Judge Gives Offenders Option To Go To Church

[SupaTroopa]

Story Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050531/ap_on_re_us/sentenced_to_church)

LONDON, Ky. - A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab — a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.

District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to "help people and their families."

"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," he said.

Alternative sentencing is popular across the country — ordering vandals to repaint a graffiti-covered wall, for example. But legal experts said they didn't know of any other judges who give the option of attending church.

Caperton has offered the option about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders. It is unclear what effect the sentence has had.

David Friedman, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said the option raises "serious constitutional problems."

"The judge is saying that those willing to go to worship services can avoid jail in the same way that those who decline to go cannot," Friedman said. "That strays from government neutrality towards religion."

[SupaTroopa]

"The judge is saying that those willing to go to worship services can avoid jail in the same way that those who decline to go cannot," Friedman said. "That strays from government neutrality towards religion."

This is my argument against this type of sentencing. I am not one to attack a person's personal religious beliefs by any means - and I'm sure the vast majority of people in Central Kentucky are from Christian backgrounds. But, there is such a thing as precedent and the power of it that determines future rulings in this country and this is why people get upset over this kind of thing.

What if someone were a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist and wanted to go to "their" church instead? Does the judge allow for that?

So if you're not a Christian you go to jail instead?

Christianity might be the right path for some people, but it is up to them to do so, not the law to do demand it. That's dangerous stuff.

[Rafal Dudek]

What if someone were a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist and wanted to go to "their" church instead? Does the judge allow for that?

worhsip services, not church:

"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," he said.


Although the way I see it is this...

You shall not kill. You shall not steal

OMFG!!!! church & state issue!!! Abolish this law and let people kill each other! We cannot have church believes in our systems!

[RHooks]

I've sat through some church services over the years that made jail look pretty good.

[Mara]

I've sat through some church services over the years that made jail look pretty good.

Me too! :lol:

[Cloudw4lker]

What if you don't have a church? Do I have to go someone elses church if I want to not go to jail?

OMFG!!!! church & state issue!!! Abolish this law and let people kill each other! We cannot have church believes in our systems! :rolleyes:

[RangerRick]

Christianity might be the right path for some people, but it is up to them to do so, not the law to do demand it. That's dangerous stuff.

He did not "demand" anything. Just gave the offenders a choice.

[Chylde Roland]

Repeat offenders? This "punishment" must not be very effective...

:rolleyes:

[RangerRick]

Repeat offenders? This "punishment" must not be very effective...

:rolleyes:

I think be repeat offenders, they had been sent to jail, and that didn't help.

Or you may be right, the story wasn't very clear on that.........

[Chylde Roland]

Yeah, it was a little unclear. I took it to mean they had been given this option before, but it could go the other way, too.

[SupaTroopa]

Although the way I see it is this...

You shall not kill. You shall not steal


Yeah but I don't need the church to tell me not to do bad things, I can figure out right and wrong on my own, that's what our justice system is for, otherwise we'd just have another Inquisition and crusade to weed out all of the non-believers and put them in prisons and torture them.

Our founding fathers are probably turning over in their graves.

He did not "demand" anything. Just gave the offenders a choice.

So he's demanding that they go to church or go to jail - still doesn't make it right. I come from a Christian family, I still think it's wrong for our court system to favor one religion over another, they are not there for that reason and should never be.

[Rafal Dudek]

I still think it's wrong for our court system to favor one religion over another

Where does it say it favors one religion over the other?

[RHooks]

Our founding fathers are probably turning over in their graves.


I have no doubt that they're spinning in them. But not over this issue.

[Nyghtfall]

I have no doubt that they're spinning in them. But not over this issue.

I hear they've been researching a self-resurrection ritual ever since Bush's first term.

:lol:

[glendonagasaki]

have you ever known anything so screwed up in your life. a judge sending criminals to church . i used to be one myself but that is crazy just because hes religious. what world does he live in or what pills is he taking is more to the point after all he is a judge. hes no different from any of us he just wants people to think he is

[Lou Cypher]

a judge sending criminals to church . i used to be one myself but that is crazy A judge or a criminal? :lol:

Lou :globe:

[Rob]

As most know I am not religious, but I am not blind to the fact that in general, most religions do help people out in one aspect or another. Since he is giving a choice that seems to be very open minded to different religions, why not? So many other forms of punishment are failing; this at least gives someone another chance. Hopefully as a judge he knows where to draw the line at someone who could use some guidance and someone who needs to be in jail. Since the article is fairly vague, I can only go on the assumption that he does.

[Torsion]

Say what you will, but sending someone into religious practice is probably a far more effective correctional method than jail.

[FredFlash]

The Presbyterian's Argument (Circa 1834) That The National Religion is Atheism

We proceed now to establish the charge of immorality against the Constitution of the United States.

1. It does not acknowledge or make any reference, to the existence or providence of the Supreme Being. The nation, as such, has no God. This is an essential evil in the constitution, which involves the hideous charge of national atheism! "The general government is erected for the general good of the United States, and especially for the management of their foreign concerns: but no association of men for moral purposes can be justified in an entire neglect of the Sovereign of the World. No consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government, in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his anointed from the grand charter of the nation."[6]

