Judge Sentences Teen Offender to Church

[Witsec7]

You did see my answer, right? We do NOT get paid and are NOT the only choice in town.

I didn't bother to read your apologia.

[fakepigtails73]

That has zero to do with a criminal court using religion as part of a sentence requirement.

I get livid when DDs are sentenced to AA, rather than secular programs.

Ditto.

A lot of people don't know how much Christianity (of the Protestant kind) influences AA. This is not a slam on AA or other 12-steps programs per se, as it helped some people very close to me, just pointing out how AA is not secular by any means.

And that judge sentencing that guy to church? Asshat. It's not the 1st time he did it, as I remember reading something similar 2 or 3 years ago. It was probably the same judge .

[ElphabaGalinda]

You are gay, right? Naturally, you are going to want to defend your beliefs and morality and are offended by me and some parts of the Bible. I get that. As far as picking and chosing verses goes, I am sure I do it to a certain degree.

Being gay is not a belief system and has absolutely nothing to do with your morality, and the proposition that it does is highly offensive. Being gay is who you are, not what you believe. And I think people can believe whatever they want, it's when they try to legislate those beliefs on others who don't share them that I have a problem. And trying to legislate religious beliefs is one of the biggest problems I have with fundies.

[valsa]

You are gay, right? Naturally, you are going to want to defend your beliefs and morality and are offended by me and some parts of the Bible. I get that. As far as picking and chosing verses goes, I am sure I do it to a certain degree.

My being gay isn't a belief nor does it have anything to do with my mortality.

Marriage is not just religious. In our country, marriage and the laws governing it are secular (or they should be) I really don't care what you think about gays and Biblical marriage (as opposed to secular marriage) You're a Christian, I'm an atheist, and as long as you're not hurting anyone by thinking yucky faggots can't be joined in holy matrimony (which is different than legal matrimony), I don't give a flying fuck what you believe.

However, I don't like arrogant people who think they know The One And Only Truth when it comes to a book of fairytales written thousands of years ago that has been transcribed, re-transcribed, translated, re-translated, edited, re-edited, etc into something that probably doesn't even remotely resemble the original thing.

And I especially don't like when people support discriminatory laws based on their interpretation of book of fairytales written thousands of years ago that has been transcribed, re-transcribed, translated, re-translated, edited, re-edited, etc into something that probably doesn't even remotely resemble the original thing.

We don't have to agree about whether God approves of gay marriage, because the more important matter is that we should agree that it is inappropriate for secular laws to be based on religious ones.

[emmiedahl]

I have some hard feelings about AA/NA. I had a friend who was court-ordered to go to meetings when we were in high school. It was over something relatively dumb, like having a dime bag of weed or under-aged drinking. We were pretty adventurous with substances in my area and even the AP students and cheerleaders were occasional users.

She was forced to go twice a week to a sketchy neighborhood at night and sit in a room with people who were cracked out. They made sexual advances to her, offered her money for sex (and offensively low amounts :lol: ), offered to do meth with her after the meeting was over. I don't know if it is like this everywhere, but AA/NA in the town where I went to high school was used mainly by people who were still actively using and were in very bad places in their lives. My friends and I started going with her in a group because she was terrified, and it was the most depressing scene I have ever partaken of. It made you feel so dirty and slimy.

She is the only one in my peer group who still uses, btw. The rest of us grew up and quit. She eventually made friends in these meetings and they are still the people she uses with.

[CC3]

I have some hard feelings about AA/NA. I had a friend who was court-ordered to go to meetings when we were in high school. It was over something relatively dumb, like having a dime bag of weed or under-aged drinking. We were pretty adventurous with substances in my area and even the AP students and cheerleaders were occasional users.

She was forced to go twice a week to a sketchy neighborhood at night and sit in a room with people who were cracked out. They made sexual advances to her, offered her money for sex (and offensively low amounts :lol: ), offered to do meth with her after the meeting was over. I don't know if it is like this everywhere, but AA/NA in the town where I went to high school was used mainly by people who were still actively using and were in very bad places in their lives. My friends and I started going with her in a group because she was terrified, and it was the most depressing scene I have ever partaken of. It made you feel so dirty and slimy.

