In general I favor alternative sentencing such as restitution and community service for some criminal defendants—especially when the punishment fits the crime, but I have some problems with this approach.



http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/...e.ap/index.html

Question for Debate

Do you think the non-mandatory nature of the sentences mitigates them to the point that they do not violate the 1st amendment or is the ACLU lawyer correct in saying the sentences are illegal? Please defend your position.

Well, I personally support the absolute separation of church and state, so I have a big problem with this.

First of all, saying "worship services" instead of "church" is irrelevant. I assume that "worship services" would not include allowing me to go to a meeting of Atheists United instead of going to jail. (Is this were allowed, there would be no problem. There would also be no point to this program.) The use of the term "worship services" is clearly an attempt to win approval for this program by making it non-denominational. However, no matter how vague and inclusive the term "worship services" might be, it still symbolizes official government approval of theism over non-theism. That's a big no-no, in my eyes.

Secondly, it's a bit disingenuous to say that this isn't "mandatory." Sure, you have a choice not to attend worship services -- but that means you go to jail.

(By the way, I notice that this is also offered as an alternative to rehabilitation. Even if this is legal, this seems like a remarkably bad idea. People suffering from addiction to drugs or alcohol need medical treatment, not "worship services.")

Offering such a choice is similar to allowing a public school student to have the choice between listening to the teacher lead the class in prayer or stand outside the classroom in the rain. It's an inherently discriminatory situation.

As Victoria Silverwolf has already said, if it's a choice between going to "worship services" or to jail, it really isn't much of a choice.

The First Amendment includes freedom of religion. Freedom from religion is how this phrase is inferred by those who do not want to be proselytized. It would be interesting if one of the convicted offenders chose a Jewish synagogue, a mosque or a Buddhist temple for those religious services. Then the judge's response would gauge just how biased he is in favor of Christianity, and there might be a means of establishing a case. Unfortunately, I know very little about Constitutional law.

There is a trap inherent in proselytizing that even Jesus recognized in his day when he said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna [hell] twice as much as yourselves." (St. Matthew 23:15, The New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition)

It is conceivable that it might help somebody to re-order his/her priorities, but it could also render a person tending toward sociopathic behavior more clever and manipulative. How many inmates cite a prison conversion at the parole hearing but really aren't converted? You can't make somebody a seeker or a believer; it is a matter of free will.

I think the judge has good intentions, but I can also envision this type of alternative sentencing really backfiring. If his intention is for those convicted to meet decent people in a decent setting, there are other places to send them.

Question for Debate

Do you think the non-mandatory nature of the sentences mitigates them to the point that they do not violate the 1st amendment or is the ACLU lawyer correct in saying the sentences are illegal? Please defend your position.

Of course it violates separation of church and state, beyond that it exemplifies extreme bias in worship as justice, clearly not acceptable. Fake worship attendance is not justice. Justice for wrongdoing is penalty, or rehabilitation.

First of all, the judge is not educated on the nature of drug and alchohol problems and abuse, to the end that he 'must believe' that mandatory attendance to a church or service will 'fix' the problem. He shall see then many repeat offenders.

Drug and alchohol rehab, those that are extensively educated in the matter see about a 20% success rate among first timers, with good luck. Churches, Temples, Synagouges etc must have extraordinary resources to deal with this specific problem. Although arriving to some sort of spiritual epiphany is relevant in most turn around by chemical abusers, it does not come by simple sunday sermon usually.

Beyond that, I suspect, to confer with Victoria S. that if my 'worship' committments were to the 'Pagan Church of Lilith' or the 'Native Church' which advocates the use of peyote that the court would not consider it viable as serving my sentance, so the idea is a farce. It is a Christianity based sentance, hinged on specifics. Clearly a violation of the First Amendment. I wonder if a Muslim would be given this same sentancing?

Interestingly, the Native Church does ask its members to abstain from drugs and alchohol and commit to the 'Red Road' of sobriety and native ethic, but those are things not understood amongst many white people, less judges in the predominately white US courts, especially in the areas where drug and alchohol abuse is a big problem.

