More Church/State stuff

[Blackadar]

Judge sentences offenders to attend church
Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Posted: 10:38 AM EDT (1438 GMT)

LONDON, Kentucky (AP) -- A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab -- a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.

District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to "help people and their families."

"I don't think there's a church-state issue, because it's not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church," he said.

Alternative sentencing is popular across the country -- ordering vandals to repaint a graffiti-covered wall, for example. But legal experts said they didn't know of any other judges who give the option of attending church.

Caperton has offered the option about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders. It is unclear what effect the sentence has had.

David Friedman, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said the option raises "serious constitutional problems."

"The judge is saying that those willing to go to worship services can avoid jail in the same way that those who decline to go cannot," Friedman said. "That strays from government neutrality towards religion."

------------------------------------------------

More religious activist judges. I love the inference from these sentences - if you go to Church or other worship services, you will be cured / a good person. If you don't, you need to be punished. I also wonder how many "worship services" other than Churches exist in London, Kentucky. In addition, I suppose the Judge gets to determine what is a legitimate "worship service" (I guess the Cult of Blackadar wouldn't be acceptable)?

This opens a whole Pandora's Box of issues. To me, this is just more evidence that the "wall" between Church and State is threatened by conservative, religous activist Judges in violation of the Constitution. It's not much more clear-cut than this; if you believe in a court-approved God, you get special treatment over those who don't.

[Crapshoot]

What a frigging idiot. And yeah, define worship- my cult like following is still accepting members. This is de-facto state endorsement of religion.

[Blackadar]

What a frigging idiot. And yeah, define worship- my cult like following is still accepting members. This is de-facto state endorsement of religion.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[stkelly52]

I don't think that it is an endorsment of religion, but I do think that it acknowledges that, for some people, religion can result in a complete life change. That said, I don't like it because it is to easy to abuse.

[Blackadar]

I don't think that it is an endorsment of religion, but I do think that it acknowledges that, for some people, religion can result in a complete life change. That said, I don't like it because it is to easy to abuse.

Seriously, I'm curious. Why do you think this is not an endorsment of religion?

To summarize the above, if you go worship a court-approved God, you get a vastly different sentence than if you don't. Seems pretty cut-n'-dried to me, so I'd like to hear why you don't think it is...

[ISiddiqui]

What counts as a "worship service"? Can he go to a Wicca service?

Yeah, it's BS and will get struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause.

[stkelly52]

What counts as a "worship service"? Can he go to a Wicca service?

Sure, why not? That is the part that makes it not an endorsment of religion. Pick any worship service that you wish and you are fine.

[John Galt]

Sure, why not? That is the part that makes it not an endorsment of religion. Pick any worship service that you wish and you are fine.

I'm not sure why that would make the judge's order not an establishment of religion. It may not endorse a PARTICULAR religion, but it sure seems to endorse religion in GENERAL. If you happen to be a non-believer, your ass is in jail. That is a pretty big endorsement.

edit: And conversely, it you are a believer, you have "get out of jail free card."

[Blackadar]

Sure, why not? That is the part that makes it not an endorsment of religion. Pick any worship service that you wish and you are fine.

Ah, but if you pick none, you're not. Therefore, it's an endorsement of religion - just not a specific one.

Also, I'd imagine the Judge would have to approve the worship service - i.e., not allowing the Cult of Blackadar - and therefore judging which religions are approved by the State.

[VPI97]

There are already many states that sentence people to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and AA seems to be a thinly veiled Christian organization. Considering that you can be jailed for refusing to attend these court-mandated prayer fests, that would seem to be a bigger problem than this one judge.

[John Galt]

There are already many states that sentence people to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and AA seems to be a thinly veiled Christian organization. Considering that you can be jailed for refusing to attend these court-mandated prayer fests, that would seem to be a bigger problem than this one judge.