She is the only one in my peer group who still uses, btw. The rest of us grew up and quit. She eventually made friends in these meetings and they are still the people she uses with.

The AA/NA meetings are similiar in my city. My son said if you want to get drugs, NA meetings are where the dealers hang out.

[Artemis]

CC3:

I have been married 25 years, have children, am a church-attending Christian active in my local community (do you want proof from my vicar?) and am straight. (Ask my husband if you want: I'll give you a contact :roll: )

I support gay people

I approve the marriage of gay people

YOUR interpretation of 'what God wants' has no more validity than mine. Who are you, who dare to speak for the Almighty? Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality.

Being gay is not a lifestyle.

Being gay is not a choice - I can't choose to be gay, and I did not choose to be straight

When you say this to Valsa . . .

You are gay, right? Naturally, you are going to want to defend your beliefs and morality and are offended by me and some parts of the Bible. I get that. As far as picking and choosing verses goes, I am sure I do it to a certain degree.

. . . you make yourself appear to be arrogant, patronising, and completely incapable of understanding that not all people who support gay marriage are gay - as the states of Maryland, Maine, Washington and Minnesota clearly prove. (Unless you believe that the entire percentage of peope who voted for gay marriage in those states are gay: a statistically unlikely fact.)

I believe the question put to you further up the thread was 'What would you say to a gay person who discussed gay marriage with you?'

You do your religion no service at all by temporising, hedging, saying 'it hasn't happened to me so I'm not sure' and refusing to give a straight answer. At very least given the job you do you should have a) thought about it and b) made a decision about your position. Anything less is negligent.

It's cowardly not to reply. And anyway, if you're a Christian, God will be your shield, right?

Unless, of course, you might be wrong, and it's God's design here to teach you that lesson.

Or is it impossible that you might be wrong?

[Witsec7]

The theonomists believe that we should all be governed by laws that are based on their religious beliefs and that courts should foist those religious beliefs on the unbelievers.

[OkToBeTakei]

CC3:

I have been married 25 years, have children, am a church-attending Christian active in my local community (do you want proof from my vicar?) and am straight. (Ask my husband if you want: I'll give you a contact :roll: )

I support gay people

I approve the marriage of gay people

YOUR interpretation of 'what God wants' has no more validity than mine. Who are you, who dare to speak for the Almighty? Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality.

Being gay is not a lifestyle.

Being gay is not a choice - I can't choose to be gay, and I did not choose to be straight

When you say this to Valsa . . .

. . . you make yourself appear to be arrogant, patronising, and completely incapable of understanding that not all people who support gay marriage are gay - as the states of Maryland, Maine, Washington and Minnesota clearly prove. (Unless you believe that the entire percentage of peope who voted for gay marriage in those states are gay: a statistically unlikely fact.)

I believe the question put to you further up the thread was 'What would you say to a gay person who discussed gay marriage with you?'

You do your religion no service at all by temporising, hedging, saying 'it hasn't happened to me so I'm not sure' and refusing to give a straight answer. At very least given the job you do you should have a) thought about it and b) made a decision about your position. Anything less is negligent.

It's cowardly not to reply. And anyway, if you're a Christian, God will be your shield, right?

Unless, of course, you might be wrong, and it's God's design here to teach you that lesson.

Or is it impossible that you might be wrong?

:clap:

[fakepigtails73]

The AA/NA meetings are similiar in my city. My son said if you want to get drugs, NA meetings are where the dealers hang out.

As said previously, one person close to me is in AA. I went to see her get her 20 years cake and stayed for the meeting, as it was an open one and non-members are allowed to sit in. What an eye-opener! I was very freaked out by the amount of rigid christianity some people spouted, the "Our Father" prayer said at the start ; how is that secular? How would, say, a Boudhist feel if she came in there desperately needing help to stop drinking? She'd likely leave, or if she stayed some might work her enough that she'd eventually abandonned her faith for KJO christianity. Also, I was squicked out by the amount of leachy older men in that meeting trying to hug me. I'm not a very "touchy feely" person, sp. with strangers; no weird reason, I just like being respected in my space. The long-term member I know later told me that it was called "13-stepping" and that it was a big problem. Yuck.

