jail or church?

[bookworm]

What do you think of this idea?
Misdemeanors in Bay Minette Alabama will have the option to pay their fine and serve their jail time, or get their charges dropped if they go to church for a year. They would have to check in with the police and with the pastor every week to make sure they go.

The ACLU is in an uproar about this, because they think it violates the U.S. Constitution by having the government endorse religion. They also say it violates Alabama’s own Constitution by compelling people to attend a place of worship.
I don’t agree. The people are not being forced to do anything, they have a choice. If they’re totally opposed to church, they can take their punishment like a regular criminal. This just gives them a different option, if they choose to take it.

[John Chrysostom]

I think that this specific law is misguided because it is a little too close to the government endorsing an official religion. Also let me ask you this, if the criminal wanted to go to a Mosque would you be okay with the program?

But I think that laws encouraging rehabilitation instead of serving jail time are great and we need a lot more them.

[31899]

I think the concept is interesting, however I think that religion and government should be separate. There are other ways of rehabilitation.

31899

[bookworm]

let me ask you this, if the criminal wanted to go to a Mosque would you be okay with the program?

Is that a generalization, or are you asking me personally?
Because I never said I was okay with the program.
I said I don’t think it’s unconstitutional. I don’t know if it’s actually a good idea, that’s a separate thought.

[Whitty Whit]

I said I don’t think it’s unconstitutional. I don’t know if it’s actually a good idea, that’s a separate thought.

True.. It seems like a good idea, somewhat.. I don't think that they should turn to church as a rehabilitation program... .. But different rehabilitation laws, as Ayn Rand said, aren't necessarily a bad idea.. Worth checking out.

[bookworm]

I think that this specific law is misguided because it is a little too close to the government endorsing an official religion.

This may be viewed as endorsing religion, and perhaps it even is, but that isn’t unconstitutional.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean the government cannot have anything at all to do with religion. What it means is that it cannot establish a national religion. For example, saying ‘We were founded on Christianity, all our citizens must be Christians.’
What this program does is provide religion as a choice to willing criminals. But it’s religion as an ‘abstract’, not one specific religion. They may choose the church they want. If this was something like ‘Your choices are to go to jail or to attend a Baptist church’ that would be unconstitutional because it favors one single religion.

[John Chrysostom]

I was asking that question generally. However I think that the more important question to ask is does the program itself allow for "religion" in general or are your only options going to one of the 56 churches that are participating in the program because if those are the only choices and those are all Christian churches then I believe we do run into a Constitutional issue. Yes I know the First Amendment does not mean the government cannot have anything at all to do with religion but by offering only Christian choices I believe the government would be, in a sense, choosing a state religion. To me this is just as problematic as setting up courts for different religions, like Muslims have done in England, run by their clergy who deal with members of their denomination or faith. Our court system should be set up to treat people exactly the same regardless of their sex, race, creed, or background.

So bookworm is this a good idea? Regardless of Constitutional issues and if it is a good idea should people be allowed to choose Mosques or whatever house of faith they want?

[SoccerLOTR]

Hmm...I do have an appreciation for choosing some sort of faith-based program over jail for misdemeanors, however, I'm not sure "church" is really the best option. In other words, plenty of people "go to church"--heck, probably some of the people who DO commit these misdemeanors already do attend church on occasion. Going to church doesn't mean you are listening or changing. So how would they know if someone is actually being reformed by going to church? They could just sleep through the sermon. IF the idea were to be put into effect, I would agree that they should perhaps also have options for other religious institutions that would promote similar values and a change of heart. Though again, just "going" doesn't mean much.

It WOULD be nice to see more rehabilitation options, many of which could be sponsored through churches, but require more of an active involvement rather than just sitting and "listening" to a sermon. And I also like the option of restitution, as that would benefit the victim as well as force the offender to directly confront the results of what they did.

[Moontide]

People go to church willingly. I don't think that it would motivate criminals not to do crimes. A punishment needs to be bad enough for the crime to be non-profitable.

[Steve]

It's funny, but not neccesarily a good idea.

[bookworm]

So bookworm is this a good idea? Regardless of Constitutional issues

No, it isn’t a good idea. In my opinion.
I’m a proponent of justice, and something about this doesn’t feel right to me. If someone commits a crime, even just a misdemeanor, I believe they should face the consequences. I think some people will use this as a get out of jail free card. You can make them go to church every week, but you can’t make them live the messages they hear there.
I can understand where the idea came from, but I don’t think will work in real life as well as it does on paper.