Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ started this discussion 15 years ago#12,338
A judge in Alabama gives non violent offenders the choice of jail or attending church once a week for a year. Pure faggotry like this is the reason why the state of Alabama, along with every single man, woman, child (to include infants and unborn children) should be burned out of existence. I hate the South I fucking hate it.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later[^][v]#221,812
That's actually a pretty sweet deal to be honest.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,814
@previous (B)
It starts with bullshit like this though.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,815
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Right, clearly they're going to start a state church next. Very reasonable of you.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,818
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Clearly the state is not being separate from the church. No reason to worry about that. Alabama is turning the Bill of Rights into a cum rag for Christ.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,820
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
It's not legal and that'll get sorted out, but why is it such a big deal? I don't understand why atheists turn every misguided little thing into some massive sky-is-falling we're going to die of indoctrination ordeal. You guys seriously sound hysterical sometimes.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 25 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,822
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
You don't see a problem with offering criminals some light church attendance instead of actually punishing them?
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 35 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,823
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx) > It's not legal and that'll get sorted out
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,824
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
But the concept itself is a bad idea, yes?
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 28 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,825
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yes, it's a bad idea. People do stupid things and sometimes those people are in positions of power.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,826
@221,820 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Because down here the christfags are very serious with their christ faggotry. They'd like nothing more than to round up non believers and make them feel the wrath of their imaginary friend in the sky. And when rights are trampled it would be irresponsible for people not to be hysterical.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,827
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Okay, rock on with your bad self then. Fight the power!
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#221,831
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Enjoy your ignorant bliss.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,836
@221,827 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
You don't think that American atheists have good reason to speak out against things like this? Atheists aren't well loved by most Christians in America, after all. If this were put into place (apparently it won't be, but it's the idea itself that's significant) it would be very discriminating against atheists.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,839
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Sure, it's reasonable to get upset about this and try to get it stopped. It's an isolated thing though, and I truly don't get the hysteria.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,842
> It's an isolated thing though, and I truly don't get the hysteria.
Lol. Fucking troll!
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,846
@221,839 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
It's easy to see why an American atheist would get very upset over this thing alone. It would basically be giving Christians a get out of jail free card, while excluding atheists or those of other faiths. The idea of it becoming an actual law gives them very good reason to get "hysterical" over it.
Nexus !jNexusRe/. joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,849
Its fucking Alabama, fucking hell, its not like it is somewhere that people actually give a shit about.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,850
@221,846 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
There was no chance of this becoming a law, it's just a single, stupid town's misguided idea that hasn't even started and will almost certainly be blocked in any case. There's no reason an atheist or Muslim offender couldn't just suck it up and go to church, same as a Christian, anyway.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,854
And tbh there are worse things for an offender to do than go to church. Probably lower recidivism rates than someone going to jail.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,856
@221,850 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Of course, this probably won't actually become law, but the idea itself is still unsettling.
> There's no reason an atheist or Muslim offender couldn't just suck it up and go to church
Um, there is a fairly good reason actually.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,858
@221,850 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
As an atheist i have principles, i would select jail and tell the judge to save his ghost stories for a god fearing man.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,859
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg double-posted this 15 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,860
@221,858 (F)
But that's fucking stupid. If it's meaningless to you anyway, who cares? It's an hour a week and your case would be dismissed.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,861
@221,859 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Not believing in the Christian god is quite a good one. They shouldn't have to make a decision like this in the first place.
Just out of interest, would you take an offer of attending a Mosque once a week for a year instead of jail time?
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,863
@221,860 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
For the same reasons Christians wouldn't go to a satanic mass, it's a violation of their faith and beliefs. Principles go both ways.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,865
@221,861 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I would not go to a mosque, no.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,868
itt: butt-devastation
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,869
> And tbh there are worse things for an offender to do than go to church. Probably lower recidivism rates than someone going to jail.
I know what you are doing. Stop it.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,873
@221,865 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Right, it's the same for an atheist or a Muslim then. They couldn't just suck it up because they really wouldn't want to attend, since they don't agree with what happens there.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,874
@221,872 (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Are you saying there is no relationship between religiosity and following the law?
