Oklahoma teen sentenced to ten years of church

I will also add, this is unverifiable claim.

 

I think you have to look at the nature of this tragedy (I think this classifies as tragedy rather than crime) and consider the remorse of the individual, age and other factors. Without evidence to the contrary, we have to conclude that the judge did just that.

The purpose of incarceration for such a person is what? To make sure this never happens again; to require recompense to the family of the victim, etc.

The victim's family is in agreement with this sentence, from all evidence provided. The guilty party's family is in agreement with the sentence - they should be. Let's remember that the party which died was in the car with him voluntarily, and was nearly 100% certainly engaged in drinking as well. I believe that this course of action very possibly saves this kid from ruining his life; perhaps he'll provide a valuable contribution to society as a result.

So the issue should be closed.

 

Not sure what kind of churches you've been to, but they don't sound very Christian. The one I currently attend is very popular with the homeless in our town. I've never seen anyone shown the door.

 

You're statistically unlucky then. To turn anyone away would go against what Christianity is all about. The Bible teaches we are all "born into sin". In other words God made it clear in The New Testament that we are incapable of being sin free. Before that time people would be stoned to death by their communities over sinning at all. This is what makes the notion that the Bible could contain anything less than honest testimony almost as incredible as the miracles it depicts, but I digress.

I don't believe Church was the appropriate choice. Counseling an hour a week would probably have been more beneficial. I don't believe any religion should be mixed with government, as I don't believe govt. should tell us how we should live.

 

If that is your position then your selection of counseling would be limited to only those schools where the counselor is a passive observer and not any where the counselor tells the patient what they are doing wrong.

 

Incorrect. Counseling helps one discuss their problems, often in a way they wouldn't normally be able to with parents or loved ones. Nothing wrong with therapy.

 

True, but some therapist styles will tell their patients what to do that can improve their lot in life. For example, some might tell their patients they need to forgive their parents or that their excessive drinking is creating more problems. This would run counter to your previous position.

 

That would be telling the child how to feel so you're correct, I would be against that methodology.

 

I agree completely.

Disagree in your characterization. Government is a representation of the People, in the image of the people. It is impossible for Government to properly represent the people without also representing all religious beliefs as well. There is nothing limiting Government to protecting free expressions of religious belief in its people as long as it doesn't prohibit some over others.

Where many posters seem to get confused is in their misunderstanding that one expression of a particular belief should not be allowed because it doesn't represent all beliefs simultaneously. That is, of course, and impossibility, and a ridiculous standard - but one that Atheists glibly and gleefully demand, because they understand its consequence.

All that Government is charged to do is simply not make LAW through Congress representing an establishment of religion. Historically, the Pilgrims escaped England because of the imposition of the Anglican Church as the Official Religion of England, so the proper reading of the First Amendment understands that the Founders were looking to ensure that Congress didn't make any particular religion the Official Religion of the United States.

That's it. There was no intention to excise religious belief or practice from those who participate in Government, nor Administrate the Will of the People. In fact, Thomas Jefferson HIMSELF arranged both Sunday Service in Congress, and opened each session of Congress with a Christian Prayer!

In closing, there is nothing whatever wrong with a Judge using his judicial discretion to include in a sentence of any particular defendant some component of that individual's religious belief - if the Judge believes it will assist in the rehabilitation of that particular individual. I think that is exactly what has happened here, and - as such - Government as a whole remains more reflective of the beliefs of its citizens in the process.

This is as it should be.

 

Telling someone their behaviour is wrong isn't counselling, whatever the style.

 

Well I believe wholeheartedly that the judges decision should have a positive impact in the youth's rehabilitation.

Wouldn't non-religious counseling better serve the purpose in a situation where the child and/or his family may not subscribe to Christianity's teachings or even Religion as a whole?

 

Well now I didn't say that I saw you asked to leave or not be allowed to attend now did I? Church's are fanatically hypocritical. I've seen it several times.

I know of a couple Church's who asked people to go to a Church of their own denomination.

Saw a homeless cowboy (not a regular homeless guy) escorted directly out of the Church for not being appropriately dressed, when he was wearing worn jeans, a snap up cowboy shirt and a pair of dirty cowboy boots. He said he was down on his luck and needed some help. One of the deacon's who escorted him out told him to come back when he was more presentable and took a bath. That was the last time I attended regular services in an organized 'religious' establishment. I wouldn't even call it a Church.

When I was a kid in cub scouts our pack was sponsored by the Mormon Church, and every time we had a den meeting the first half hour was called 'shared fellowship' and me and three other kids were not allowed in the Church for that part of the meeting because we were not Mormons. My aunt's son also married a Mormon girl and she or none of his family were allowed to come to the wedding or the reception, for the same reason. Very family oriented religion or that is one of their main claims to fame. Total BS.