Drug and alcohol abusers have long given up a belief in God. You can sit them down in church sermon after church sermon and they will simply do it to get released and never believe. Besides, so many churches are full of crap nowdays. Drug and alcohol abusers need rehab.


Certainely the sentances are illegal but what matters is that they are completely ineffective and unproductive. At least with community service something was being DONE. With rehab you had an effect. This is just "activist!' ??? A no account uneducated judge, doing a no account nothing for a no account nobody, to no benefit for anyone. Result? Nada. Just a feel good religious right monger at his best. Phooey. See them next trial.

Do you think the non-mandatory nature of the sentences mitigates them to the point that they do not violate the 1st amendment or is the ACLU lawyer correct in saying the sentences are illegal? Please defend your position.


Bof-- it is funny that you posted this-- as I was just going to post on it too, but with a different twist (which I will refer to below).

I think that this is not a violation of the establishment clause. First, it is non-denominational (which was what the framers intended to insure through the first A anyway) and it is a choice. Although the ACLU will try to force the precedent to mean something more than it is-- and it may win. But that just speaks to how quickly courts seem to be proceeding down the path to interpret the first amendment as meaning freedom "from" religion and not freedom "of" religion.

The twist that I was thinking of -- was to ask whether people believe that this type of alternative sentencing could possibly be helpful to the convicted man. Many messed up people "find Jesus" and go on to live very productive lives. Religious people seem to be very eager to help others -- providing much that is lacking in their lives. Why not take advantage of this? The State can't provide everything nor can it be successful in all of its attempts. Requiring him to attend services of some sort costs the state NOTHING. It really works for some people-- why not present it as a possibility. If it works for this guy, all the better for society. If it does not, what is lost? IMO, striking this kind of option down as unconstitutional is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It serves no good purpose.

Hayleyanne,
Because religious indoctrination to many, including myself as an american citizen is akin to brainwashing and cultism. Religious fantasy is a personal matter, not justice for societal wrongdoing in a secular or multireligious country. I dont believe this same judge would sentance a muslim in the same way, giving him/her the option to attend a Mosque as penalty instead of jailtime, and that is where we have a problem.

You completely overlooked that 'finding jesus' may help some addicts, but not without medical and rehabiliatative help. It is , blatantly, an unacceptable form of justice to those wronged, to society, and an easy get off for some the most manipulative persons in society. DO YOU have any experience with addicts?

Neither does the Kentucky Judge, and he will be taken for a hay ride.

And Hayleyanne for someone who continually argues for constitutionality, you certainly turn the other cheek and throw it out the window when it suits you. For something so undeniablely wrong on medical, moral and constitutional levels, suddenly youre biased to the core in favor of 'what is lost?' Perhaps the next time this person drives drunk a child is lost . Maybe 'god' just didnt get to them in time? Maybe youll take solice in Jesus, that a judge sentanced the perpetrator to church instead of rehab.

Do you think the non-mandatory nature of the sentences mitigates them to the point that they do not violate the 1st amendment or is the ACLU lawyer correct in saying the sentences are illegal? Please defend your position.

This exact type of problem is the root of most "separation" disputes.

If the intent of the Framers was to keep the government from making a single religion the state religion, then this is Constitutional. If the intent was to keep the government away from all religious matters, then this is un-Constitutional.

Alternative sentencing takes many approaches. Sometimes written apologies or holding a sign on a street corner are used as punishment.

There are examples of people who found "God" and cleaned up their lives. The President of the United States is one. I am not aware of any rehab program that Bush went through, but perhaps it was all a big secret. He found God and decided that the bad things in his life (including alcohol and probably drugs) had no place in it.

The Heritage Foundation has a study that correlates church attendance with decreased substance abuse: Social Dimensions of Adolescent Substance Use. Research Report



So there is some basis for the judge's decision.

