Oklahoma teen sentenced to ten years of church

Separation of church and state can be a slippery slope. This was Lenin's Marxist calling card before the revolution. This phrase isn't in the constitution, and I'd like to keep it that way. (Unless you like the way that worked out in Russia.)

 

What kind of Church accepts a congregation that's only there to avoid jail?

 

The Church of God.

 

You want a church that only accepts the righteous and upright and not the broken and down-trodden? I recommend you avoid Christian churches then.

 

Alternatively, we can look to the (literally) millennia of governments where there was no separation of church and state and the state WAS the church...those never worked out. At all.

Besides, Russia isn't applicable. There's a difference between an atheist state and a religiously neutral state.

 

So we aren't participating in any of the other tenants of a communist revolution? State aid to the less fortunate ala welfare, and health care to replace the need for the church?

How again is taking on church functions separation of church and state?

http://sfr-21.org/lenin-religion.html
Like Engels and Marx, Lenin believed that religion was an historical phenomenon, tied to the oppressive structures of human history such as feudalism and capitalism. Just as they believed that the state, as we know it today, would no longer be needed and would "wither away" after the world had turned completely to socialism, so too they believed that religion would wither away when there was no longer a need for it. In Lenin's words, "the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society."

 

There's a difference between choice and duress.

 

Uhm...what?

First of all, lol no. We're experiencing nothing close to a communist revolution.

Second, how does healthcare "replace the need for a church"?

What do you mean "taking on functions"?

What's your point?

 

It is your opinion that a judge has the latitude to sentence someone to be someone else’s slave? Assuming it were "appropriate"?

Look... here is my question... several have said that it was appropriate because the kid was "probably" Christian anyway... what would I be offered based solely on what I believe? I don't know what you get out of reading the constitution... but it ain't the same as me.

Yes... there is also a constitutional amendment preventing GOVERNMENT (whose law makers are Congress) from ESTABLISHING religion. I can quote it for you if you like.

 

I am clearly uneducated in this regard...

Tell me... why isn't every reporter suspected of a crime barred from printing stories? Criminals barred from having the ability to plead their case? These are also specified as congressional laws that cannot be passed.

Distinguish for me.

 

Since he is allowed to attend a church of his choosing, he could easily attend a Mosque or a Synagogue if he wanted - or even an atheist convention, since atheism is legally recognized as a religion and atheist groups would therefore be tax-exempt "faith based" organizations. It never said he had to attend a "Christian church" of his choosing, so this is just a bunch of hullaboo from atheists with a persecution complex.

 

Unless you believe that atheism cannot be a church, and was simply created as a lark, to have the legal ability to perform marriages etc...

I do not care to patronize such a folk, nor do I care to go to any other church. Nor should I be forced to by unreasonable alternative.

I am waiting for a rational explanation which justifies legal imposition of that which congress is powerless to do... such as prevent me, as a member of the press, from giving a story I was arrested writing to my editor.

 

Well, because:

1) A reporter's crimes are not germane to their profession unless it's slander or libel.
2) Criminals are not barred from pleading their case because it is just, and because Congress is not specified.

 

A good church will reach out with the hope and offer of forgiveness and restoration either way.

 

And... any crime is germane to religion because... ya know. I fail to see the relevance of religion to my choosing to drink and drive. It does not strike me as germane.

Criminals are free to plead their case under the first amendment. In your vision, this could be suspended for... well for the same reason. Religion. Right? Good for the goose, good for the gander right? I mean... this is the justification for depriving the public justice right? He goes to church?

Not good enough. There is nothing (*)(*)(*)(*)ing germane about Jesus. If you are going to insinuate I am stupid, that is one thing... don't offer contradictory arguments because you actually think I am. That is offensive.

 

Church is also not a profession. Your comparison was apples to oranges from the beginning.

Uh, no. Try the Fourth through Eighth amendments, which relate to criminal trials. The Fourteenth applies as well.