I don't like how much of the 12-steps mindsets have infiltrated the judicial and medical departments of North America.

Last but not least I hate the was a lot of AA, CA and NA members think that their way is the only way out there...I hate that they are so much against other stuff like harm reduction for addicts, rational recovery or simply "white-knuckling" it. It's a good thing that the person close to me that is part of AA is not like that anymore (used to be at the beginning of her

sobriety) or I'd have no good things to tell about it.

CC3: I used to be against gay marriage, way back then. And I don't have the excuse of religion; nope, just plain old ignorance. Gay marriage became legal here in 2003 (I think??). But you know what? After 2 or 3 years I noticed that the sky didn't fall, staights still got divorced a lot, some still stupidly got married in Las Vegas after only knowing each other for 48 hours...The fact that homosexuals can get married doesn't affetc the state of matrimony, as it was still fucked up a long way back anyways. So then I decided to educate myself. I did, and I've been on the side of marriage equality for at least 5 years or so. Not mentionning that to get flowers, just the fact that I used to be against it makes me shameful, but to show that one can change her opinion after a while, and by educating oneself. In 20 years people against equal marriage will be viewed as archaic as people that still believe in 2012 that the only place for a woman is in the kitchen.

[luckylibrarian]

CC3, what denomination are you?

Somewhere there is a bridge missing a troll...

[CC3]

CC3, what denomination are you?

E Free

[Artemis]

Going to answer the question?

Who are you who dare to speak for God?

How do you know you are right?

[CC3]

Going to answer the question?

Who are you who dare to speak for God?

How do you know you are right?

I'll be back later.

[emmiedahl]

I saw a study a while back that found that not only was AA/NA less effective than other recovery programs, it was less effective that stopping with no help at all. I am very much against it, not so much because of the religion but because of the aspect of giving up your power. When you are fighting an addiction, that is the last time to tell yourself that you are powerless. You need to reclaim control of your life.

As for supporting teh gays, I suppose CC3 must think that 53% of the Washington electorate is gay? It makes no sense to me. I am for equal civil rights protected by the law because I am a human being.

[formergothardite]

You have been hurt by a religious cult that distorted the Bible. I'm sorry that happened to you. I understand people will pick and chose what verses they like and ignore ones they don't like. God's chosen people isn't how I view myself, but I will give it some thought.

BTW, on the thread where you pulled my quotes from, I came across as very devisive. I had spinal surgery and was taking painkillers. I have feel disappointed in myself for needlessly causing a raukus.

I hate it picked this user name, you aren't the first fundie to use my past to discredit what I am saying.

Anyway, exactly how are you different than Gothard? You both have the "one true understanding of the Bible" and use that to negatively impact people. Unless you are pro-gay marriage and would actively support gay people in getting married. Then you would be keeping your beliefs to yourself and not forcing them on others. But I never got the impression that is what you believe. You don't want there to be gay marriage and you wouldn't support it if given the opportunity is what it seems from your posts.

And unless you are going to admit that, hey, you might just be wrong and God might not agree with you, well, then you are claiming to be God's chosen. You are speaking for God.

I'm sorry for all the gay people you will negatively impact. I'm sorry for the people you are going to hurt.

[Artemis]

Good.

I look forward to hearing your explanation, and debating your stance. I am Bible literate, including in New Testament Greek, which was part of my university degree. I would appreciate it if you let me know your approximate age. I am 51.

Please bear in mind that I'm in England. It is currently 20.15 here, and I will be logging off in approximately one hour, maybe sooner if my husband comes home earlier from his concert, as I will want to speak to him and find out how it went.

I will be happy to debate this with you for as long as it takes, but obviously the time differences (please state your time zone) will result in some lags.

I notice you have Quiver Full of Chatter privileges. If you wish to begin a new thread in Chatter to which to take this issue, please do if you think it will make it more convenient for both of us, and clog/derail this thread less.

[Witsec7]

I saw a study a while back that found that not only was AA/NA less effective than other recovery programs, it was less effective that stopping with no help at all. I am very much against it, not so much because of the religion but because of the aspect of giving up your power. When you are fighting an addiction, that is the last time to tell yourself that you are powerless. You need to reclaim control of your life.

