Do you prefer Sharia law applied? because the decision by the Judge is the same thing.

That has gone way too far! Those of you that think YOUR religion belongs in OUR political system had better start paying attention to where it could lead. You can blame those "socialist lefties" all you want for the situation that we are in, just get off of your "moral" high horse and quit trying to legislate your version of morality on the rest of the population! Between you "moral" folks and the radical Grover Norquist pledge, Faux News, and the various right wing talk show hosts, the way they treated the libertarians during the primaries, etc... I really do think the republican party has lost any sense of credability. That is a shame, because we need a REAL conservative voice in Washington, and the Republican party has stopped being that voice.

pj did you bother to read the whole article. The young man and his attorney have no plans to appeal the Judge's sentence. So they the UCLA and you need to keep your ideas about this case to yourself.

Also why as a Christian do I have to have your non-beliefs shoved down my throat. If you don't like my religion or my beliefs that is your business. How ever you have NO right to tell me that my beliefs are wrong and more than I have the right to drag you to my church. If you don't like the Nativity scene or a cross in front of a store or on a building don't look at it.

And by the way check to see how many time God is mentioned by the founding fathers of this nation....

No problem people, the young man can choose go to prison, problem solved. He knew drunk driving was against the law, he broke that law thus killing a person. I agree he should be force to attend any church because he belongs, oh? in prison.

J.Paris, Actually, the founding fathers were extremely concerned about the interference of religion into government, which is why they stipulate freedom of religion and freedom FROM. Just because they believed in God does not mean they believed in religion. This is an article, a few people have commented, so what. What did you expect to find? Hundreds of people "hallelujahing." Of course, there are going to be comments that disparage the assumptions Christians make about this being a country for a certain type of religion. Why should anyone keep their comments to themselves. This is a posting site. If you don't want to hear opinions you don't like, you should avoid all posting sites, except those you can be sure of.

Had the judge told the kid to attend services, fine, and if he knew the family, fine. However, he said "will give him his lord and savior." Only one group would use that type of phrase. The choice of the family to not appeal (after all, he got off pretty good for killing someone) does not detract from the inappropriateness of the judges word choice. A lot of harm has been done to people in the name of religious values and assumptions.

this judge makes the case for separation of church and state in a NUTshell. this judge is incapable of separating his personal faith from his public duty. this judge is not the only one out there.

Also why as a Christian do I have to have your non-beliefs shoved down my throat.

That's easy to answer J Paris. It's called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ."

I'm a Christian too. But I believe the Founding Fathers got it right and Judge Norman got it terribly wrong. Imagine if Judge Norman was Judge Normoud and insisted this guy attend Mosque for 10 years? What's your position on that?

Sounds like the ACLU prefers to send the kid to prison instead.

It's not just the ACLU. This kid, through his own negligence, killed another kid. He should ABSOLUTELY be seeing jail time. I DEFINITELY PREFER to send this kid to prison. He caused the death of another kid!

Alred had been charged with manslaughter as a youthful offender

Youthful offender? Every 16 year old kid I hear of that causes the death of another human being is charged as an adult. How did this kid escape that? Sounds like the best justice system in the world when your parents can afford it!

No jail time is a complete travesty of justice.

So, Harold of the rocks, did your God act with grace in your life? Or do you adhere to the Old Testament form of juctice? Seems like this judge was showing grace to the boy. "Those among you without sin, cast the first stone." Seems like we have a lot of sinless Christians in this world, as you grab power to judge another human being. When did God convey that authority to you? But wait, according to the Christian faith, if God "judged" us as he should, we all would be condemned to hell! No doubt about it--it's in the New Testament. "Vengence is mine" says the Christian. I doubt the court will see this young man for an infraction again. "Grace Abounding"--read it.

There is absolutely no way that this portion of the judge's sentence is legal or enforceable. It is such a blatant violation of the first amendment that there is no way any appeals court would uphold this. What I question is what standing does the ACLU have to challenge the sentence. It seems that the person who was sentenced to attending church does not have a problem with it and was/is completely agreeable to the terms of his probation. As much as I disagree with this judge's actions, I just do not see how an unaffected third party has any right to challenge it.

The killer belongs in prison. No government official can endorse religion legally. What a load of crap this sentence is. The judge should be removed from the bench. God bless the ACLU for standing up for what's right. And...tax the churches.

Sure, Texas Conservatism, because NO Christians have ever gotten busted for drunk driving. /S

if you tax the churches, then they get more say in politics, legally. can buy lobbying influnce, etc...

Thank you J Paris. It's nice to know that a few people who post in here acknowledges that God HAS played a big role in the forming of our country which made it so great. Do away with that fact and declare God a non-item and our country is domed to fail and eventually die.

Okay, man of faith in Jesus Christ, here. I'm glad this kid is in church. If he was in church before he killed his friend, let's hope that now he pays attention and let's it change his life.

HOWEVER, methinks the Judge was out of line with that portion of the sentence. I understand the 1st Ammendment says "Congress shall make no law..." and one Judge certainly isn't "congress". However our nation's legal system doesn't see it that way. The paranoiah over faith is so huge it's almost crazy.

yeah, and freeloaders didn't get fed either. those were the days!!!

No, this is perfectly constitutional. It's completely permissible for a flagrant offender that has violated God's law to be forced to convene weekly in the sacred House of God.

No, it is NOT "perfectly constitutional". Even the JUDGE admitted it wasn't. Now, under YOUR particular religious beliefs this might be "completely permissible" but your religious belief is NOT the law. The law is determined in the Constitution and neither God nor Jesus nor Christianity is mentioned in it. Not once.

On the other hand, Texas is "a whole other country" -- even their TV ads say so, perhaps the Constitution doesn't apply (or you don't seem to think so anyway).

J Paris,

How many times does it say "God" in the US Constitution? Oh ya, guess you forgot that part, eh?

And of the 38,000+ forms of Christianity known today, the Founder's Diest interpretations of God are the same as yours and Texas Conservatives, and all the other people that chose Christianity as a lifestyle? Sure they are.

Or, you know, the ACLU grasps the, REALLY NOT ALL THAT DIFFICULT concept of separation of church and state and the 1st Amendment.

How ever you have NO right to tell me that my beliefs are wrong and more than I have the right to drag you to my church.

Actually we have EVERY right to tell you your religion is wrong. See also, the 1st Amendment. And who the hell is trying to drag you out of your church? Really, go back in. Stay there. Keep your religion there. Please.

Fine then...... spend 10 years behind bars for the crime.......

Thanks ACLU, bet he'll love that you spoke-up for him.....

To J. Paris - you wrote "How ever you have NO right to tell me that my beliefs are wrong and more than I have the right to drag you to my church. If you don't like the Nativity scene or a cross in front of a store or on a building don't look at it."

You Sir would do well to remember your words when you and your Fairy Tale Sects try to stomp on homosexuals or anyone different - I've heard and read the bile puke that spills from your holes about anything and everything that doesn't fit into your square peg.

I wish the bible were the word of God because your lack of practice of it would warm my heart knowing the likes of you and yours are burning in hell.

As for the punishment for the kid, The gas chamber would have been more compassionate.