Again, apples to oranges. The right to plead their case is constitutional and never specifies Congress.

My arguments are sound. I can't be faulted for the fact that you clearly are out of your depth. Go read over the constitution. Several times.

Or just stop dodging my simple explanation for why separation of church and state doesn't apply.

 

Really? This is your reply? Church is not a profession? Tax free churches are not a profession? Televangelists are not professional Christians? The Vatican... its own COUNTRY does not consist of professional Catholics? What do you take professional to mean? The guy that throws the ball real hard is a professional... but the person who devotes their life to the study of their religion, is unprofessional? Even if they make money at it? Apples and oranges.

Preachers tend to drive better cars than most of their flock... just fyi.

I guess you don't believe there are professional thieves. Funny that.

Built on the precept of the first... but fine... you want to nitpick... that is time consuming... I sort of figured you would do that so lets go with the example I gave most weight to. The press.

No... I do not fault you for being so much more well versed on the subject than I. I fault you only for your laziness in ignoring my example about a judge abridging the press even though your argument is that that only applies to congress. I admire you so much now... I cannot imagine how much more my esteem would grow if you could actually engage the argument and provide some sort of wordsmithing which distinguished between the two, given your stated position on congress vs the judge.

Thank you so much.

 

Aight, this rambling of yours is going nowhere. Point is, going to church outside of being a preacher or board member is not a profession, "profession" in this context meaning "job" (lest you waste more time rambling on about "professional").

You call it nitpicking (odd), but it's really just making sure this discussion stays factually sound.

Exactly which part of the first amendment is the fourth through eighth amendments "built on"?

Congress cannot abridge the freedom of the press. That includes state congresses, logically, but that's it. Technically, the governor or judicial branch of a state could screw with the freedom of the press, unless their state constitutions forbid it.

More useless rambling. Tell ya what. I will address your argument fairly and in full if you address mine:

1) Congress, not any other body, is forbidden from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.
2) Even if that included every judge in the nation, a personal sentence from a judge is not a law.

 

I said 'latitude'. I didn't say unlimited discretion. If the court remands someone into someone else's custody, however, it approaches what you characterize as a 'slave'. Being forced to perform community service for a set amount of time is akin to being a slave for that time, is it not?

Community service?

Clearly. I'm correct and you're not. You're putting words where there are none, and exchanging some words for others.

And here you provide me with a perfect example of my claim. It isn't 'Government', it's CONGRESS - and it references writing law. The judge handed down a sentence. That isn't establishing a religion.

Why? I already posted it when I refuted your claim the first three times.

 

How is this equatable? Suspected is not convicted, and what a person does for a living isn't at issue wrt sentencing for a crime. It is the perview of the employer if they wish to suspend a reporter for reasons such as that.

There are established laws about that: people have a right to redress of grievances and to speak in their own defense.

I'm not at all sure what you're asking.

 

Never thought of that. Heck he could get an on-line ordainment and start his own church. Always looking for the loopholes eh SpaceCricket? lol

 

Its been explained a dozen times already, he doesn't have to take the deal. He can go to jail. He chose not too.

 

Most Christian Churches are extremely selective about who is allowed to attend their Church. If you don't meet their expectations they will graciously show you the door, and point you down the road. Seen it done many times.

 

I don't care if I was sentenced to an Athiest church. I'll sit through 520 hours of that to avoid even just one year in prison for DUI manslaughter.

He got off light. I am more upset that he is getting away with murder with such a light sentence more than I'm upset that he's sentenced to church....

 

I have NEVER been to a church that wouldn't allow me to attend. I'm not saying they don't exist... but it goes COMPLETELY against what church is.

I was at a church one time and a kid was at the main entrance outside looking in while the service was going on. The only one that could see him was the preacher himself. The kid was flipping off the preacher.

The preacher stopped his sermon, and had someone in the back row invite the youth in to join us. The kid ran said no, and ran off, but the open offer was there.