It appears that the judge does not favor one religion over another (with the non-denominational "worship service" wording) and the sentencing is not mandatory. These are two very important points in regards to the Constitutionality. To me, it does not appear that the judge crosses the line.

While I don't see a direct constitutional violation here, I do see a couple of problems.

First and foremost is the nature of religious 'conversion.' While I have never had any sort of theological epiphany, everything I know about religion tells me that finding it is a deeply personal and introspective process. Of all of the examples cited so far in this thread about people who had 'found God,' how many did so after being coerced into attending church? I would think that the number is pretty low.

Secondly, there is a clear question of 'fairness' here. If a person under-sentence has no religious leanings, or he belongs to a faith that cannot be 'ordered' by a judge in any way, then he is being forced into either attending some sort of function that violates his own religious belief, or he is losing an avenue of rehabilitation that is available to others.

I find it funny that our nation, whom continually harkens to the idea that prisons are too full, have problems with alternative solutions.

Frankly, I think sending criminals to church is a GREAT idea. I LOVE the idea that it's FREE!!!!!! Churches don't charge for people to go, the criminals would be exposed to a support group outside of their current relationships, and it allows a large number of people to witness whether rehabilitation is happening (or not). Do you have any idea what it costs to jail someone????? It's NOT CHEAP!

In reference to Seperation of Church and State, I find it difficult to swallow in that this generally applies to christianity. If the offenders were muslim and were allowed to spend time in their mosques as an alt solution, I doubt that it would be news. The Left in this country seem to have some deep rooted disdain for Christianity. Really and truly, if there were muslim leaders stepping up saying that they would take in these low-level criminals, what would the public opinion be???

The truth is that this is a Southern state and a Christian church... so liberals across the country have their underwear in knots. HOW COULD THIS BE??? The criminals should be IN JAIL, oh wait.... of course unless it costs taxpayers or the criminals were minority youths whom aren't responsible for their actions... (**laughing out loud**)

If I had to make an educated guess... there probably aren't too many people in prison that are getting "rehabilitated". There also aren't any organizations in that part of Kentucky sitting around waiting to help convicts... of course, other than CHURCHES!!! What do you know??? Seems like a logical solution to me...

I imagine if there was a Kentucky association for the rehabilitation of Criminals, that met weekly and attempted to hold its members to a certain moral code... the judge might've sent the convicts there... hmmm.....

Good point Hayley. Many people are in need of the strict moral guidelines found in the various religions to have the basic framework to answer the questions of morality and temptation. Without having to think about it they have preset decisions already availible for any situation and can then be functional and successful members of society.
I think the guidance religion can offer would be of critical importance to those with impaired reasoning faculties.
So I would support it as a alternative sentencing option.

Do you think the non-mandatory nature of the sentences mitigates them to the point that they do not violate the 1st amendment or is the ACLU lawyer correct in saying the sentences are illegal? Please defend your position. I agree with Amlord. The Constitution doesn't prohibit religion--merely official establishment of a hierarchy. People are of course free to practice their religion or lack of. While religious institutions have no place at all in government there shouldn't be a restriction on using religious options for many of our needs as long as the use is of course freely accepted and if declined does not lead to persecution or harm.
I must admit my thinking on the absolutist nature of separation of church and state has changed somewhat in the last year. As long as it does not act as an official recognition of a specific branch of religion and falls under non denominational or allows personel choice in the matter it should be considered. carefully monitored to prevent abuse and must be completely transparent--but should definetely be an option.

The sentence is illegal and violates the laws separating church and state. How in the world can anyone say its not violating the law ?

As a Christian , I don't disagree with the fact that the church can help people find God. And indeed it is a blessing if this sentencing by the judge results in the person turning to giving his life to Christ. But thats not the point.

The point is giving your life to God is a CHOICE and shouldn't be imposed on someone. Jesus wants his disciples to preach the gospel to everyone (Matthew 28:19 + 20) but not force it upon them which is a big problem a lot of Christians have today especially when you have politcians like Bill Frist who makes ignorant statements like a vote against conservatives judges is a vote against "people of faith" (may not be totally accurate word for word but something along those lines).
When you impose your religion and beliefs on someone, it will more likely draw them away. A person must feel welcomed into the church not feel its a punishment or sentence to avoid jail time.