Just saying

I'm amazed at the number or respondents who don't seem to understand why the ACLU launched this lawsuit.

Think of it this way: How would you react if this judge had sentenced this young man to attend services for the next ten years...at an Islamic mosque?...or a Jewish synagogue?...or a Hindu temple?....or a Christian church?...or at Atheist meetings?... or at a Buddhist shrine?

Wow closet, constitutional lawyers: here is the facts:

1. The judge did not say Which church. It is one of his choice. = No violation of 1st amendment.

2. He nor his defense appealed. ACLU butted in where it was not invited. The judge is exaxcly that... a judge.. if I (as a citizen) do not like his judgement I can recall his appointment... or ask him to revisit the case... But other than that... nothing.

3. MOST of you said nothing of the family of the victim... Assuming there lack of outcry they must have been satisfied with the ruling.. the power of appeal lays with them.

JParis: No one is trying to shove anything down your throat (strange metaphor) You can worship exactly as you please without any restrictions being placed on you at all, which is all the first amendment guarantees. The Alred case is a matter of law, not your religion.

Think of it this way: How would you react if this judge had sentenced this young man to attend services for the next ten years...at an Islamic mosque?

Or just as relevant, what if this judge had blamed his religion for the crash and sentenced him to 10 years without attending church?

If you can legislate FOR your religion, the turnabout of legislating AGAINST your religion becomes completely fair play.

You could just stop trying to spend our tax dollars to prop up your crazy fairy tale version of history, or you can see what happens in the long run. You may have the numbers right now, but you also have almost all of the nations dumbest people and least rational people.

In the long run, you can't win this fight and somewhere deep inside, you know it; just like you know that stories which revolve around talking snakes, magical fruit, and flaming swords are really just fairy tales. You just can't admit you were stupid enough to go along with it; hurts the old ego too much. Makes you look stupid and weak. So you get pissed and try to force everyone else to pretend you are better than you ever were and ever will be if you keep it up.

Wow Flame, you're wrong...

A PRECEDENT is being established. Regardless of whether the kid took the deal or not, this ruling in and of itself violates our Constitution. The ruling itself is illegal. The judge, by ruling this way and/or even offering it, violated the supreme law of the land. Judges don't get to do that.

By even offering this, the Judge as a state actor has violated the 1st Amendment. So YES, something has been violated, one of the basic tenants and fundamental freedoms that our nation is built on. He does not get to use the power of the state as a spoon to mix together religion and government.

Seriously dude, it's not that hard to get. This is about oversight of our judges to make sure they remain within the bounds of the Constitution. They don't get to step outside of it, EVER. Even with the agreement of those they're ruling over.

Interesting case, since the boy apparently does not regard injury having been done to himself. OTOH what if his religious views change over the course of the 10 years? And what would the judge's sentence have been if the boy was not a churchgoer? How has the judge sentenced other individuals found guilty under the same statute? Required AA attendance has been found to be a civil rights violation in a couple of federal appeals districts--but the objections were raised by individuals who objected to attending AA on religious grounds (the courts found that AA is a religion--don't want to hear from you 12-steppers about religion vs. spirituality, the courts applied basic legal tests to the AA concept and came up with AA=religion--the religion vs spirituality thing is a canard).

"Youthful offender" probably does not mean being charged as a juvenile. There are statutes that allow for prosecution of individuals in teens AND early adult years who do not have prior convictions. It has more to do with amenability to rehabilitation.

Buy failing to define "regular" the judge left it open to interpretation. If he goes on the first Sunday of the year for 10 years, he's off the hook. Hey, once a year is "regular".

JS in SD - What I question is what standing does the ACLU have to challenge the sentence.

They're not doing that, they're simply filing a misconduct complaint with the state's judicial commission.

That's the proper venue.

I knew that one was coming. Posted as much on the original article. Go, ACLU!

... should attend church regularly for 10 years as a requirement to avoid a prison sentence...

Not only does that violate separation of church and state, it's cruel and unusual punishment as well.

J. Paris

It's the ACLU...

Not UCLA ...

You get 5 points for at least getting the letters right if not in the proper order...

Don't worry...I'm sure your God got a chuckle out of it too.

Flame 77_7 : You are WRONG on every point you made.

Don't consider a profession in law.

And by not being able to grasp even the simplest of concepts concerning what the judge did wrong you may want to not think about trying skydiving either.

Sarah, Jeff and Flame

Flame did not get everything wrong, just most. He is correct that the judge (at least based on the information in the article) ordered the young man to church, but did not specifiy which church he attend. I agree Sarah, that the lack of specificity is probably not enough to make the order constitutionally valid. The problem is that you, I and the ACLU have no standing in this case. In order to appeal the decision of a judge, you have to have been a party to the case in the first place. So the only people who can appeal this decision is the defendant and the state of Oklahoma. It appears that neither party is inclined to do so.

WoW! I wonder how the dead kid's parents feel that their son's killer got a church sentence?

While I don't advocate sending a kid to prison for 10 years - I also don't advocate sweeping the seriousness of the offense under the carpet.

Additionally, at anytime over the next ten years that kid wants to appeal - he has an easy ticket out. No way would that stand up in any higher court.

As for the judge - something just ain't right with his decision. Something smells of a 'favor'.

Which leaves the question of what should this kid's punishment be?

Go to church or go to jail. Of course the kid isn't going to appeal. It is basically blackmail, that is why it is even scarier. Who wouldn't go to church, mosque, wiccan circle, or satanic cult meetings if it kept them out of jail? The judge really stepped in it with his ruling.

Sounds like the ACLU prefers to send the kid to prison instead.

They ACLU didn't but I feel prison would be better than church and the bunch of morons that believe in that crap.

Joe,

ACLU have no standing in this case

Except they're not filing a case, they're filing a judicial misconduct complaint.

Normally I support keeping religion out of law and politics but I don't see the "forced religion" on someone in this case. He already is religions and goes to church and the kid has a choice, religion & community service or prison. Along with the other conditions this kid is going to be walking the straight line for a long time. This is better than taxpayers paying to house this young man and giving him a second chance is even better. This may change him, prison certainly will change him.

Judges used to give kids a choice of military service or jail. The military was tired of getting stuck with trying to discipline the scum of the earth so the FEDS put a stop to it. Maybe GOD has lower standards?

Sonds like poster j70141 in Colorado wants all laws in the United States of America to be based on Christian doctrine..

Christians are stepping up their efforts to turn United States of America into a Christian theocrcy.

Texas

You are one funny dude.

Dick-2100935, it's not the merits of this individual case that are important; it's the precedent that it sets and the principle behind it. The government has no business involving itself in religious questions, and whether or not to attend church is a religious question. What part of "Separation of church and state" do these people not understand? The religious right (which is neither) and the Tea Klux Klan will not rest until they have overthrown our democratic republic and replaced it with a fundaMENTAList Christian theocracy. Furthermore, it brings questions of fairness into question. This young man isn't appealing the sentence because he goes to church, but what if another person were to appear before this judge charged with the same crime, but did not attend church? Would the judge sentence him to prison in that case? If so, how is it fair that one person gets probation on condition of his faith while another gets a prison sentence? This sentence is absolutely outrageous. I hope the judge is disciplined by the state board and hopefully is forced off the bench.