(Edited 28 seconds later.)
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg double-posted this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,875
@221,873 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
But Islam is a really terrifying religion. Christianity is much more tolerable and has more benefits to society.
(Edited 44 seconds later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,877
@221,870 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Of course they do, so do atheists, but to choose something that violates your beliefs merely because it's easy is a violation of my personal principles. Yoi're right, i could sit there and sleep because I don't believe it matters, i don't believe that religion matters.
What does matter is how I represent myself and my beliefs, which means I would select jail rather than be coerced or forced to attend a church service I do not have faith it. It's an affront to my beliefs, and I would gladly martyr myself for the cause of atheism.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#221,880
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,891
Only in America.â„¢
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,908
@221,886 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
In the sense that worshiping a magical imaginary diety and invoking him to answer our wishes is irrelevant in a day of rational thinking and reason.
But, having said that, many people desperately try to make religion relevant, re: alabama judges.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,909
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,910
@221,883 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I think by any objective measure Islam is a much more terrible religion.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,911
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Even if they regard Islam as the worst religion, a person might still not want to attend church for the same reason that you wouldn't want to attend a Mosque.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,913
@221,910 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Because of all the child rape at the hands of Islamic priests?
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,915
@221,911 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
No, I don't think it's equivalent at all. There's also the fact that Christianity is a dominant US religion, there's a tradition here.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,916
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,921
@221,918 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg) > I'm running out of things to troll you guys with
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,922
@221,915 (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg) > No, I don't think it's equivalent at all.
Yes it is. You wouldn't attend a Mosque because you don't like Islam. Others wouldn't attend a church because they don't like Christianity.
> here's also the fact that Christianity is a dominant US religion, there's a tradition here.
But not everybody is a part of that tradition. The whole problem with this idea is that it discriminates against people who don't want to attend church.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,923
@221,921 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I really do think Islam is shit though
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,925
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
Any proselytizing religion is shit.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 21 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,926
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Is this a clever way to defend Judaism?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,927
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
It could certainly be interpreted that way by a reasonable person.
Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,929
But maybe that seems more terrifying than attending a Sunday mass for a year because you don't hear about people's heads being chopped off in the United States.
Solution: more crucifixions and beheadings.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,939
@previous (Fuchs !!4KU9PSdLG) > Solution: more crucifixions and beheadings.
This. Christianity needs to get its street cred back.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#221,946
I wonder if the judge realizes he is equating church to punishment. I would certainly feel that way, like court ordered AA.
"hey padre, nice service. Can you sign this, courts got me on paper. Thanks."
Handel !khEOdtKF56 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,064
I thought your prisons were overcrowded?
Would this not be a benefit for your recovering economy? You wouldn't have to be paying for these prisoners to be in jail.
Think of the bigger picture here.
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,067
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,075
I suppose it's only a matter of time until local church services become like AA meetings with a bunch of people hanging around all day smoking, bullshitting, and talking about where to score weed. Maybe a few will get together and start a local "Jesus the mushroom" church or something.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,083
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 58 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,130
I fail to see how this is unconstitutional. Which clause of the constitution does it violate, and how?
(inb4 the vibe of mabo)
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,140
@previous (O)
Establishment clause. Fails the Lemon test.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,157
@previous (Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ)
Which Church does it establish? (hint: none!) The Lemon test is not part of the constitution.
Leo Vegas !gNoGoD5HzQ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,175
@previous (O)
You fail to understand the establishment clause or the validity of the lemon test as it applies to these matters. Linger longer.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,176
@222,157 (O) > Has no idea what the clauses in the constitution actually mean > Has no concept of legal precedent
Lol take an introductory political science course bud, it will do wonders.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 54 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,185
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Explain to me how this policy establishes a religion. It may be bad policy; but it is not unconstitutional.
I do not contest that this policy is against legal precedent; merely that it is unconstitutional.