Without contact with a church, I doubt en epiphany occurs (although it could). The point here is that the criminal is given a choice of this being a part of their punishment. They can choose option 1 (jail) or option 2 (rehab).



The criminal is not forced to attend. He or she makes the choice to attend.

A big part of this is simply changing people's habits. When one is plodding along in their day-to-day life, it is easy to equate what one does in the course of a day as "normal". If you open your horizons (as this type of sentencing is meant to encourage) then you are open to change. Simply going to church and talking to others that you normally wouldn't (about anything, not just religion) can be very healing.

This also saves the state about $3,000 in rehab if it is successful.

Amlord, when one choice is so horrific that there is no alternative BUT the second choice- you still have no choice- I can't stand the christian church, and think it is evil incarnate- but if given the choice between no freedom, living in jail, possibly having relations with the guy with the most cigarettes, or listen to some hypocrite spout off for a couple hours- gee, I wonder what would be the right "choice" here?

Even so, almost all drug and rehab has a component of "higher power" in it- so even the atheists can use it- so why not sentence him to one of THOSE programs- if it were even a faith based program, I would not have a problem with it- as long as it was not proselityzing during rehab services.

A very good example is the Salvation Army rehab program- right here in Alaska they have around 40 or so men (could have the number wrong, it has been some time) that are completing treatment there, and are in-patient, so they sleep there, work odd jobs assigned to them, and attend treatment. Thier success rate among the hard core addicts (mostly former homeless) is higher than any program in the state.

Interestinly enough, no one is sentenced though- they are allowed that option as one of several to gain treatment AFTER serving thier various sentences- and recieving treatment in jail as well.

The sniff test is this- can the man go to Wiccan or Athiestic "worship services"-if no, then the goverment is establishing a state religion.

A very poor argument. If you thought that church was "evil incarnate" than jail would be the lesser sentence. Why not take it?

The fact is that most Americans do NOT think that church is evil incarnate (unlike a strangely disproportional number of posters at AD). Around 90% of Americans identify with some faith, even if they are non-denominational and/or don't attend church. The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as spiritual.

The fact remains that this is a choice that the person themselves make. They are not forced to take this option.



Since atheistic worship service is an oxymoron, it's probably not appropriate for a smell test (or sniff test, I guess).

I get the impression that a number of people didn't read the article carefully because of how this is being portrayed as an either this-or-that sentance.



The worship services are clearly a third option.


Do you think the non-mandatory nature of the sentences mitigates them to the point that they do not violate the 1st amendment or is the ACLU lawyer correct in saying the sentences are illegal? Please defend your position. So long as it works in an evenhanded manner and everyone from mormons to scientologists can take advantage of the option, I do not believe it violates the 1st ammendment.

As an agnostic, I don't have a problem with me being "excluded". I do not feel that either atheism or agnosticism constitute a religion, so it's not an issue for me that any meeting revolving around these worldviews would be excluded. The "exclusion" is even less of an issue because I see no reason why we'd be stopped from going to some religion's meetings if it was the preferable option.

Still, it's things like that that make me think this is a bad policy for dealing with addicts. So I think it's constitutional, but unwise.

There is no "choice" here. No matter how evil you may think the institution is, there isn't a high chance of getting raped or killed in a church. This is equivalent to saying that someone who has to pay a fine at the end of a trial has a choice. They don't: they have to pay the fine, or they will go to jail. It doesn't matter if there's maybe one person in America who would rather go to jail than pay $500, it's still no choice.

The very fact that an Atheist has to lie to engage in this choice makes it a violation, because the state religion you are pushing is "organized religion" or to put it further: "Organized religion with regular worship services." Most, if not all Wiccans do not celebrate their faith weekly, and I'm sure there are dozens of other relgions who do not express their faith through the straight-jacket fit of this judge's definition of "worship services."