This is just not okay whether the boy goes to church already or not. It's one thing to make him do community service, but sentencing someone to church is not okay and over a big dark easy-to-see line. You who think it's okay don't get the precedent being set here that might come back and bite you if it stands. What if he sentenced him to stay away from churches for ten years because he felt religion was part of his problem? You'd be all over it in that case. Of course he wants to go to church instead of taking the consequences of his actions. Wow...if you think this is okay for a judge to even discuss on the bench you really don't get how scary it is. THIS is a step to Sharia law in the US if it isn't set aside...you think if the boy were Muslim he would have sentenced him to keep going? No, it is because he happens to agree with the church he attends. And of course the family is happy...our kids gets to just keep going to church! Wheee.....guess that'll teach him. You know, he already went to church and it apparently didn't keep him from committing the crimes he already committed.

Wow...scary stuff. Well said, Vince.

We need to start treating drunk driving more seriously. We need to stop treating it as just an accident. It was no accident that he got drunk and then got behind the wheel and someone died. If i'm playing with a firearm in a public place and someone gets shot and killed, am i just going to get probation and be made to attend church? Drunk driving is the same thing and we as a country need to start treating it as such.

@ Sarah,

Your posts are historically one sided. The judge gave an option as many judges do on many rulings. It is not uncommon for a judge to allow a speeding teen to go to traffic school or work for the city as an option to pay for a mistake in an alternative way to avoid the more extreme punishment. I would say that the ACLU is interfering with this teens right to accept this option and as such is infringing on the teens constitutional rights. And by the way you are forgetting your lord and master Obama's efforts to circumvent the constitution. You may believe you have an edge on logic and justice but when you take a stance on something you should avoid hypocrisy.

Randy,

It is not uncommon for a judge to allow a speeding teen to go to traffic school or work for the city as an option to pay for a mistake in an alternative way to avoid the more extreme punishment.

You're right. Good thing the 1st Amendment doesn't have a "traffic school" clause.

Quite a few comments for people that seem to be miss-informed about the Constitution and the concept of "Religious Freedom".

Q: How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution?

A: 0 (Zero)

Q: Where is it established that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation?

A: Nowhere. Our nation was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, king, or dictator.

The Judge's terms of probation defiantly violates the 1st Amendment because it mandates the attendance to a church. No action of the government can force you to attend any religious service! Even if you normally attend such anyway. That decision, if allowed to stand, attempts to set a dangerous precedence! One where an atheist might be forced by the government to attend religious services.

I submit here a challenge test for those that think we're a "Christian" nation.

http://ffrf.org/legacy/quiz/ffrfquiz.php

Solomon Kane, I took the challenge. Quite a few of us are misinformed, aren't we? Thanks for bringing this informative quiz to our attention. I do wish our Christians friends would take the plunge. I'm going to post that link, as well. Maybe some of them will get it.

Dem,

Glad you liked it.

Their website has a 50 question one on how well one knows the Bible as well.

Wish they'd take that one as well (although they'd never admit they flunked it).

Not founded on belief in God and the Bible? Asked and answered. (Your Freedom From Religion site is a clear revelation of an anti-God, biased agenda, and is not truth)

President Andrew Jackson said, “The Bible is the rock upon which our republic rests.” And these are the principles that keep us united.

The University of Houston political science professors searched to find where the Founding Fathers chose their ideas:

• They assembled 15,000 writings from the era of the founders.
• They researched for 10 years, isolated 3,154 direct quotes and identified the source of the quotes:

1. 8.3 percent were quotes from Baron Charles de Montesquieu;
2. 7.9 percent were quotes from Sir William Blackstone;
3. 2.9 percent were from John Locke;
4. 34 percent of their quotes came directly from the Bible – and when researching where Montesquieu, Blackstone and Locke got their ideas, they found that theirs came from the Bible as well.

Here is the correlation between the Constitution and the Bible concerning America’s Christian heritage:

• Separation of powers: Jeremiah 17:9
• Immigration laws: Leviticus 19:34
• President must be natural born citizen: Deuteronomy 17:15
• Witness and capital punishment: Deuteronomy 17:6
• Three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22
• Tax exemptions for churches: Ezra 7:24
• Republicanism: Exodus 18:21

this is from here

It is purely agend-driven perspective that faith in God and the Bible had no part in the start, and formation of America. That's just stupid. And frankly, the 1st Amendment has been hijacked by the liberal, no-God agenda. If the same principles of interpretation were applied across the board, little Johnny on Christmas morning would be horrified to discover GI Joe's head attached to his feet, and the handlebars of his new bicycle attached to the back wheel.

And thanks alot, haters of God. Because of you and your insistence that God stay out of American life, He is largely and increasingly giving you what you want. He is hands off. Hello Hurricane Katrina, Hello Hurricane Sandy, Hello 9/11, Hello worst drought since the dust bowl/depression, hello idiocy in leadership, rampant PTSD...on and on and on.

What do you think it would look like? Leadership that can't reach a decision? Last year when there was no agreement on how to keep the government financially viable, and Obama went home, do you really think that our elected representatives can't figure it out? In Washington state an emergency 11th hour meeting was called by the Governor and after the all night closed door session, agreement was NOT reached, and the statement was "We don't know what happened. We were so close to an agreement, then it all fell apart."
Do we really think we are that smart??? Do we think America became a great nation all on our own apart from God and His blessing, by virtue of lives lived that honored Him, and believed His Word? We may be that smart but wicked personalities and evil agendas get in the way so that no one..NO ONE...will compromise for the good of all!

This is what it looks like when God removes His covering. And this is just the beginning! If you ever believed the Bible, or have some small smidgen of respect for things greater than you, do you know that America is not spoken of in end time prophecies? Sure, neither is Palau, but China is. So is Israel. And Russia. But not America.

We didn't start out as a no-God culture, and to say so is to reveal an agenda that denies the truth. No matter how much you may want it, and no matter how much it serves an agenda, it just isn't true.

Levi, I don't hate God - how dare you assume so. Nor do I suggest America wasn't founded on Christian beliefs of various types. What is being repeatedly pointed out is the founding fathers separated church and state. People express their beliefs privately and live them publicly through the values religion instills. The problem is when the religion becomes the governing force rather than the principles the faith represents and nourishes.There are how many thousand sects of Christianity, many of whom disagree vehemently with each other. We are also a land of Roman Catholics, Jews, Hindis, Muslims, (all have different sects within them). We are no longer the country of the 1700s. We have to, according to our Constitution, recognize the rights of people of all religions and those without. That is what our founding fathers gave us - a country that is open to people of all beliefs, nationalities, backgrounds. That is our strength and beauty. When you go off on the religious expectations of the writers of the Constitution, you are undermining the whole experiment.