Feel free to answer the question I originally asked at any time!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,186
@previous (O)
Because even by your ludicrously simplistic and narrow definition of "constitutionality", the judge's orders are saying in effect that the U.S. Government endorses a particular religion (Christianity).
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,188
There's your problem. You can't read or write the English language.
> Christianity
There is no organized body called "Christianity". Establishment would pertain to a particular denomination of Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Lutheran, Prebysterian, Methodist &c.). Furthermore; do you have proof that no other religious bodies are eligible? I think that would be important to prove before making such claims.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,189
@previous (O)
Look mountainman, if you won't care to do even a modicum of reading on the subject of constitutionality, then I really can't be bothered to debate you.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,191
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,200
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU) > establishment > the recognition by the state of a national church or religion
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,206
@previous (O)
Look MM, I don't debate with trolls and I don't debate with people who are entirely unfamiliar with the issue at hand. Right now you fall into either one or both of those categories, so I'm not going to lecture you on constitutionality and explain why your conception of constitutionality is not held by any person knowledgeable on the issue.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,211
lol inb4 you spend an hour posting "I don't have time to discuss this with you" when one compelling argument would easily and totally destroy my weak, uninformed, illogical argument!
Statists are all the same lol
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#222,315
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 9 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,377
@222,211 (O)
How about the argument that you believe in fairy tales and that any state that attempt to endorse religion (think using it as an alternative to jail) is irreaponsible and guilty of making it's citizens as stupid, fearful, and delusional as you.
I could give a fuck about "establishing state religion," as a specific concern, my concern starts with holding religion in the same regard as established empirIcal fact.
Keep your fucking ghost stories out of my secular government. If you want a state that honors religion then go build your mud huts somewhere else.
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,387
> non violent crime > no jail > go to church
Ok with me, jails are just way too overcrowded to put another pothead in there.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,540
> How about the argument that you believe in fairy tales and that any state that attempt to endorse religion (think using it as an alternative to jail) is irreaponsible and guilty of making it's citizens as stupid, fearful, and delusional as you.
This is a good argument and I do not contest it. This whole argument is a strawman. Reread the thread. I clearly said I am not arguing that this policy is good; merely that it is constitutional.
> I could give a fuck about "establishing state religion," as a specific concern, my concern starts with holding religion in the same regard as established empirIcal fact.
"could give a fuck" lol retart
> Keep your fucking ghost stories out of my secular government. If you want a state that honors religion then go build your mud huts somewhere else.
I don't want a state.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,585
ITT: MM re-interprets the Establishment clause and decides he overrules the Supreme Court
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,589
@previous (N)
I think the current Supreme Court would rule against the Establishment Clause if they got the right case.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,620
@previous (marvin !H0G.H/BnJg)
You mean rule against the standing interpretation? Why is that, and what sort of case would be required? Which justices do you see ruling differently?
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,626
@222,585 (N)
Anon n denies the existence of objective truth.
Claims supreme court overrules constitution.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,634
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,635
@222,626 (S) > Anon n denies the existence of objective truth.
LOL WTF?
> Claims supreme court overrules constitution.
The Supreme Court has exactly the powers granted to it by the Constitution and acts in accordance with those in interpreting and ruling on law.
Anonymous S replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,639
@222,620 (N)
Lemon test is an undemocratic extension of the constitution. Classic judicial activism.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,640
HTe supreme court is biased along party lines. Look at the important decisions and how it was split.
Our country is dying. Would china just swallow us up and save us already?
Anonymous S replied with this 15 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,642
@222,648 (S) > You deny the constitution has meaning apart from that given it by scotus.
No, I don't. The Constitution stands on its own as a body of law, but, in cases where the rights and privileges protected by that law are called into question, the Supreme Court is the right and legal body to decide the extent to which that law applies.
Anonymous O replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#222,850
When the Supreme court argues that the Establishment Clause goes beyond establishment, they are legislating. They are not a legislative body and this is improper for them to do so. Their role is to determine whether a particular action should be deemed to be establishing a church - this law does not establish a church.
I personally believe it is a stupid policy; but it is not unconstitutional.