And by "Atheist has to lie" I mean, that it appears he can randomly pick a denomination, attend service, ignore everything they say because he doesn't share their belief system, perhaps even be disruptive to services, and apparently have a criminal charge go away. And conservatives are for this? How about we just save everyone's time and legalize marijuana?

This is a clear violation of the seperation of Church and State.




Yes, because unlike the right, the left clearly has a self-hating christain majority making it up. How odd to have a rooted disdain for your own beliefs? Conservatives must have a really fuzzy picture for those of us who don't believe in weaving our faith with our government.

**Edit(I wrote this before the above post had been written)**
Good point Alexander. I think the question of choice is moot in the debate of whether or not this is a seperation of Church and State.

Christopher, I understand where you are coming from, but I would suggest that political leanings do not develop in a vacuum. I have lived in not only the so-called “Bible Belt,” but what H. L. Mencken called the “buckle on the Bible Belt” all my life. If anything, my position of total separation has hardened in recent years.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/H._L._Mencken
(Link is not to this specific Mencken quote, but you can glimpse his sharp tongue approach here)

I don’t want to get into slippery slope arguments, but I see this as one in a long list envelope pushing attempts by the Christian right. Victoria’s position on this most closely mirrors my own. For purposes of this thread my idea of worship would be sitting on the porch in late evening, sipping a cold glass of Lipton’s with a twist of lemon while watching the sun sink in the West. Sunrise would be OK, but I don't get up that early and would consider early morning sun worshiping "cruel and unusual punishment."

Now what do I mean by envelope pushing. Currently active on this board are several other threads addressing various aspects of church/state relationships.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...80&#entry153036

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9610

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=10080

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9768

This week, in fact this morning, area newspapers ran stories about questionable practices by the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry. A Fort Worth Star Telegram article discusses Perry’s intention of signing a bill produced in the just expired legislative session on parental notification and gay marriage at a local non-denominational fundamentalist church/school.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/11805870.htm
Link may require registration.


In a related story we find that supporters of total separation of church and state are protesting the governor’s intended actions.



http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/state/11805818.htm


Here are two from the Dallas Morning News that also require registration:



http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/news/texas...y.722c8f03.html



http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw....10cb147f7.html

So, I see the Kentucky story as just another piece in a jigsaw puzzle. The more the picture comes into focus the less I like it.

Although I believe in total separation of church and state, I do not describe myself as an “atheist.” Why? The late Madelyne Murray O’Hair was both the best friend and the worst enemy of total separation. She was the best friend in that she was there first fighting for landmark cases that stand today as precedents. She was the worst enemy because of her bellicose, belligerent, rude and dysfunctional personality. Some seem to equate “atheism” with Ms. O’Hair. Oddly, I find some of these same personality traits in a number of current “Christian” and other religious leaders.

While, I didn’t particularly like Ms. O'Hair, whom I heard speak on a number of occasions, someone with her ability to call attention to the issues—stir the pot, if you will--might be just what we need.

It's curious that you call this "Envelope pushing" BoF when there were actual established state religions at the time the Constitution was signed.

The actions of an individual asking for the support of his constituents is not some conspiracy...it's democracy.

I can't figure out how your previous post relates to the topic for debate:

Do you think the non-mandatory nature of the sentences mitigates them to the point that they do not violate the 1st amendment or is the ACLU lawyer correct in saying the sentences are illegal? Please defend your position.

Amlord we are living in a different time than when The Constitution of the United States was first signed(1787)--a time before the "Bill of Rights"(1789), Amendment XIV(1866) and the process of incorporation which started in about 1925 that applies the "Bill of Rights" to the states via Amendment XIV.



http://www.answers.com/topic/fourteenth-am...es-constitution

Indeed, the Kentucky case, in my opinion, is based on applying Amendment I to the state judge through Amendment XIV.



I would suggest that signing of a piece of legislation in a church setting is at best rank.