You are welcome to believe in end times prophecies. I'm welcome to believe it is silly. You are welcome to believe droughts and hurricanes are part of God's hands-off policy, I am welcome to believe in climate change. We are not a godless society, but spokespersons for religion often sound so unpleasant, mean, and aggressive that it is, frankly, a turn off. You haven't interested me to find out more. You have further convinced me of the importance of separation of church and state. As for PTSD, trauma has something to do with that: war, rape, those behaviors that hurt others cause trauma.

dem&glad, have you ever been typing a comment intended to reply to someone, then when it finally gets done with it's 3 minute "fix anything" time span, you notice that in the time it took for your comments to finally post, someone else had posted something?

This is that. My comment wasn't in response to you, but was a direct contradiction to Solomon Kane's posting at #1.50.

As for climate change, isn't that the result of mankind's significant footprint on the earth? These things are set in motion, and there is no way to change them. Better that we make peace with God.

Wasting your time, Dem.

Somewhere, I ran across a quote. Don't know who said it..., don't care. But having it in mind keeps me for wasting time with people with closed minds.

"Never try to teach a pig to dance. It makes you look foolish, and annoys the pig."

Also why as a Christian do I have to have your non-beliefs shoved down my throat.

That is the dumbest thing I have ever read on any blog, EVER!

Ah but Solomon Kane, which is the pig can be hard to determine at times, can it not? If your statement at 1.56 was a response to my response to your questionnaire post, that's really disingenious. Try answering the post, instead of reciting anecdotes about pigs.

But then perhaps you have no answer to give to sound, reasonable truth. No answer but anecdotes about pigs.

Levi, I'll accept the fact that sometimes I'm the pig, sometimes the dancer. Look, Levi, I'm not out to get you or your religious beliefs, but as citizens it is our job to relitigate constitutional restrictions and rights. We debate, we try to develop cultural sensitivity, and understand evolving points of view. We have to. Our lives and experiences were unimaginable to our founding fathers - hell, a lot would have been unimaginable to my parents. I'm at peace with God - she is easy, she loves me unconditionally. But Jesus' message was consistently the importance of our relationships with each other, and those are more difficult.

okay, dem&glad, I dont think you're getting it yet. I WASN"T TALKING TO YOU!

Happy that you have some peace with something or someone you identify as God. The Bible says the He put sonship in our hearts, "whereby we cry 'Abba - Father'" Either way, God's gender isn't the issue here. Our founding fathers read the Bible. They quoted it in their correspondence. They knew that "in the end times, people will be lovers of selves, departing from the truth and giving heed to doctrines of demons..." They knew this. But I think they were too busy trying to forge a modern day country that worry about people going off the deep end in 2012.

dem, I didn't think you were out to get my religious beliefs. Not unless you have split personality and you are actually Solomon whathisname. But then I don't think we're talking religious beliefs here, are we? This is about the boy getting sentenced to 10 years of church and the ACLU being the only one pitching a fit about it. Then Solomon whatshisname comes up with the Freedom from Religion website, and it mischaracterizes the 1st Ammendment, no matter how badly the atheists want it to be otherwise.

I'll quote the judge here, as he quoted the Bible: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" There's a pig alright, dem. I don't think it's you, and it sure ain't me.

@J. Paris You can be as deluded as you want. We don't care about your religion until it begins to infringe on the political and judicial system that affects all of us, including those of a different faith and those who are not religious at all.

Your Founding Fathers may have been religious but they were secular in their beliefs on how government should run the country.

Sounds like the kid made a serious mistake and he owned up to it instead of trying to wriggle out of it, which is what an ACLU lawyer might have counseled. Whatever, he has to keep his ass clean for ten years. I hope he can do it. I agree with you Kevin, and apparently the judge was able to make that distinction. Every once in a while, the ACLU needs to engage brain before putting mouth into gear. They're necessary, but sometimes over zealous.

absolutely nothing over zealous about THIS case. it's essential it be overturned.

From the article, it sounds like the young man already attends church every Sunday and has no objections to this part of his sentence. I would think the judge knew this when he came up with the sentence. It would be different if the young man were Jewish or didn't practice a religion and the judge sentenced him to attend a Christian church, but it sounds like the man's beliefs were accounted for when the sentence was determined. That changes everything in my view. The ACLU should focus on cases where an individual's beliefs are being violated; that didn't happen here.

Congress can make no law for or against at religion. Nothing in there about sentencing a person to church which he/she already attends. Why don't you read the constitution before making a judgment.

From the article, it sounds like the young man already attends church every Sunday and has no objections to this part of his sentence.

Nothing in there about sentencing a person to church which he/she already attends

What happens if, in five years or so from now, he finds that this particular religion is no longer for him? He has a court order requiring him to attend services against his wishes ... a clear violation of the First Amendment.

And to continue with Lawrence ... I've read the Constitution. Know what's missing? God. Jesus. Christianity. In fact, the ONLY references to religion in the constitution are the Establishment Clause and the Religious Test Clause. BOTH prohibit government interference into religion.

Exactly, what if several yers down the road he complies with all probationary measures, finishes school but decides he has grown up enough not to believe in fairy tales and an old guy that lives in the sky that grants magical wishes and quits the church-any church. He becomes a rational, sane person. What next? Go to church or your probation is revoked?

@#3.5 What does it matter if the defendant does or does not object? He is subject to punishment by the state for his crime. If he was sentenced to jail and objected, should he be set free?

JohnRN and Beth, I hear what you're saying, but what if the judge had ordered Alred to attend 10 years of AA meetings and after 5 years he decided that he didn't need to attend anymore. His options are to continue to abide by the terms of his probation or go to jail. While I agree that the church attendance portion of his probation is likely unconstitutional, you don't get to violate the terms of your probation without consequences.

Am I alone in seeing the inconsistency of this condition of probation?

According to the boy's attorney, he was already a regular churchgoer before the accident. Apparently, his faith and devotion did not temper his drunken habits; why, then, would any (sober) judge believe that mandatory church attendance would make him see the error of his ways?

Well said, Eric the Well-Read. I caught that too.

I'm wondering what happens five years from now when the kid becomes atheist and sues the state for an illegal sentence.

The kid will have a slam dunk case to a few million bucks.

To poster Texas Conservatism

I call POE on you. If you are indeed serious you really need to look at the history of your religion to see how evil it is.

Texas

Have you auditioned for the Colbert show?

I hear what you're saying, but what if the judge had ordered Alred to attend 10 years of AA meetings and after 5 years he decided that he didn't need to attend anymore.

Well ... a couple of issues here. But let's look at the first one. Forcing CHURCH attendance is a clear violation of the First Amendment that even the judge admitted to. He pretty much said he didn't care. Thus, the probation order is illegal (at least that part) and thus not enforceable.

Now let's look at the AA attendance. There is some controversy over this as well, as 12 step programs are pretty much religious based as well. Several judges have also overturned mandatory AA attendance over this issue. Granted this is a little "murkier".

Am I alone in seeing the inconsistency of this condition of probation?

No. I saw it as well. I just think it's a very secondary to the constitutional issue (but definitely ironic).

i'm kinda in the same mindset....kid seems to have gotten off really light, and maybe he deserves a second chance. but forced church? i dunno, seems like a REALLY bad precedent. i am uncomfortable with forcing people to go to AA/12 step programs, for some of the same reasons, mostly because they are religious in nature...(and because they have a negative success rate- you are more likely to relapse if you are in one.)

