB 4 "That DOES happen to me!"

My point that I've made several times, is that just because they're a Christian, doesn't mean that attending Church magically means they're not suffering somehow.

Unless they ARE going to Church regularly. Then, as I said, I'd hope they wouldn't be granted this option.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:12:19 PM by Justice4243

Okay, so only one person is allergic to cats in that town. But the town knows that person exists. Then it just becomes a law that's designed to single out people allergic to cats, because the ruling government in the town thinks that people shouldn't be allergic to cats (read: atheists) and think that by being around cats (read: church) they will get over their allergy.

You cannot make the argument that going to church for a Christian is precisely identical to going to church for an atheist. Are you really trying to make that argument? Is that really your position?

edited 30th Sep '11 3:13:20 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

You're assuming a devious purpose behind this plan. That is, that is to convert atheist when they've stated that it's to save money. If it IS part of a devious plot to convert the "unenlightened" in the town, yes they're evil and that's bad.

Did I say identical? No, but it's a lot more comparable than you seem to be suggesting. And, once again given the make-up of the relevant population. The dissonance between how the "Christian" and "non-Christian" feels is probably much smaller than how the "well-off" and "lower income" probably feel about a fine vs jail.

Did I mention I'm a little unnerved that everyone is only mention "Atheists" here? There are other non-Christians in Alabama. They're still a minority, but if this is being viewed as a "Strategic attack on Atheists" this conversation is deeply flawed.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:22:31 PM by Justice4243

Yeah, it's also biased against Muslims and Jews and so on and so forth. It just so happens I'm an atheist, so I view it in the minds of atheists.

This does not change the substance of the argument in any way shape or form.

As for the insidious nature, how exactly would the results of the law be different if it were insidious than if it weren't? It's still incentivizing indoctrination into a given religious experience. And not tangentially (by, like, raising ham prices thus making it less costly to be kosher therefore incentivizing conversion to Judaism or something).

edited 30th Sep '11 3:24:12 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Fines often are discriminatory against the poor, but that's not unconstitutional.

Allowing someone to go to anything is not unconstitutional. But the state of Alabama, and every other state, already allows people to go to church, including criminals.

I would rather both options be taken off the table and all misdemeanor offenders would be sentenced to a fine or community service; however if the choice is between "jail or church" and "jail only" I would definitely take "jail only".

Forcing people to go to church has bad implications far beyond the criminal justice system in particular. Government endorsement of a church is a very very bad thing with potentially horrible implications for civil liberties.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:36:17 PM by BlackHumor

That's all fine and good, but that doesn't address any of my other points.

But we haven't established concrete evidence that this even is unconstitutional. Obviously, the possibility is there, otherwise this would be in place instead of being reviewed with someone more in the know of if this is even going to fly or not.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:25:46 PM by Justice4243

I've already pointed out, it doesn't matter if it's to save money: unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional. The state has an obligation to have a secular option. It's cheaper to only worry about Christians? Too fucking bad, they don't have that leisure.

There's a qualitative difference between "fines affect the poor disproportionately" and "Oh hey, you're good as long as you go to church." The later is incentivizing indoctrination in a religion, which constitutes establishment of religion AND is disproportionately favoring to Christians.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:26:44 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

OK, so we now seem to be arguing "It's unconstitutional." and "Given the ambiguity of the relevant passages, it actually may not be unconstitutional." Over and over again.

True, I suppose this is the point where someone breaks out actual case rulings on Find Law?

None of us actually being lawyers, I'm not sure what the best way would be to find cases supporting our respective cases.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:31:55 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

For the sake of prosperity, if this action is deemed unconstitutional, then fuck it and throw it out.

I think it's an interesting idea, and would love to see a "fairer" attempt done it it. Say, a community that could accommodate all people's beliefs instead of the majority, however.

edited 30th Sep '11 3:39:48 PM by Justice4243

Hugo Black for the majority in Everson v. Board of Education:

Yes, but there are other cases that have ruled just the opposite, as The Other Wiki article I linked pointed out:

Yeah. Unfortunately, the system is corrupt and stupid and prone to human error, and people see whatever they want to see.

Since it's Alabama, I have no doubt that it'll be upheld.

The article says "attorney general". Probably the state one, though. So I do wonder if some biased will be involved.

However, I have no doubt this will see MUCH more attention if it's upheld and could go all the way to the supreme court given the stir this little town has caused.

Who knows, we might get to see a new bizarre national alternative to fines, jail, and community service...

edited 30th Sep '11 3:57:20 PM by Justice4243

The whole thing is just disgusting IMO. It's obvious that it's just an excuse to put government more into religion and vice versa. If they want to reduce costs for the city, just reduce punishments!

The problem is that they'd loose money from fines if they just reduced jail sentences, so I think they're trying to strike a balance between at least breaking even for crimes committed (which could be related to property damage) and punishing people in some way if they can't pay.

New? This is just legalizing what everyone with any power does anyhow. profess to be a good, religious man who made a mistake and please forgive me and be lenient on me because I love Jesus. *gag*

edited 30th Sep '11 4:02:42 PM by Midgetsnowman