Jump to content



Photo

Judge Sentences Teen to Church

oklahoma manslaughter underage drinking

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#16 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 63,512 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 18 November 2012 - 14:36

"attend a church of his choosing"


Flying Spaghetti Monster ? :laugh:


#17 FMH

FMH

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,168 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 10

Posted 18 November 2012 - 22:27

"attend a church of his choosing"


But the boy could be an atheist.

#18 *RedBull*

*RedBull*

    skippy de do da

  • 4,640 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 06
  • Location: Everywhere and No where
  • OS: Windows 8 professional
  • Phone: Android

Posted 18 November 2012 - 22:30

Forcing your religious views on someone is wrong!

Tell that to islamists.

#19 jakem1

jakem1

    Neowinian Senior

  • 6,678 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 18 November 2012 - 22:40

Tell that to islamists.


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

#20 TPreston

TPreston

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,701 posts
  • Joined: 18-July 12
  • Location: Ireland
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Enterprise & Server 2012R2/08R2 Datacenter
  • Phone: Nokia Lumia 1520

Posted 18 November 2012 - 22:56

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)


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 "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.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, 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:

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


aka do a biblical interpretation

#21 zivan56

zivan56

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,389 posts
  • Joined: 18-September 01
  • Location: Vancouver, BC

Posted 18 November 2012 - 23:00

So if he's atheist, he can go to the library?


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...

#22 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 18 November 2012 - 23:10

One can summarize and suppose all day long, or research the actual quote and not take it out of context. It was written by Thomas Jefferson 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.



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.


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:


Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.
Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court 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 Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,[1] Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[2]


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.

#23 vetJohn S.

John S.

     ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  • 19,544 posts
  • Joined: 18-January 02
  • Location: NE 10EC
  • OS: OSX Lion
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 19 November 2012 - 00:30

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 "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.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, 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


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.


Judiciary: The judiciary (also known as the judicial system) is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state.

Legislature: A legislature is a kind of deliberative assembly with the power to pass, amend, and repeal laws .

We all clear now, or are you guys still confused? Because the actual 1st amendment to the Constitution doesn't apply here.

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



#24 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 00:37

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

However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court 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 Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,[1] Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."[2]



#25 ~Johnny

~Johnny

    Earthling

  • 3,293 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 08
  • Location: London, England, Earth, Milky Way

Posted 19 November 2012 - 00:44

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...


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.

#26 Som

Som

    Neowinian

  • 821 posts
  • Joined: 14-December 06
  • Location: Ireland

Posted 19 November 2012 - 00:52

I'd prefer jail time...

#27 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 00:54

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.


Yes a good place for a self-reflection that espouse the concept that you believe in a creator. Some people do not believe in a creator. :p

#28 *RedBull*

*RedBull*

    skippy de do da

  • 4,640 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 06
  • Location: Everywhere and No where
  • OS: Windows 8 professional
  • Phone: Android

Posted 19 November 2012 - 00:56

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

Your reasoning don't make sense.

#29 Shane Nokes

Shane Nokes

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,243 posts
  • Joined: 29-July 12

Posted 19 November 2012 - 00:58

Your reasoning don't make sense.


Actually it does make sense. They are saying that if it is wrong for people of one religion to force their beliefs on someone, then it is equally wrong for someone of another religion to do so as well.

They are basically stating that your position is a strawman since it is wrong for anyone to do so.

#30 n_K

n_K

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,419 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 06
  • Location: here.
  • OS: FreeDOS
  • Phone: Nokia 3315

Posted 19 November 2012 - 01:00

What a joke, guy kills someone so is sent to church...
Judge should be imprisoned with immediate effect and have no chance of parole.