I agree with you except that there is no data to support your opinion that a person is more likely to relapse if in AA or a 12 step program. In fact the opposite is true.

And, you can easily re-frame the word god in AA to whatever you want. I went to Alanon because I have two alcoholic parents. I do not believe in god. I just reworded it in my mind and it did help me.

actually, EVERY independent study, and AA's own literature, talk of a 4% success rate. people just up and quit drinking/using at a 5% success rate (so called spontaneous recovery). medical and church based recovery (non-12 step) have recovery rates around 30%, and a number of newer recovery approaches get success rates of 70% or higher (if you have $20,000 or more a month...) google 'the orange papers' for links to studies and more info. the science is VERY clear- for the vast majority of people, 12-step programs are not only not helpful, but harmful.

that said, if you attended, and you feel that it helped you, AMEN! if people want help, and find it through AA, I'm glad to hear it. even with my very biased opinion against the organization, i believe it has helped tons of people, even if not permanently, and tries it's best to help people, which i respect and admire greatly. my issue is being court-ordered to go. i find that courts forcing people into a religious-based treatment program hurts the addict, hurts the program, and hurts further treatment efforts. but it sure saves a lot of money....

the judge made it light because he feels SOOO certain that church will be his salvation.

Lavrn-

There is evidence from research studies that AA/NA attendees have more severe relapses than people involved in other forms of chemical dependency recovery. And AA/NA have no higher success rate than non-spiritual recovery programs.

I got sober 24 years ago. I thought at the beginnig that was AA that stopped me but shorty afterwards I found that it might actually hinder my recovery. It seemed that many of the members where I went to never went to work they just sat around and talked about the good old days and how stupid they had acted. It seemed at least to me that AA had become an addiction to some of them so rather get back to a normal life they used AA as a crutch.

While I was attending AA I found myself feeling disgusted that drunk drivers were sentenced to AA. You could smell the booze on their breath while getting their permission slips signed.

Like, say, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster :)

So what happens if he decides to become an agnostic or an atheist in a few years? He'll be forced to adopt a stoic attitude about attending any house of worship. Perhaps he'll pick the shortest scheduled service times. "In-N-Out Halleluyah Burgers and Fries!"

Or there's a slim possibility he turns maladaptive, and manipulates targeted individuals in the church's congregation to get what he wants, since he knows he's stuck there. And go out and get converts. So who does he end up picking? The most vulnerable ones?

I hope for his sake that this is what he really wants to do ...not that he had much of a choice. And in a year, it may not turn out as easy as he thought it would be. (If I was him, I would look for opportunities in the church to help finance my college education). So good luck on his next decade of life complying to court orders.

After ten years -- hell, even in five -- people in the courthouse would have long forgotten your case as a teen, unless someone had a reason to dredge up your docket again, from the judicial archives. Odds are, it's be a courthouse computer server's calendared database that'll remind law enforcement to check up on him, every week, just like a obsessed parole officer you just can't shake off.

Why dont we just start giving criminals the "Clockwork Orange" treatment?

sami - And what if the judge had sent Alred to prison for 10 years and after 5 years he decided he didn't want to be there anymore? So what? Whatever the terms of your probation, you have to abide by them or go to jail. What Alred feels, or wants, or believes, or doesn't believe has no bearing on the legal decision to abide by the terms of his probation or not. The question of complying with the probation terms, or not, is a distinct question from the constitutionality of the church attendance provision of the sentence. Most of us here agree that sentencing Alred to attend church for 10 years doesn't pass constitutional muster. But he agreed to the terms and so must either appeal the sentence (which everyone but Alred appears to want) or comply. There seems to be this thread through several posts that whether or not Alred continues to "like" the terms of his probation matters somehow. Its probation. Its supposed to be sufficiently punishing so that he continues, at least for the next 10 years, to think daily about the fact that he KILLED his friend.

Also, I would point out that it seems that the judge did not specify either a religion (faith tradition) or a specific church (congregation). He appears to have left this decision up to Alred so one could argue that if Alred chooses in 5 years to change his religion, he would still meet the terms of his probation as long as he attends some church.

Sentencing someone to attend church regularly is NOT okay. The judge isn't on the bench to enforce religion or church attendance. He just isn't. This is over the line and the judge knew it. It isn't about whether the family is okay with it...that has no bearing on this at all. This is a really slippery slope if it stands, and the judge's behavior isn't professional or ethical.

The info that msn has given us falls far short. If anyone here thinks that the attending church requirement is the ONLY condition of his probation, YOU are the naive ones. He has to remain drug and alcohol free (yes they do test) and stay completely out of trouble for 10 years or he WILL be violated into jail. Sounds like a pretty good incentive to stay on the straight and narrow. Oh well, time will tell.

Well Bill, based on your post I guess we should stop sending people to prison. One of the reasons we send people to prison is to rehabilitate them. If mandatory church attendance won't change someone's behavior, why would we think that mandatory prison attendance would?

And maybe sneak back up for 2nds?

then you have no concept of freedom of personal conviction. people all over the planet have put their lives on the line to prevent having to be forced into that position. our founding fathers understood that misery very clearly, and put it in the constitution. a document you likely treasure.

by the way, it's the FIRST amendment.

actually, the kid chose the freedom of his personal convictions. he already goes to chuch, took the deal to maintain his freedom from going to jail. HIS decision...

Maridanne, you've no conpect of a good deal... and it's people like you that is the reasone our country is on the down skid. I bet you voted for that racist in the White House.

This kid SHOULD go to jail for a very long time... he killed someone. Doesn't matter how or whom, it matters that a serious law was broken and the punishment does not fit the crime. You should be shouting that the judge was to lienant on the kid. Shame on you and your kind for making this about the 1st Amenment. You've no concept of it! If the kid didn't want this SWEEEEET deal, in now way would going to church be part of it.

And what's wrong with learning how to love one another and be a good person? That's what most religions preach.

Exactly. I'm sick of atheist and agnostic liberals taking over this country. Restore Christianity to its former position.

Marianne, you are ignorant of the reason for religious liberty being a part of our constitution. Virginia and Massacheussetts were English colonies. As colonies, they had an "established" church, being the Church of England (Anglican). In Virginia, it was unlawful for non-Anglican ministers to conduct any worship service without obtaining a licence from the governor. Any minister who wanted to conduct services had to make a trip to Williamsburg and give a personal account of why he wanted to conduct such services. The governor would then make a written recommendation to the king of England. If permission were granted, the governor was authorized to present a license to the petitioning minister. The Virginia colony required a tithe (tax) of all citizens to support the Anglican church. Tobacco farmers were required to bring a tenth of their crop to the parish. It would then be sold and the procedes belonged to the Anglican church. The "founding fathers" did not even consider the question of separation of church and state until some Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals, raised the issue. It took these men and a young John Adams, then a student at Harvard, many months to convince the fathers to protect our country from an establishement of religion and also control of the state by a relgion. We can thank these early "protestant" ministers (Christians) for pressuring the founding fathers to gurantee our freedom to worship as we want and to keep the government from controlling the conditions of our religion. There's more detail, but this summary should suffice. The issue had not entered their minds because it was not a problem from their perspective.