2. The United States Constitution, does not recognise the revealed will of God. All moral government flows from God the Sovereign the Universe, and must be regulated by his will, otherwise it cannot bind the conscience. In the original state of man, the moral law, which we written on his heart, included in it the will of God relative to this as we as all other moral duties. To meet the exigency of man’s fallen condition, God has given a new revelation of his will, in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. All who enjoy this new, and now more perfect revelation of the will of God, are bound to regulate their civil and political relations by it, as well as those that immediately relate to the worship of God. To proceed on the ground that man may dispense with the instruction of scripture in the constitution and management civil government, is unquestionably to set aside the authority of God when He speaks to us in the holy scriptures. The universal depravity of human nature unfits men for performing either the personal or social duties of life, in a manner agreeable to the will of God. The scriptures contain instructions how all these duties are to be performed. "To the law and to the testimony" we are commanded to look. And no moral principle whatever can it be admitted, that men may form their constitutions of civil government according to the mere light nature, when the author of nature has given another and a more perfect rule by which they may be flamed. The authority which binds men to the light of nature, as far as it is applicable, binds them also to the scriptures, as the subsequent and more complete revelation of the will of God. "Revelation contains the true standard of civil government. It prescribes the supreme criterion according to which those states which have ordained this superior light should act in forming their constitutions, choosing their officers, and determining their leading objects."[7] In the Constitution of the United States, however, there is not the most distant allusion to the revealed will of God. The Bible, as containing the fundamental principles of political morality, is not even indirectly acknowledged. Here then is an evident violation of a moral duty.—Men are bound, as has been proved by the preceding observations, to make the Bible the basis of their political constitutions; but the United States of America have entirely excluded it from the charter which binds them together as a nation.

3. The Constitution of the United States acknowledges no subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ. A moral right to exercise universal dominion bas been given to Him as the Mediator, by God the Father, "He hath put all things under his feet, and set him far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come."[8] In the whole universe of created existence there is not a solitary exception to the mediatorial rule of Christ. He has moral authority given to him over all things for the sake of the Church, which is his body. Every intelligent being is bound to obey the Redeemer, and submit to his authority. Civil society, and all communities, are in their congregated character equally bound with individuals to honor Him. On their part it is not a matter of choice—"nations and their rulers are placed in a state of subjection to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of the kings of the earth, and are bound to acknowledge his mediatorial authority, and submit to his law; framing their laws, appointing their officers, and regulating their obedience in subserviency to the interests of his kingdom."[9] The revealed commands of God bind them to give obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ in all their social relations. "Be wise now, therefore, O ye kings; be instructed ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the son lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled but a little."[10] The claim which the Mediator has to the homage of nations is held forth by his mediatorial exaltation and dignity. "He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords."[11] The constitution and government which have no respect to the Mediator and his authority, as "Prince of the kings of the earth," are in a state of rebellion and opposition against "the Lord and his Anointed." They are destitute of an important moral feature, that justly exposes them to the charge of impiety. The Constitution of the United States is chargeable with this impiety. It makes no mention of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor his right of rule, over the nations. It contemns the commands of God that enjoin obedience to his authority, and as far as moral principle is concerned, the language of the Constitution respecting "the Lord and his Anointed" is, "Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."[12]

There are principles essential to the moral character of a civil constitution and government, destitute of which, no government can be the ordinance of God. Of three of these essential and radical principles of the ordinance of God, the Constitution of the United States is destitute. That a government may furnish an exemplification of magistracy agreeable to the will of God, from whom this ordinance flows, the constitution of government must explicitly avow and acknowledge the existence, providence and authority of God. It must be framed according to the revealed will of God: and it must include a professed subjection of the government to the Lord Jesus Christ the Mediator. The Constitution of the United States is destitute of all these three essential characteristics of God’s moral ordinance of government. It has no regard to the mediatorial reign of the Lord Jesus Christ; and is therefore chargeable with rebellion against Him. It rejects the revealed will of God; and is therefore infidel. It does not acknowledge the existence of the Supreme Being; and is thus godless.

End Notes

[6] Scriptural View, &c. by Alexander McLeod. D. D. [back]
[7] Application of Scriptural Principles to Political Government, by the Rev. Peter Macindoe, A. M. [back]
[8] Eph. 1:22, 20, 21. [back]
[9] Summary of the Principles and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, p. 55. [back]
[10] Ps, 2:10, 11, 12. [back]
[11] Rev. 19:16. [back]
[12] Ps. 2:3. [back]

http://www.covenanter.org/RPCNA/jurylaw.htm

[Cloudw4lker]

Just skimmed this part...
1. It does not acknowledge or make any reference, to the existence or providence of the Supreme Being. The nation, as such, has no God. This is an essential evil in the constitution, which involves the hideous charge of national atheism! Having no god is not the same as being Atheist, not at all. Atheism is the denial in the existance in a god whereas having no god does not imply being against such a god.

Edit: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=atheism
Bah, first point supports me, second one supports you, even the dictionary is against itself.

[Quantum Ninja]

Just skimmed this part...
Having no god is not the same as being Atheist, not at all. Atheism is the denial in the existance in a god whereas having no god does not imply being against such a god.

Edit: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=atheism
Bah, first point supports me, second one supports you, even the dictionary is against itself.

Atheism is best defined as the lack of belief in a god. If you believe in the existence of a god, you're a theist. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Simple as that. I would say that the majority of people who consider themselves atheists would agree with this definition. It's certainly the most widely accepted defintion amongst atheist communities on the Web.

Now, atheism falls into two categories: strong and weak. Strong atheism is the belief that no god exists. Weak atheism is simply the lack of belief that a god exists. Whereas strong atheists make the claim "God does not exist", weak atheists do not fully commit to either of the following two claims: "God exists" and "God does not exist." Weak atheists are generally unconvinced about both claims because of a lack of compelling evidence either way.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, which deals with a different issue (although the difference is somewhat subtle). Agnosticism is the belief that God's existence cannot be proven or disproven. Agnosticism isn't a classification about one's belief in God; it's a classification about one's position on whether or not it is possible to prove God's existence. It is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.