Jump to content

41 posts in this topic

Posted

Anybody who knows Oklahoma District Court Judge Mike Norman probably yawned at the news that he'd sentenced a teen offender to attend church as part of his probation arrangement, and that the judge's pastor was in the courtroom at the time.

Not only had he handed down such a sentence before, but he'd required one man to bring the church program back with him when he reported to court.

"The Lord works in many ways," Norman, 69, told ABC News today. "I've done a little bit of this kind of thing before, but never on such a serious charge."

Norman sentenced Tyler Alred, 17, Tuesday after he pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in August for killing friend and passenger John Luke Dum in a car crash.

Dum died on impact in December after Alred crashed his Chevrolet pickup truck, ejecting Dum. Alred was 16 at the time of the crash and had been drinking prior to the deadly accident.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol issued a Breathalyzer at the time, and although Alred was under the state's legal alcohol limit, he had been drinking underage.

The judge could have sent Alred to jail but, instead, taking into account his clean criminal and school records, sentenced him to wear a drug and alcohol bracelet, participate in counseling groups and attend a church of his choosing - weekly. He must also graduate from high school.

To avoid jail time, Norman gave Alred a maximum 10-year deferred sentence.

[url="http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/oklahoma-judge-sentences-teen-church-10-years-204920227--abc-news-topstories.html"]more[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Forcing your religious views on someone is wrong!
11 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It did say a church of hos choice.. so at least he has that..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Good choice from the judge imo, all the items in the 2nd last sentence will help the guy, jail would make things worse imo

[quote name='Fus10n' timestamp='1353175007' post='595328444']
It did say a church of hos choice.. so at least he has that..
[/quote]

Judge will twist if he decides on a devil worshipping / spiritualist church :p
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Could a Church of your choice be a mosque?
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So much for separation of church and state...
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Tom' timestamp='1353176506' post='595328498']
So much for separation of church and state...
[/quote]

Judges don't make laws, no law respecting the establishment of any religion was made here. Nice try quoting the phrase that doesn't exist anywhere in America's foundational documents though. (Y)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I guess the judge figured the teen needed to get some moral training from somewhere.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Asrokhel' timestamp='1353174798' post='595328442']
Forcing your religious views on someone is wrong!
[/quote]

I guess it would be better in jail where he will learn a trade.... :shifty:
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Asrokhel' timestamp='1353174798' post='595328442']
Forcing your religious views on someone is wrong!
[/quote]

"attend a church of his choosing"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='John S.' timestamp='1353195181' post='595329048']
Judges don't make laws, no law respecting the establishment of any religion was made here. Nice try quoting the phrase that doesn't exist anywhere in America's foundational documents though. (Y)
[/quote]

There's actually quite a lot of evidence to support the idea of "separation of church and state", and the fact that it was an intended result of the first amendment. You can read a lot about it on Wikipedia, but I'll summarize with a few quotes.

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was written originally by Thomas Jefferson states.
[quote]No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[/quote]

Not really a "founding" document, but this idea was repeatedly enforced and recommended by several of the early founding fathers.
Here's an excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli ratified in 1797.
[quote]As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[/quote]

At the end of the day, I don't think anybody should be able to force anybody else to attend, or not to attend, a place of worship, nor should they be forced to respect, believe, or participate in any religion, or be forbidden from practising a religion of their choosing, unless it infringes on the rights of those not wishing to participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Fus10n' timestamp='1353175007' post='595328444']
It did say a church of hos choice.. so at least he has that..
[/quote]

He should visit a library or maybe a university, and claim that is his 'church' of choice.

Although, given how lightly he's getting off, it's probably best to not complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Gerowen' timestamp='1353205689' post='595329338']
There's actually quite a lot of evidence to support the idea of "separation of church and state", and the fact that it was an intended result of the first amendment. You can read a lot about it on Wikipedia, but I'll summarize with a few quotes.

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which was written originally by Thomas Jefferson states.


Not really a "founding" document, but this idea was repeatedly enforced and recommended by several of the early founding fathers.
Here's an excerpt from the Treaty of Tripoli ratified in 1797.


At the end of the day, I don't think anybody should be able to force anybody else to attend, or not to attend, a place of worship, nor should they be forced to respect, believe, or participate in any religion, or be forbidden from practising a religion of their choosing, unless it infringes on the rights of those not wishing to participate.
[/quote]

One can summarize and suppose all day long, or research the actual quote and [b]not[/b] take it out of context. It was written by [color=#282828]Thomas [/color]Jefferson[color=#282828] in a letter to a Baptist church who was concerned about a widespread rumor that there would be a "National" religion known as the Congregationalists.[/color]

[quote]I contemplate with solemn 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. [size=3]Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.[/size][/quote]

So again back to the topic, no law created in this case and the gentleman was given his choice of which church to attend. The judiciary and the legislature are two totally different things.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Well this may be against the law.
The article states that it is not a case of "Go to Church or..." but "and go to church"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So if he's atheist, he can go to the library?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Doli' timestamp='1353205267' post='595329326']
"attend a church of his choosing"
[/quote]

Flying Spaghetti Monster ? :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Doli' timestamp='1353205267' post='595329326']
"attend a church of his choosing"
[/quote]