BW,

Mike Huckabee isn't doing you any favors...

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, isunconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violatesthe Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

So, that 1st Amendment, is what decrees religion HAS NO legal or governing standing. You can practice it, but you CAN'T govern with it. And the government can't dictate to it, unless it has a compelling state interest in doing so.

In fact, if you took a moment to actually think about it, with a complete separation of church and state, you would have no real freedom to worship as you wish.

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
..........Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And

John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."
..........To John Taylor

And

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And...

Benjamin Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

And don't even try to give me that 10th Amendment, Mike Huckabee crap. Your Constitution also has a little something called incorporation through the 14th Amendment in it. So "states" or "local government" rights as argued through the 10th hasn't been applicable since, oh 1866 or so.

Lots of great postings and research. 2 problems. Not a school. And the kid already goes to the church, took the deal, nothing is being forced or "established"

quit feaking out like a vampire that sees a cross, and get to the real question...is this sentence too light for the crime? seriously, he gets to sit around and listen to stories?

and relax. no one is going to stab you in the heart with a crucifix shaped stake and make you go "poof"

BD,

A PRECEDENT is being established. Regardless of whether the kid took the deal or not, this ruling in and of itself violates our Constitution. The ruling itself is illegal. The judge, by ruling this way and/or even offering it, violated the supreme law of the land. Judges don't get to do that.

quit hyperventilating. nothing was violated except the justice the parents should have gotten with a real sentence. judge did not violate the kids rights, he already goes to the friggin' church! he didn't establish anything, he gave the kid a sweetheart deal, keep ding what you do instead of going to jail, which he took. hell, he allowed the kid to exercise his religion in lieu of getting really punished! it's comical.

nothing was forced on him, he was given a cop-out!

BD,

Do you not grasp the concept of a PRECEDENT. Did you even read my last post, because it's pretty simple to grasp?

The ruling itself is illegal. The judge, by ruling this way and/or even offering it, violated the supreme law of the land. Judges don't get to do that.

By even offering this, the Judge as a state actor has violated the 1st Amendment. So YES, something has been violated, one of the basic tenants and fundamental freedoms that our nation is built on. He does not get to use the power of the state as a spoon to mix together religion and government.

Seriously dude, it's not that hard to get. This is about oversight of our judges to make sure they remain within the bounds of the Constitution. They don't get to step outside of it, EVER. Even with the agreement of those they're ruling over.

BD:

Doesn't matter that the kid decided to take the deal. The problem is with the deal itself: it is illegal.

It is 100% illegal for the government to force someone into or stay in a religion (or lack thereof), even if that person is already a part of it.

You say "nothing is being forced," but you are very wrong. This is a subtle force ruling. If you don't understand that, then you need to brush up on your US and World History. There is a REASON why religions are not (and should never be) in charge of our country or mixed with politics, government, etc.

If this ludicrous ruling is allowed to stay, then many more like it could crop up and violate any person's right to a) choose their belief system, b) choose how and when they worship, and c) choose not to follow any religion. Besides, religions don't magically solve problems. People solve problems.

Thank you for saving me the trouble Sarah 3043284.

Very well done.

Rational,

Yeah, I have it saved on the desktop just for occasions such as these.

Sarah and BD, the church attendance portion of the probation agreement is unconstitutional not illegal. The judge has not commited a crime and he will not go to jail for including this provision in his probation order.

And Sarah, absolutely NO legal precedent is being set by this case. Precedents reside in the application of the law to the circumstances of a particular case, not in the sentencing of that defendant. If, in the future, another judge decides to mandate church attendance as a condition of probation, that future defendant would be absolutely free to appeal that sentence.

that future defendant would be absolutely free to appeal that sentence.

As everyone is absolutely free to appeal ANY decision regardless of how much precedent is backing it up. And, if this isn't challenged or upheld here, the next time it happens and someone APPEALS, this, depending on the court or how high up this goes, it could be used as PRECEDENT to uphold that second sentencing.

The sentencing portion of the trial is still subject to the Constitution, therefore both procedural and substantive issues arise in them, that yes create issues where the law needs to be applied to the circumstances.

And "illegal" encompasses more than merely criminal action. It means contrary to or forbidden by law. I'd say that this contrary to the Constitution and forbidden by it, wouldn't you?

You're using two very, very narrow definitions of those words.

You Go, girl! Go! :)

Sarah-3043284,

I have some quotes from the Founding Father's you missed:

John Adams, October 11, 1798

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

AND

George Washington Inagural speach April 30 1789:

"...since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles
of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the
eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained;
and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the
destiny of the republican model of government are justly
considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the
experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."

AND

Benjamin Rush 1798

"I proceed in the next place, to enquire, what mode of education we shall adopt so as to secure to the state all the advantages that are to be derived from the proper instruction of youth; and here I beg leave to remark, that the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in Religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mahomed inculcated upon our youth, than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles.

The complaints that have been made against religion, liberty and learning, have been, against each of them in a separate state. Perhaps like certain liquors, they should only be used in a state of mixture. They mutually assist in correcting the abuses, and in improving the good effects of each other. From the combined and reciprocal influence of religion, liberty and learning upon the morals, manners and knowledge of individuals, of these, upon government, and of government, upon individuals, it is impossible to measure the degrees of happiness and perfection to which mankind may be raised."

And

More George Washington, Northwest Ordinance, August 7, 1789

“religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to the good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged”

Hopefully these help you round out your quote document.

Really,

Good thing there's a difference between having religion in your government and having religion in your personal life. What your quotes don't address is any support for religion as a governing body, nor are any of the documents they are taken from legal or governing authority.

Sarah,

I never claimed that my quotes support religion as a governing body. I did claim that you needed to round out your quotes. You provided a list of quotes that you felt provide some sort of precedent or "legal / governing authority". None of the Founding Father quotes you provided, or "the documents they are taken from legal or governing authority."

HOWEVER,

The Northwest Ordinance IS a legal and governing document. But I guess you are too busy reading Benjamin Franklin books to be bothered understanding documents that are from key events in the shaping of America.

The Northwest Ordinance IS a legal and governing document. But I guess you are too busy reading Benjamin Franklin books to be bothered understanding documents that are from key events in the shaping of America.

I caught that after it was too late to edit. My bad. However the quote from it doesn't suggest anything about religion being used as governance.

None of the Founding Father quotes you provided, or "the documents they are taken from legal or governing authority."

See everything BEFORE the quotes for that.

Thanks, Sarah, for your additions to the conversation. Precedent seems to be a tricky concept!

I am aware of the information you presented before the quotes. My issue is that it seems you included the quotes to show that our Founding Fathers decried Christianity, when in fact most of the Founding Fathers were proud Christians who recognized the benefits of PRACTICING true Christianity. Where they took exception was church leaders and/or doctrine presuming to tell the government how to lead.

Had you not presented your quotes in such a light, I would not have had to step in to present quotes from the same men showing they were deeply religious and felt that America should be religious as well.