I'm curious about this - do courts actually mandate AA or do they allow any court approved rehab and/or counseling group? There is nothing wrong under current Establishment Clause doctrine to treat religous organizations (like AA) as the same as non-religious ones. However, if AA were a strict requirement, I would see that as problematic.

[stkelly52]

I'm not sure why that would make the judge's order not an establishment of religion. It may not endorse a PARTICULAR religion, but it sure seems to endorse religion in GENERAL. If you happen to be a non-believer, your ass is in jail. That is a pretty big endorsement.

edit: And conversely, it you are a believer, you have "get out of jail free card."

He never said anything about becoming a believer, you just have to attend a worship service. THere is a difference.

Again, as I said above, I do not support this idea.

[John Galt]

He never said anything about becoming a believer, you just have to attend a worship service. THere is a difference.

Again, as I said above, I do not support this idea.

I think telling people that they have to attend a worship service is pretty much a de-facto endorsement of religion. Your new wrinkle only adds the case of a non-believer attending church. That still doesn't mean the judge is not running afoul of the Establishment Clause. Basically,

Sentencing defendants to alternative rehab programs (including religous ones) = OK

Sentencing defendants conditionally on whether they attend religous programs = not OK.

One treats religious organizations the same as non-religious organizations. The other prefers religous organizations over non-religious organizations. That to me is the very definition of endorsement.

[Fonzie]

I'm curious about this - do courts actually mandate AA or do they allow any court approved rehab and/or counseling group? There is nothing wrong under current Establishment Clause doctrine to treat religous organizations (like AA) as the same as non-religious ones. However, if AA were a strict requirement, I would see that as problematic.

Many courts at one time mandated AA (which is indeed a religious organization) as a treatment for DUI offenders, but many (if not most) states stopped doing that for the very reason you stated. Thus, if treatment is to be offered by the judge then an array of treatment options must be presented, which can include religion-based therapies (AA) but must also include secular alcoholism treatment options.

[ISiddiqui]

He never said anything about becoming a believer, you just have to attend a worship service. THere is a difference.
LOL! Mandating a non-believer go to a religious service instead of getting fined is just as bad and just as much an endorsement of religion.

[Telle]

Somehow when I saw this in the news I just knew there was going to be a thread on here about it..


If the judge allowed any gathering having to do with religion, including atheist group meetings, would that make it broad enough to avoid running afoul of the constitution?

[Blackadar]

Somehow when I saw this in the news I just knew there was going to be a thread on here about it..


If the judge allowed any gathering having to do with religion, including atheist group meetings, would that make it broad enough to avoid running afoul of the constitution?

1. Agnostics...
2. Probably, but then wouldn't anyone be able to get out of punishment by starting the Cult of _____?

[John Galt]

Somehow when I saw this in the news I just knew there was going to be a thread on here about it..


If the judge allowed any gathering having to do with religion, including atheist group meetings, would that make it broad enough to avoid running afoul of the constitution?

I think courts would prefer if it did not distinguish. In other words, trying to list approved groups by their religious affiliation is bound to be trouble. And the sentences in rehab would have to be the same. If that was the case, the neutrality principle is met and there is no harm. As Fozzie mentioned, and assuming he is correct, that is essentially what has happened with AA and general alcohol rehab programs.

[Solecismic]

What would one do at an atheist group meeting? Sounds pretty dull. Might as well be a deaf person in a music appreciation society.

I've been an atheist my entire life, never felt the need to join a group.

Just another example of why the judicial system deserves less and less respect these days.

[Drake]

Many courts at one time mandated AA (which is indeed a religious organization) as a treatment for DUI offenders, but many (if not most) states stopped doing that for the very reason you stated. Thus, if treatment is to be offered by the judge then an array of treatment options must be presented, which can include religion-based therapies (AA) but must also include secular alcoholism treatment options.