But the boy could be an atheist.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='Asrokhel' timestamp='1353174798' post='595328442']
Forcing your religious views on someone is wrong!
[/quote]
Tell that to islamists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='*RedBull*' timestamp='1353277837' post='595331294']
Tell that to islamists.
[/quote]

So (following your logic) you think that two wrongs make a right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='John S.' timestamp='1353195181' post='595329048']
Judges don't make laws, no law respecting the establishment of any religion was made here. Nice try quoting the phrase that doesn't exist anywhere in America's foundational documents though. (Y)
[/quote]

President Thomas Jefferson's Response
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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 legislative 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 "[url="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights"]make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/url],"[size=6][u][b] thus building a wall of separation between church and State[/b][/u][/size]. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_conscience"]rights of conscience[/url], I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights"]natural rights[/url], convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_man"]Creator of man[/url], and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States


Now there's something you wont find on Wing Nut Daily :rolleyes:

[quote] One can summarize and suppose all day long, or research the actual quote and [b]not[/b] take it out of context[/quote]

aka do a biblical interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='@Leo' timestamp='1353209262' post='595329484']
So if he's atheist, he can go to the library?
[/quote]

This. The judge is assuming everyone is religious, which is fundamentally wrong. The judge is also telling the person to provide service only to a select part of the community in which he offended, not the community as a whole. Quite shocking, I certainly hope the article is only the half-truth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='John S.' timestamp='1353208784' post='595329446']
One can summarize and suppose all day long, or research the actual quote and [b]not[/b] take it out of context. It was written by [color=#282828]Thomas [/color]Jefferson[color=#282828] in a letter to a Baptist church who was concerned about a widespread rumor that there would be a "National" religion known as the Congregationalists.[/color]



So again back to the topic, no law created in this case and the gentleman was given his choice of which church to attend. The judiciary and the legislature are two totally different things.
[/quote]

It was later reinterpreted via court rulings. Just because you've read the original text doesn't mean you've researched the history of it yourself. Don't criticize someone for their ability to research a topic if you haven't done all the work yourself.

Here's some data:


[quote]
Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Tabular_summary"]established churches[/url] when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.
Subsequently, [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v._Board_of_Education"]Everson v. Board of Education[/url][/i] (1947) [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights"]incorporated[/url] the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States"]Supreme Court[/url] began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_of_Kiryas_Joel_Village_School_District_v._Grumet"]Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet[/url][/i],[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1"][1][/url][/sup] Justice [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter"]David Souter[/url], writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion"]irreligion[/url]."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-2"][2][/url][/sup]
[/quote]

I'll make a TL;DR for you.

It now applies to states.
It is now designed to prevent promotion of religion.
It is now designed to prevent preference of one religion over another, or even religion to irreligion.


So basically over the years more has happened, and new rulings have been made. The case of separation of church and state is now fact and indeed law via precedence.

So yes, this is illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='TPreston' timestamp='1353279412' post='595331352']
President Thomas Jefferson's Response
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
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 legislative 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 "[url="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights"]make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/url],"[size=6][u][b] thus building a wall of separation between church and State[/b][/u][/size]. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_conscience"]rights of conscience[/url], I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights"]natural rights[/url], convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_of_man"]Creator of man[/url], and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States


Now there's something you wont find on Wing Nut Daily :rolleyes:



aka do a biblical interpretation
[/quote]

[quote name='Shane Nokes' timestamp='1353280217' post='595331398']
It was later reinterpreted via court rulings. Just because you've read the original text doesn't mean you've researched the history of it yourself. Don't criticize someone for their ability to research a topic if you haven't done all the work yourself.

Here's some data:




I'll make a TL;DR for you.

It now applies to states.
It is now designed to prevent promotion of religion.
It is now designed to prevent preference of one religion over another, or even religion to irreligion.


So basically over the years more has happened, and new rulings have been made. The case of separation of church and state is now fact and indeed law via precedence.

So yes, this is illegal.[/quote]

[b]Judiciary[/b]: The judiciary (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts tha[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]t [/size][/font][/color][size=5][b]interprets and applies the law[/b][/size] [color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]in the name of the [/size][/font]state[/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3].[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3][b]Legislature[/b]: [/size][/font][/color]A legislature is a kind of deliberative assembly with the[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] [size=5][b]power to pass, amend, and repeal laws [/b][/size][/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3].[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]We all clear now, or are you guys still confused? Because the actual 1st amendment to the Constitution doesn't apply here.[/size][/font][/color]

[quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yup it's clear. You didn't read what I said, or don't want to believe it.

[quote]However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the [b][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States"]Supreme Court[/url] began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states[/b]. In the [i][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_of_Kiryas_Joel_Village_School_District_v._Grumet"]Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet[/url][/i],[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1"][1][/url][/sup] Justice [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter"]David Souter[/url], writing for the majority, concluded that "[b]government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion"]irreligion[/url][/b]."[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-2"][2][/url][/sup][/quote]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

[quote name='zivan56' timestamp='1353279632' post='595331368']
This. The judge is assuming everyone is religious, which is fundamentally wrong. The judge is also telling the person to provide service only to a select part of the community in which he offended, not the community as a whole. Quite shocking, I certainly hope the article is only the half-truth...
[/quote]

He's not assuming everyone is religious. The point is not to make the person to believe in a god, but to try and make them think about their life and the impact on others. Churches are good places for self reflection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.