If we look at the quote of Thomas Jefferson in the 1802 letter to the Dansburry Baptists :

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

This quote has been accepted and repeated by the US SUpreme Court in decisions regarding the seperation of Church and State. However, let us look at more quotes from Jefferson, in an 1808 letter to a group of Virginia Baptists:

"We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

While it is not a declaration that Church and State should mix, the line "And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries." Indicates that the current themes of attacking religious beliefs is a direct conflict with the desires of the man who championed this cause.

Consider the context of these documents. Patrick Henry had introduced a bill to allow Virginians to belong to ANY denomination of religion, but require them to belong to a denomination AND pay taxes to that denomination.

In New York and New Jersey, the Duke of York required citizens to pay taxes to support a church, any church. After paying the religion tax, citizens were free to choose which denomination to be a part of.

These are some of the reasons that the Founding Fathers set up the seperation of Church and State. They did not state that the citizens should be oppressed in practicing their religion, nor that they should be forced to have their religious beleifs violated so that those citizens who did not practice any form of religion would not be offended.

Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that if you are offended then the Government must censor the offending material? Why are gay rights activists allowed to teach elementry school children about same sex attraction through tax-payer means, yet Christmas decorations are forbidden? Why is a Christmas tree protested when it is placed on Government property, but workers who profess NO belief in Jesus have no problem taking December 25th off.

The idea that freedom of religion has become freedom from religion is frightening. While I do not believe that religious doctrine should dictate secular law, secular law should not be used to dictate how or where religion is practiced. If the notion of lights on a tree is so offensive, then do not look. The same way that people who find Pride parades in California offensive should look away.

And back to the issue at hand in the article, was it okay for the judge to require church attendance as a part of the deal to prevent jail time? According to Thomas Jefferson, it was:

“The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please”

While I do not agree with the ruling, as I think he should have served a prison sentence.

Which "true" Christianity, Really? There are thousands of different sects that are sometimes in diret conflict over scriptural interpretations, acceptable behavior, nurture/nature, and Jesus' teachings. And which "practices? Accepting all people as children of God, giving to the poor and healing the sick, freeing enslaved people, burning women alive, poisoning the water and air? Church leaders do presume to tell government how to lead, and many assume their doctrines should dictate public policy (gay rights and abortion).

Our founding fathers may have believed in God, but they did not follow the same doctrines. Jefferson did not follow a religion, so he was guided less by doctrine than by principles that emerged from Catholicism, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment. He was a voracious reader, energetic communicator, progressive thinker, and social activist, so I would guess that, were he alive today, he would use the word religion less and the vocabularies of logic, ethics, and social science more. Reason and one's own inquiry are not religious concepts - they are straight from the Enlightenment. Openly expressing our principles of faith and reason would be a founding principle for many Americans, thus the acceptance of other faiths and belief systems would, for them, be a given.

Most of the posters are not attacking religious beliefs. We are attacking the assumption, by some, that certain religious beliefs deserve the legitimacy of judicial and government recognition, whereas other beliefs do not. Would the kid have received the same "sentence" if he were a Sikh or Jew? Would our opinion of the complaint be different? You are in no way oppressed in your practicing your religion, unless you are, say Muslim or Wiccan, nor are your beliefs violated. Your desire to force the practice of them on others is a violation. You are used to being a culture where "we" are all Christians (whether it was true or not). The offense is not in your practice of religion, it is in the assumption that since you practice it and you are the majority, you get to define public life according to your doctrines and dogmas. Add to that the presumption of freedom of religion for me and everyone else are 1) bringing on the end of the world and/or 2) going to hell. It's a bit problematic in the public sphere.

If taxpayer money is funding a school, library, hospital, or building, that place must be welcoming to all citizens. Celebrations of light in the middle of winter have been around much longer than christianity, and belong to many cultures. Christmas is part of that - NOT all. When these spaces have religious-themed decorations, it appears that government and religion are united. There was a time when activists argued against Christmas trees, but they have, through education and social evolution. come to understand the tree in its cultural celebration of light context. Religious symbols are not only cultural, they are specific. They exclude as much as include. The nativity, after all, doesn't have much meaning for a Jew or Buddhist, but it is their government property, too. So it is not the lights on the tree that are unwelcome, it is the assumption that the tree can only mean Christianity.

LGBT issues are, on the other hand, civil issues. It is not the government's job to tell us who we can love or with whom we can enter a contract (to those small-government conservatives). Plus, if any of us are God's creations, we all are. Gays face discrimination in real and sometimes dangerous ways; kids are especially vulnerable. Whether people decided to be gay or not (not), it is not the government's business, and only those who are tied to particular doctrines think it should be. We know boys and girls experiment with sex, they should learn facts - we'd have a healthier society for it.

Freedom of religion has NOT become freedom from religion, except in the minds of conspiracy theorists who feed on hate and fear. Because so many Americans are Christians we make assumptions, just like we do about heterosexuality. The truth is, all your proseletizing, conspiracies, and doom just gets tiresome. You take it for granted, but a lot of us simply don't. And we don't believe in a God who, after giving us this gorgeous blue and green ball to live on, is just sitting around in heaven casting judgments about sending his children to eternal damnation. I'm sorry, to a lot of us that just doesn't work for us.

The Constitution is a "thing of wax" to be molded by an open-minded judiciary and informed citizens as we evolve through education, technology, experience. We no longer think with 17th Century minds. You may not like it, sometimes I don't either. We, as the human species, are experiencing a growth spurt - a global transformation. Every aspect of our lives is being challenged, mirrored, over-explained. I'm amazed at the intellectual difference between myself 45 years ago and young people now. Their competency and interest in the world's problems and joys is wonderful. We can participate together in helping shape the future, or we can fight about christmas trees.

I agree... he should have never given the kid such a sweet deal. He needs to go to jail for a very long time...

Yes, I am!!!!!! Thank you for asking!!!!!! Or were you not talking to me??????

Sadden:

People don't need religion (superstition training) to be good, responsible, and caring. It is people like you who are "stupid and don't see the forest for the trees." A judge can still require the kid to be monitored at all times, attend counseling seminars, and do speeches on how he messed up. It is completely illegal to "legally require" someone to be a part of a religion and attend religious services. The judge can recommend going to Church, but can not require it as part of a ruling.

Sadden, you show your true moral and ethical background by calling our President a rascist.

So you gonna appeal the case? You're neither the defendant, nor the prosecutor. Neither of these has appealed. And the defendant certainly won't appeal.

That's a good point about the kid not wanting to rock the boat (which might not even be the case). That is why such sentencing has an element of coercion. NO attorney worth his job would risk a possibly harsher sentence.

You are 100% right: this is a "no brainer." Many of the posts come from no brains.

Since when does it matter if the defendant is "OK" with his sentence? What in the world are you talking about?

So if you're ever in court and the judge sentences you to attend a Mosque for 10 years as a devout Muslim or go to jail, you're cool with that?

Just making sure that you are, in fact, a supporter of Sharia law.

The issue is not whether or not the boy is okay with going to church for the next ten years as a part of his probation. The issue is whether or not the judge has a legal right to impose such a probation requirement in the first place, because that decision affects the rest of us. Clearly this judge has overstepped his legal authority.