I worked in the drug and alcohol rehab business for a long time, and Fonzie's right on the mark here, but I'll add this caveat: even progressive courts will sentence addicts to mandatory AA or to treatment programs that are heavily indebted to the AA/12-Steps model. The lower down the socio-economic food chain you get, the more important the role of AA and its "supplementary services" (read: free treatment support) becomes. So, places like the Addiction Recovery component of the Salvation Army or your local mental health center are going to be at least 50% AA programming (plus AA modeled therapy & counseling).

AA gets around the religious bit by referring to a nebulous "Higher Power" these days (i.e. you define your HP). On the other hand, walk into an AA meeting a declare that you are your own Higher Power (a defacto statement of agnosticism or atheism in some recovery circles) and watch the fur fly.

Hey, but at least AA meetings have free coffee.

[Telle]

What would one do at an atheist group meeting? Sounds pretty dull. Might as well be a deaf person in a music appreciation society.

I've been an atheist my entire life, never felt the need to join a group.

Just another example of why the judicial system deserves less and less respect these days.

I'm not really sure. I'm not an atheist, so I've never attended one. I have heard of them though.

[Drake]

dola...

I don't want to make it sound like I'm down on AA. I think AA kicks ass, and the 12 Step program isn't just a good set of rules for addicts, it's a pretty good set of rules to live by for everybody.

[John Galt]

Just another example of why the judicial system deserves less and less respect these days.

This I just don't understand. What does this wahoo's decision have to do with respect for the judicial system as a whole. This is, I presume, a local elected judge who is courting to the public. He is abberational and certainly no worse than 99% of local elected officials. The judiciary only seems to get in the news when the judges grandstand, so you only hear about the outlier cases. I just think it is crazy to say this is an "example of why the judicial system deserves less and less respect these days." That is just a bad over-generalization.

[John Galt]

I'm not really sure. I'm not an atheist, so I've never attended one. I have heard of them though.

On this part of Jim's post, I'm totally on-board. Atheist meetings? Perhaps if there were such things, and I don't know of any, they would only be as part of a response to the endless number of ceremonies that have become infiltrated by religion (when it just doesn't belong).

[WSUCougar]

Why would anyone attend a wicker service?

[John Galt]

Why would anyone attend a wicker service?

Free chairs?

[Telle]

http://atheists.meetup.com/

[John Galt]

http://atheists.meetup.com/

You can find anything on the web. That doesn't mean atheist meetings "really exist" beyond a fringe group. I would seriously doubt that there were atheist only drug rehab groups, but again I wouldn't be surprised what you can find on the web.

[Telle]

You can find anything on the web. That doesn't mean atheist meetings "really exist" beyond a fringe group. I would seriously doubt that there were atheist only drug rehab groups, but again I wouldn't be surprised what you can find on the web.

Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of atheists might want to get together? People of like-minds form groups all the time. I wasn't suggesting that there was any organisation to it or anything like that. Nothing more than individual atheists getting together in a group.. probably similar to a book club or something like that.

[John Galt]

Why is it so hard to believe that a bunch of atheists might want to get together? People of like-minds form groups all the time. I wasn't suggesting that there was any organisation to it or anything like that. Nothing more than individual atheists getting together in a group.. probably similar to a book club or something like that.

As Jim said, there isn't anything much like minded about atheists. It is like having a there-is-no-Easter-Bunny club. What would you discuss? There are such things, but do you really think they have anything to do with religious rehab groups (ie do you believe allow "atheist rehab groups" solves the problem)?

[Solecismic]

This I just don't understand. What does this wahoo's decision have to do with respect for the judicial system as a whole. This is, I presume, a local elected judge who is courting to the public. He is abberational and certainly no worse than 99% of local elected officials. The judiciary only seems to get in the news when the judges grandstand, so you only hear about the outlier cases. I just think it is crazy to say this is an "example of why the judicial system deserves less and less respect these days." That is just a bad over-generalization.