That's a few of several examples I have witnessed personally, so please don't tell anybody something isn't true just because you have never seen it before.

 

Absolutely. Not only that, but Christian rehabilitation for a non-Christian defendant would be IMO unConstitutional.

 

To whom is this directed? I see no poster who has claimed what you're contesting.

 

all of this is unverifiable claims. you make a statement I can't disprove, and you you think that means your opinion is uncontestable, and therefore, we should end the debate.


Religion is wrong because JoeSixPack said so....


Alll I'm saying is if you saw this, you went to the wrong church as I can make the same claim that I have NEVER seen this.

I will say your version of events is deplorable if true and I would not attend that church either. However, to say all churches are like that because of the few things you observed is like saying all blacks are criminals because I saw a black guy get arrested for it on 3 seperate occassions (which is true) and I have never seen a white guy get arrested for that (which is also true) Doesn't make my assumption fact.

 

so sit in jail then.... the kid didn't have to accept the plea deal. I for one, think even athiests would be stupid not to take 520 hours of church vs REAL PRISON TIME for DUI Manslaughter.

 

I never said all. Is reading comprehension difficult for you or do you simply ignore key words that don't fit your argument.

I also never said religion was wrong. Where do you get this stuff.

Unverifiable claims, don't prove anything, except to the person who makes the claims if they are indeed real. So just because you have never been thrown out of a Church or asked to leave doesn't mean it never happens. If you say it never happened too you I have no reason not to believe it.

I didn't say anything about black people on this thread. (???) And I also "NEVER" said "ALL" Church's anything. Most are fanatically hypocritical IMHO from personal experience, which is why I do not involve myself with organized religion. But if I had to chose between jail and Church, even though I find it a waste of time and do not believe in organized religion because of the hypocrisy of them in general, a couple hours of Church a week beats years in jail anytime. Just so we remain on topic here.

 

Yeah the Mormons are very secretive in their cultish crap. I know they block people from observing much of their secret stuff. They are not an example of Christianity. Their founder, Joseph Smith, was a Freemason and that's where they got that crap. The church I attend the pastor wears jeans and they reach out to the homeless. Used to have free breakfasts every Sunday where the homeless would come and eat and often stay for services.

 

I've given you benefit of the doubt on this thread... I see that was a mistake as your hatred for anything religion makes it obvious you just see this story as a chance to spew your hatred.

You made the claim that churches do that and offered only unverifiable "proof". The onus is on you in this thread.

I challenged you for some real proof since I said I never had seen it happen, or even heard of it in the 21st century (I will give you this point too, I know I shouldn't, but I will, my grandfather was the type of Christian that would turn people away at the door.... but that was a LONG TIME AGO in a country very different than today)


so, with that said, do you have any verifiable proof that people are turned away in droves from churches anywhere in America? (Remember, you did say MOST churches... so surely there are stories somewhere)

 

Really? That's your answer to government violations of the constitution? "Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) cares?"

 

Whatever happened to the 'cruel and unusual' provision?

 

It's not cruel.

 

Oh, I agree - but there is still something wrong with a judge using his bench to prothelysize - and that's the distinction for me: if the sentence is measured and considered, and takes into account a mode of rehabilitation in keeping with the beliefs of the family of the otherwise incarcerated, I consider it separate and distinct from a Judge who says "tell ya what: you either go to the Electric Chair, or you convert to my religion".

That's not what he did at all, but to object to what he did do as though it was described as such is intellectually illegitimate.

 

no, I'm sitting here thinking.... if I have a DUI Manslaughter charge over my head and the this offer is put on the table for me..... I'm jumping on it with NINJA QUICKNESS because, to me, the issue I am concerned with is not that he was "sentenced to church" but rather why a DUI Manslaughter gets 520 hours of church as his sentence instead of rotting behind bars for awhile.

However, if the family of the victim is good with this as a sentence, it's whatever I guess.

If they ARE NOT good with this, they should try to get it overturned based on the unconstitutionality of it.


This is where I think we are getting differences of opinions.... we're basing it on different points of view.


Although I'm sure some on here, with their hatred of anything religion, thinks 520 hours of church is worse than prison

what is the complete sentence. I know it wasn't just 520 hours of church and you're free to go....

 

I'll give you ONE MORE point on this.... you said Morman..... I have no clue on that as I've never tried to go to a mormon church...... I got locked in on baptist as thats the area I live in

lots of issues I have with Mormons.... but that's a much different thread than here. I will still stick to my point earlier that if a church, ANY CHURCH, turns you away for dress, etc..... they are going against everything, I believe, that a church should stand for.