I thought I tied all that together, but apparently not. Again, I did answer the question directly and expanded my post to indicate that I think what the Kentucky judge is doing is just one more puzzle piece in an ever emerging picture.

Edited to add link and dates

I would be very interested in hearing if anyone out there believes that some people in such situations could benefit from attending religious services.

I think they can. Personally, I have known a lot of people messed up on drugs and alcohol who found God and radically changed. I am not saying it is everyone’s cup of tea, but how can we deny that this happens? And if there is even a remote possibility that someone could benefit from attending religious services instead of a stay in prison, is it logical, or fair, or wise, to deny people the choice? Or is the principle that government should have no connection whatsoever to anything religious so important that we preclude this choice?

Frankly, I cannot, for the life of me, understand how some people can come down so vehemently against what the judge did. From a pragmatic point of view, I think what he did was practical and useful.

.

I think your analogy is off. This is not a situation where the convict is being forced to choose something in order to avoid religious contact. He has no choice at all really. It is either stand out in the rain or, stand out in the rain. The convict is being sentenced for a crime committed. He is going to serve a sentence. The judge offered him an option, a free one, that costs society nothing. If he chooses not to take it, so be it.



You are looking at this as if the purpose of the judge is to gain a conversion. I disagree. His purpose is to present an alternative that may help the convict. If it helps him, all the better.



I didn’t see that the judge made a distinction in terms of the type of religious services so why are you assuming that muslim services would not meet the bill?



Different things help different people. Some would say that a religious/spiritual experience or conversion is exactly what an addict needs to ultimately vanquish his or her demons. Different strokes for different folks. I support many choices and options and understand that it is not necessarily a one size fits all. I also understand that the State does not have unlimited funds. If an alternative that works for some people is available and it is free, I think it is practical and useful to avail ourselves of it as a society.

.

What are you suggesting Artemise? That the judge ought to sentence the person more harshly in order to vindicate the victims of his crimes?



Again, the purpose for the alternative is not to gain a conversion, it is simply to present an option that may be helpful in ultimately resolving the alcohol and addiction problems of the person facing the charges and sentencing.



What avenue is available to others that is not available to this person? Prison, rehab or religious services.

Why are people so vehemently against even presenting this as an alternative? As I said before, it is completely free, with no cost to the state whatsoever. In fact, it is significantly less expensive than having to jail these people. Moreover, it is simply an alternative, with the convict ultimately making the CHOICE as to whether he wants to attend the services or do what he would do in any case—jail time (or rehab).

Those who call for the judge’s actions to be struck down as unconstitutional are truly cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I tried to apply and open mind to this, and I'm left with an unsatisfying result. I think the main issue is the potential for abuse. Sure, a few people may be helped by this... but a lot of people are going to pass in and out of the church's doors to no effect, and many of them will have chosen that option simply because it's less of an inconvenience than rehab. But to be perfectly honest, that reminds me a lot of rehab itself. It seems that church is to rehab, what rehab is to jail; an option less inconvenient to the convict that has limited potential to be successful. This slope seems to have quite an incline.

Isnt that what we do generally in this country?

What I am saying is that church instead of mandatory rehab is a farce and is a bandaid on an open artery. Its irresponsible and biased.

Firstly, an addict or alcoholic, unless they are seriously ready desires to avoid rehab at all cost. This would mean a life change of major porportions which is usually not easy to come to. The offender also wants to avoid jail time (that would also mean getting sober). Most will choose church, its easy and they can fake their way through it and they dont HAVE to get sober! It does not solve the problem unless the church has the resouces to deal with addiction. Anyone who has dealt with addicts or alcoholics knows that an epiphany in church may happen to only a small %. It happens rarely anyway.
While a higher power is almost always required to resolve an addiction problem, addicts and alcoholics are wane to accept such a thing UNTIL they aknowledge that there IS a problem first. Addiction is a complicated illness requiring active participation ABOUT the PRECISE problem, not just a God and BTW, 'guilt' is hugely detrimental to addicts, and many churches operate on the guilt premise for living life.