As for supporting teh gays, I suppose CC3 must think that 53% of the Washington electorate is gay? It makes no sense to me. I am for equal civil rights protected by the law because I am a human being.

I was involved in AA and Alanon for about 6 years. I continually bucked the program because I was an atheist and thought their whole 'powerless' rap was not a healthy way for folks to rework their lives. To me it was merely another way to insinuate the religious patriarchy into peoples lives and keep them from thinking creatively about real world solutions to many issues. I knew a number of AA women who were lesbians and interested in achieving sobriety and following diverse forms of spiritual thought. None really bought into the powerless bullshit. Many left the program with about 3 years of sobriety to continue on to productive meaningful lives that didn't require spiritual submission. Some are social drinkers now some still are abstinent and others smoke some weed but don't drink and live with high levels of functionality, and little dysfunction. On the flip side I have friends who are committed members of AA, who cannot function in regular society and must shield themselves from the greater world since it 'threatens' their sobriety.

I know it works for some. My xman who sought sobriety via AA was able to understand his own self medicating though sound counseling and an eventual diagnosis of BPD and treatment. I think a lot of folks who self medicate with alcohol can benefit from other therapies. But too many AA groups are against psychological care, because it's something that prayer and submission should be providing.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programing.

[Lola]

Church should be a choice, not forced. People should go because they believe in God and want to go, not be forced to.

My parents were like this and now all their kids are Atheists! :lol:

[OkToBeTakei]

I hate it picked this user name, you aren't the first fundie to use my past to discredit what I am saying.

Anyway, exactly how are you different than Gothard? You both have the "one true understanding of the Bible" and use that to negatively impact people. Unless you are pro-gay marriage and would actively support gay people in getting married. Then you would be keeping your beliefs to yourself and not forcing them on others. But I never got the impression that is what you believe. You don't want there to be gay marriage and you wouldn't support it if given the opportunity is what it seems from your posts.

And unless you are going to admit that, hey, you might just be wrong and God might not agree with you, well, then you are claiming to be God's chosen. You are speaking for God.

I'm sorry for all the gay people you will negatively impact. I'm sorry for the people you are going to hurt.

Very little as I know you formerG or Valsa, it is quite annoying for an observer to see what you choose to post in the interest of perspective used as an argument against you.

It shows a lack of substance or fact in debate and in particular the comment about Valsa. Ignorant and infantile.

[patsymae]

"I don't like how much of the 12-steps mindsets have infiltrated the judicial and medical departments of North America. "

This is the problem as I see it. AA was started as a self-help group by affluent white men who belonged to a Christian movement, and it helped them get and stay sober, and that was great. But over time, in the US especially, its theology (and it is indeed theology) came to be adopted by medical professionals and a court system that were fed up with drunks. Gradually, AA's bizarre (if you are not religious) beliefs became incorporated into medicine, and beginning in the 1980s in the US a very lucrative rehab biz. Where else in medicine would you find someone stating that a person has a physical "disease" that can only be arrested by a very specific spiritual belief? Courts fell in line with the institutional AA line that this is "the only way" people can get sober, and began forcing people into attendance (this is why the very high prevalence of the creeps described in above posts, and many people who do follow the program--which is supposed to be a voluntary, self-help program--don't appreciate their presence.)

BTW, in 1999 the Supreme Court ruled that AA is indeed a religious organization and that courts cannot force people to participate. Good luck, though, if you try to argue that in certain parts of the country.

The worst part of this rigid thinking is that many people who are desperate but can't buy the AA program just give up--if my only choices are to turn my life over to God (and it is God, a very specific, monotheistic god who has the power to arrange lives, remove character defects, arrange plans for people's lives, etc.-the "Higher Power is just a bait and switch for the first few steps)-or die, guess I'm gonna have to die. it also has quashed research into medications and other treatments that can help those addicted to alcohol.

I think it's also just indicative of the overall reach of religion into all aspects of American society. Like if you are in prison and you come to the conclusion that you did something wrong and don't want to be that person again, too bad. If, however, you are in prison and have discovered Jesus, your odds of parole greatly increase.