I've posted many times that I believe the judicial system is fundamentally flawed. Judges make bizarre decisions all the time. Juries are comprised of boobs with the attention span of infants. Lawyers sue anyone and everyone, with no recognition whatsoever of personal responsibility.

Money and populism tip the scales of justice far too often for the measure to be worth much of anything these days.

Of course, the judicial branch at least pretends to be impartial once in a great while. The legislative branch is simply a bastion of bribery and corruption.

You may think all that sounds crazy, as is your right. I just expect more from people who have such wide-ranging powers.

[Telle]

As Jim said, there isn't anything much like minded about atheists. It is like having a there-is-no-Easter-Bunny club. What would you discuss? There are such things, but do you really think they have anything to do with religious rehab groups (ie do you believe allow "atheist rehab groups" solves the problem)?

I didn't say anything about rehab groups.. that was a secondary conversation in this thread. I was referring to the original situation.. the judge allowing people to go to religious services instead of jail. Since it was agreed that allowing people to go to something from any religion wasn't good enough because it still required a religion, I wondered if going to an atheist group meeting was allowed if that would fix that issue.

And I don't know what they discuss.. I've never been to one. But there's lots of "anti" groups out there.. I know of people who have gotten involved in groups specifically for those who don't want to have kids. What did they talk about?.. how much they don't like kids and how those who have them are fools. so what do atheist talk about when they get together?.. probably how much they don't like religion and how those who follow religion are fools.

[Solecismic]

I don't dislike religion, though. Seems like a silly thing to waste my time over, that's all.

I wouldn't call religious people fools, either. Most were brainwashed into it long before they had a choice in the matter (insert insipid smiley face here).

[Buzzbee]

1. Agnostics...
2. Probably, but then wouldn't anyone be able to get out of punishment by starting the Cult of _____?
I am the Cult of
I am the Cult of
I am the Cult of
I am the Cult of
I am the Cult of
I am the Cult of

Personality


The only thing we have to fear is...fear itself.

[timmynausea]

I can't speak for atheist groups, but the pagan meetings are phenomenal. Feasts? Yes. Orgies? Absolutely. Drinking the blood of the innocent? A little bit.

[sabotai]

I can't speak for atheist groups, but the pagan meetings are phenomenal. Feasts? Yes. Orgies? Absolutely. Drinking the blood of the innocent? A little bit.
I'm there!

[Telle]

I can't speak for atheist groups, but the pagan meetings are phenomenal. Feasts? Yes. Orgies? Absolutely. Drinking the blood of the innocent? A little bit.

Yeah that's the problem with practicing as a solitary.. the orgies just aren't as much fun.

[st.cronin]

I don't dislike religion, though. Seems like a silly thing to waste my time over, that's all.

I wouldn't call religious people fools, either. Most were brainwashed into it long before they had a choice in the matter (insert insipid smiley face here).

Under your sarcasm/cynicism is a legitimate point, which is that in many cases religious faith is NOT a choice, in the sense that it is often considered to be. Believing in God is no more something we can CHOOSE than believing that the world is flat. It's something to keep in mind.

[st.cronin]

Dola

I don't exactly find fault with the judge in this story; there's lots of hard data to show that religious practice helps people in all sorts of ways. There are cases where jail, while it may be the typical penalty, is clearly an inappropriate punishment. I am not sure about the details on this case, however.

[revrew]

1. I totally disagree with popular--or at least in the last 50 years of legal precedent--interpretation of the Establishment clause. The "Separation of Church and State" is extra-constitutional and, IMO, in violation of original intent.

2. I agree with the judge that attending to one's spiritual nature possesses far more redemptive possibility than rotting in a jail cell.

3. But even so, this type of ruling is clearly a violation of the Establishment Clause, even by the standard of original intent. Using government authority to say "Go to a religious service or go to jail" is the definition of what the Constitution writers stood against. This judge's heart and motives may be in the right place, but his brain and methodology have taken a lunch break.