The President had the direct and personal indoctrination of Billy Graham and of his wife (Laura) who was a huge influence, but that is not common to most.

I know a slew of both. You could sit them down in church sermons from here to doomsday and the best they would do is laugh themselves silly and go out and get high immediately afterwards.

But hey, its free! Not that it does any good.

The judge, and too many here do not understand the nature of addiction problems.
Even in the most strict drug intern programs , the percentage is, out of 10: 2 will die and 2 will get straight. Many will exhaust the system and wind up in jail. In AA or NA which have pretty high success rates, most people take years to understand the nature of their problem but see continued progress. AA and NA are also FREE.
What happens is recycling people through the system time after time, more costly overall than sending them to mandatory rehab first.

I agree Artemise, if the judge's actions just result in them working the system, it is not a good thing. Ultimately, you're right, recycling them through the system numerous times is more costly than a good rehab program from the outset.

I do believe that the government ought not to be restricted from drawing on all resources though. Spiritual resources are important and the government should be able to recommend or rely in part on faith based initiatives

The sentences are obviously unconstitutional. Suppose that the option is indeed "non-mandatory" and the convict gets to choose which worship service he wishes to attend. Now, worship services can include virtually anything - for example, I could make up a religion called Froznyism that defines "worship" as munching the Holy Food (popcorn) and watching the Holy Art (movies) for five hours every day. What should the State do, then? Should it denounce my worship as "invalid?" Then it enacts a sort of "negative establishment," i.e. the power to decide which religions are not valid. The only constitutional option is to recognize worship by all definitions, which renders the program useless.

In looking through this thread, I've found several items I would like to address.



Social Dimensions of Adolescent Substance Use. Research Report

Amlord What you quoted links belief in “god” not church attendance to decrease in substance abuse. There is a difference. People attend church for a variety of reasons. Some probably don’t even believe in “god.” Others who have a deep belief in a higher power won’t go near a church. My father believed in "god." He married my mother in a Baptist church on March 17, 1938 (St. Patrick's Day) and never again entered a church until we had his funeral in a Unitarian Chuirch in July, 1982.







This seems like a typical Republican talking point—it’s free or cheap. The old saying still goes—”you get what you pay for.” How many churches have detoxification centers or people who know how to administer a twelve step-program?



Oh, how?

Are we sure that this approach might not cause more problems than it solves? If something goes wrong we've lost more than money. IMHO therapy should be done by a trained professional--not a cleric and not a quack like Dr. Laura. Dr. Laura has a Ph.D., but it's in physiology--not psychology. I wonder how many people she's damaged over the years? Likewise, clerics--for the most part--have some training in counseling, but probably don't have specific training in rehab. A doctorate in theology doesn't quite cut the mustard. What I suppose I'm saying is that when you start messing with someone's mind, you'd better know what you are doing.

There is an interesting book by Ronald M. Enroth, himself an evangelical, that discusses ways some churches abuse members. It simply amazes me how much some people are willing to take when a supposed “holy man” is giving the orders. The book is out of print, but used copies are available through amazon.com and my local library has a copy. I’m sure other libraries have copies, too. Getting someone involved in an abusive church would invite disaster.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/sim-e...5786527-0707034



Fronzy You make a good point, but a year ago in May, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Carole Keeton Strayhorn[/b], tried to pull the tax exempt status of a Unitarian Church because allegedly it didn’t have a belief system . She later backed down



http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/s.../8749494.htm?1c

Link requires free registration.

The thing with Strayhorn is indicative of what will happen. Worship cannot be defined to everyone’s satisfaction. Like Strayhorn, I think the Kentucky judge will back down before the issue can come up fo a court test.

If the crime is serious then the person should go to jail. If it’s minor then restitution, rehab, community service, perhaps a fine, but not church or worship. In my opinion, the principle of total separation of church and state overrides practical considerations.



I can't speak for anyone else, but for me bingo.