BD.You just dont get it. The ACLU is not involved to keep the kid out of church and made to GO TO PRISON! A judge cant issue a ruling that a person has to attend church! It does not matter that its a church he agrees to, attends and is okay with the deal. Totally irrelavant. So please stop posting your same inane talking points you are just taking space that logical people could use.

i am not religious. but please explain to me excatly how the judge violated the First Amendment? He didn't prohibit the kids free exercise, and he didn't establish a religion. He gave the kid an option, go to jail, or keep going to the church he already attends. If you already go to church, seems like a no-brainer. The only argument is not one of violation of the First Amendment, it's a question of whether or not the deal is "fair" or "sufficient" punishment for the crime. The judge did not force the kid to go to church against his will...

And shame on those who do not know how/why we were guaranteed religious liberty.

BD:

Actually, the judge DID prohibit the kid's First Amendment freedom. This IS a violation of the First Amendment.

Here is an explanation which might help you understand:

The judge (government) ruled (passed a law) stating that the kid IS REQUIRED to attend Church (respecting an establishment of religion which thus impeded free exercise of religion). The kid no longer has the option of converting to a different religion or doing away with religion altogether. That is completely illegal and should not be tolerated.

My question is, let's assume the sentence violated the establishment clause. What is the enforcement? The defendant is not claiming any injury to himself or coercion with respect to his own rights. At this point he may have received a preference (but we don't know if his sentencing was preferential compared to others who have appeared before the court). Federal courts have not allowed "taxpayer standing" in establishment clause cases--so in whose name is the ACLU going to be able to appeal? There has to be a--I forget the precise language--"cause or complaint" in order to sue.

I say this as someone who generally gets very angry about government sponsorship of Christianity--which, contrary to what many people think, is alive and well. In the town neighboring mine, non-Christian and non-denominational Christian public school students are deprived of an hour of school each week so the school buses can transport the Christian students to church religious instruction and later bring them back to school. My son spent time in a psychiatric treatment center as a teen who had been placed in county custody for a time. The center was owned by a church organization that is politically powerful and dominates out of home services for kids in the state. The ACLU where I live was weak and poorly funded (and has since closed its office in the state). My son was browbeaten with religion substituted for legitimate treatment and there was almost nothing I could do about it except get him pulled out of there as quickly as I could (which took 8 months). A few years later, there was a lawsuit against the state for the entity's practices imposing their religion (very conservative Christianity) on kids in their care. But none of the adults named as complainants had minor children in the facilities at the time the suit was filed, so the court recognized only taxpayer standing--which, the court said, was no standing at all.

Regardless of your opinion on this case, there is a good chance nobody can do anything about it unless some other defendant similarly situated who did not get privileged treatment emerges.

Please BD! how amny times does this need to be explained to you?

SR, thanks for your post. These are the kinds of situations we have to be aware of to keep our venerated separation of church and state. Christians in the US make the same kinds of assumptions as Muslims in Iran, yet they don't seem to get that.

SRMcMahon - My question is, let's assume the sentence violated the establishment clause. What is the enforcement?

The enforcement mechanism lies within the state judicial commission, which is where the ACLU filed its complaint.

God bless this man he is obviously a man entrenched in God's holy presence :)

Crappy -- did you hear that? You're entrenched in God's holy presence!

(Because certainly God wouldn't agree with denying your free speech)

@Cappy...

Yep..I agree with S. American 2012..... Shut up Dude... You're dripping spittle all over the place..

The theocrats love their activist judges and hate the Constitution. They have no concept of what it is to live in a free country. How could they when Saudi Arabia is their model society?

Ole-Ed, Beth and Sadden American, I noticed you did not address that right wing evangelicals seem to only have a problem with activist judges when they lean left. Do you have something intellegent to say or are you just going to call me names like a petulant child?

Cappy -- you might want to pay attention a bit more ... or at least learn the definition of sarcasm. My comment was on YOUR side.

I'll explain it to you ... Texas was obviously commenting that SADDEN was "entrenched" ... you'd know that if you read Texas' other stuff. THAT dig was aimed at you. BUT, I chose to turn it around a bit.

Now, go back and reread .... try again. (BTW: at least 4 other people DID get it).

Well, beth, when you start off calling me childish names and not really address my point, I kinda didn't get your brand of sarcasm. And I'm sure a few of your "4 other people that did get it" probably felt the same way.

I didn't realize that they had internet access in the dark ages.... That's where you're posting from, right?

10 years in jail versus 10 years in church - whether it's prisoners or priests, he's in for it either way if you catch my drift...

Texas Conservatism:

This kid wasn't "subjected to Satan's darkness." He was subjected to "alcohol." People tend to make very bad decisions when under the influence of "alcohol." A little jail time followed by years of counseling and therapy and community service along with support from friends and family is what this kid needs. Not Jesus or Allah. If the kid wants to attend Church, then he should have that option. If the kid doesn't want to attend Church, then he should have that option, too.

It is 100% wrong for the judge to pass a ruling (law) concerning religion in any way, shape, or form. America does not follow Sharia law (we wouldn't be the United States of America if we did). If you want it so bad, then move to a Middle Eastern country which still practices it.

LOL mission !!!

HAHAHAHAHA his name is either gonna be bubba or father bubba !

Texas, How about we get rid of all the judges and make people accountable to churches for breaking the law-just like in Iran, or Saudi Arabia and soon to be Egypt. Christian Sharia!

These are the same people that are appauled at Sharia law being practiced in other countries and cannot see the similarities.

These are the same people that are appauled at Sharia law being practiced in other countries and cannot see the similarities.

-just like in Iran, or Saudi Arabia and soon to be Egypt. Christian Sharia!

Stupid stupid stupid. There is no way this situation is like some Muslim country, and don't worry. We can count on at least you two to make sure that the absolute freedom FROM religion covers the land and there is not one existence of any cross, menorah, star of david, crescent, nothing. A completely secular society. Just like your favorite bar. Completely secular.

Levi777 - There is no way this situation is like some Muslim country

One is using law to impose religion, the other is using law to enforce religion. I fail to see any substantive difference.

We've had this discussion before Levi, and it's very clear that Christofascists like yourself want to use our secular government to enforce your Christian sharia laws.

I dont blame them for appealing.

Uh, read the article. The one appealing is the ACLU. The defense lawyer for the perp, the family and the perp himself chose not to appeal. The boy already attends church, with his family. The ACLU is sticking it's nose into the situation.

Levi777 - The ACLU is sticking it's nose into the situation.

Uh, read the article. The ACLU isn't interfering at all in this case (nor would they have standing to do so).

They've simply filed a complaint about the judge's inappropriate conduct with the state's judicial commission.

guess you don't know what your talking about do you?

He she or it that posted this has absolutely no clue Ben. No clue at all.

Ben and RNR, What Tracy and others forget is that the ACLU has also protected rights that conservatives value. The point is "civil liberties." We should all be happy that there is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to the principle that American institutions have to follow the Constitution and to protect the rights of all citizens. Conservatives feel attacked, I suppose, because they are the ones most often trying to step on our civil liberties and getting nailed. A researcher, studying the thinking of Republicans and Democrats, concluded, in part, that Republicans tend not to notice nuance. I hope those researchers have read these posts. They would feel gratified at the accuracy of their conclusion.