That said, it has helped many people, and there is, kind of like the Catholic Church, a difference between the massive institution and some good people at the ground level. Some people find it helpful to go to meetings (find one they like with people they like) because they can meet other people who aren't drinking and get a different perspective on life. If you can avoid the pressure to go with "the program," you can find some sober people and get a little inspired, see that there is life beyond booze, and get some tips on how to make your life better. That's what the original founders of AA intended (and in fact one was very interested in research into nutrition and other nonspiritual aids).

[Buzzard]

Actually you can choose any holy or secular book to be sworn in under... at least in any court case I have witnessed/been a part of (and sadly that's more than I care to remember.. wow). the Partner swore in under a Darwin book the last time we went to court. Here you just have to let the court officials know before the court date and they'll try their best to accommodate you. I typically swear in under just a book.. it doesn't have any pages I don't think... it just straight up looks like a generic book you'd pull from the bookshelves. I'd be interested if other courts do this as well... I can't think KY would be THAT progressive when other places aren't.

The most widely used oath is:

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give to (this court/grand jury/in the matter of...) will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

There is no book used in most jurisdictions that I'm aware of, but we do require the raising of the right hand (which has its own neat little history) and an audible affirmative response.

As for the sentence... If this was a vehicular homicide there likely was some shenanigans involved and not necessarily criminal intent. Whether it was racing, drugs, poor decisions etc, I would agree that where you have an otherwise productive member of the community prison is not the ideal option. The issue that needs to be addressed is the thought process rather than an entire values reboot.

If this kid already had a relationship with this church and wanted to continue, and the community, stability, and normalcy it offered would impact him and help HIM maintain himself in a productive manner than I'm OK with it. There must be a caveat, however, that should he change his mind and want to attend a different church/denomination he may do so without prior court approval and without risk of revocation. Without that, the sentence is patently illegal.

Some people need to be forced into a regular pattern. Waking up, getting dressed, going out in the cold, interacting with others... all while I'd rather be watching football, imposes something that some of us have and some need - regularity. Being a part of the "community" and feeling "wanted" is essential to some people. This church may be able to offer him a community, encourage education, even employment despite a felony conviction. It may also be a hate filled den of liars, but its one that the court feels will keep him from re offending, and that is the ultimate goal in all criminal proceedings (after "punishment" is exacted, of course).

Should a court be able to sentence someone to a church or religious based program out of the blue? Absofuckinglutely not. Can a court mandate behavior that is deemed to be positive that is already voluntarily taking place continue? I think so and I've done it on more than one occasion where I've had a minister come and offer aid to one of his "flock" that made a bad decision resulting in criminal charges. Church can be a good thing for some people. While I hate using religion as a club to whack sense into people, its needed sometimes. I've had plenty of defendants who simply have never been told "thou shalt not steal" from their parents...

I also dislike AA and do not use them. Most of my defendants hooked up with new dealers at meetings. "Nurse Jackie" wasnt far off on its plot line for a reason...

[valsa]

If this kid already had a relationship with this church and wanted to continue, and the community, stability, and normalcy it offered would impact him and help HIM maintain himself in a productive manner than I'm OK with it.

Putting aside the issue of seperation of church and state, I don't think forcing him to go to church was a good sentence anyway. If he was already going to church and he still did whatever it was that caused his friend's death (I think someone mentioned drinking and driving)- exactly what is supposed to change? He's essentially doing exactly what he did before the incident, just with it being court-ordered now.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'll be back later.

Flouncity-flounce-flounce-flounce

[Buzzard]

Putting aside the issue of seperation of church and state, I don't think forcing him to go to church was a good sentence anyway. If he was already going to church and he still did whatever it was that caused his friend's death (I think someone mentioned drinking and driving)- exactly what is supposed to change? He's essentially doing exactly what he did before the incident, just with it being court-ordered now.

My assumption is that he started going while out on bond or something of the sort. I'm not aware of any caselaw that prohibits a court enforcing an attendance provision where the defendant chose the religious institution. The choice of the institution was not a state action. Of course, I have no leg to stand on without seeing the actual sentence sheet and the provisions for modification. Whenever I have sentenced a defendant to a program or action that had a religious implication I always include very clear steps for modification.