DUIs and religious punishment

M

missmaryjane1804

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
15
SC JUDGE SENTENCES DRUNK DRIVER TO BIBLE STUDY

A judge in Rock Hill, South Carolina, has issued a sentence that may have some cheering and others…scratching their heads. Circuit Court Judge Michael Nettles not only gave Cassandra Tolley, 28, an eight-year prison sentence, substance abuse counseling and five years of probation for drunk driving, but he also mandated that she do a Bible study. Yes, that’s right — as in a reading and examination of the Holy Bible.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sc-judge-sentences-drunk-driver-to-bible-study-but-why/


TEEN SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS OF CHURCH ATTENDANCE AFTER DUI MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION

An Oklahoma teenager In Muskogee, Oklahoma, who pleaded guilty in the tragic death of another teen has been given an interesting sentence: 10 years of church attendance in exchange for not heading to prison. The defendant, Tyler Alred, 17, is not fighting a judge’s mandate, as his lawyer deems the decision both fair and appropriate.
(Although not legally drunk – he was given two breath tests, which, at 0.06 and 0.07, fell below the legal 0.08 blood-alcohol threshold for legal drunkenness – he was underage and, as a result, considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol.)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/judge-sentences-teen-to-10-years-of-church-attendance-after-dui-manslaughter-conviction/#


What i get out of this is that no matter how crazy of an idea the judge is throwing out if the defendant just agrees it goes without question?? People need to learn their rights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"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 opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Thomas Jefferson
 
There is no way this would hold up in court. no one, and especially a US court can force you to go to church. I bet if they stop going and get locked up because of it a lawyer that is worth his salt would get it thrown out.
 
There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in the US, but all the money says "In God We Trust".

I would rather go to church for 10 years than prison. I would bring something to do to pass the time, like a video game or something to read. Once or twice, I would like to show up peaking on mushrooms and try to induce a spiritual/religious experience.
 
heh funny you mention that, cuz i've been atheist much more of my life than christian, yet religious stuff (particularly detailed jeebus prints) is still pretty intense when tripping.. always write it off to my past beliefs.
/and am sure you didn't mean it as such, but there's clearly a huge difference not just in magnitude, but in essence/principle, between writing it on money, and forcing indoctrination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bmxxx said:
am sure you didn't mean it as such, but there's clearly a huge difference not just in magnitude, but in essence/principle, between writing it on money, and forcing indoctrination.
Click to expand...

It does seem a lot more heinous when the court forces people to undergo indoctrination.
But putting it on the money - the symbol of the country - and in the national anthem (final verse, not usually sung) - is representative of the deep-seeded problem - the contradiction between what the US is supposed to do, and what it really does. It is also a kind of indoctrination, though maybe more subtle.
 
a candidate's beliefs (and virtually *anything* that a candidate consciously chooses) are wholly relevant to their person/character.
/not even sure who/what you're referring to with that, but don't see how it's improper to consider any and all aspects of a presidential candidate.
 
Complete violation of one's constitutional rights. But hey, most judges have an IQ of about what? 4? 5? Maybe 6 if they are lucky.
 
In high school, one of classmates was struggling on a quiz. He knew the teacher was strongly christian. He didn't know 7 of the answers on a 12 question quiz so he just wrote "Jesus" in the the rest of the blanks. The next day, the teacher held him after class to ask why he wrote Jesus for 7 answers. He told her, "Because Mrs.teacher, Jesus is always the right answer." and she gave him 100% on the quiz.

I shit you not...
 
i cannot even begin to explain the shit we woulda pulled on that teacher had it been in my highschool.


wow i WISH that had happened at my school lol
/presuming this was a public school? if it was a xtian school then non-issue.
 
bmxxx said:
a candidate's beliefs (and virtually *anything* that a candidate consciously chooses) are wholly relevant to their person/character.
/not even sure who/what you're referring to with that, but don't see how it's improper to consider any and all aspects of a presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

What I had in mind when I posted that was the fuss the Republicans were causing over the lack of the Democrats' use of the word "God" during the DNC. I do agree with you though, but I feel there are other ways of figuring out a person's moral or ethical standings without going into religion, especially when most people don't adhere strictly to the rules of their chosen beliefs most of the time anyway.

To me it should be taken in a passing glance and not looked into as deeply as it seems to be today (sorry don't have any specific examples off the top of my head) and policy should be the first and foremost decision making factor (not that I'm saying that it isn't, but some people seem to take the candidate's personal beliefs into account, either with bias or in a discriminatory fashion.)

Again I'm not disagreeing with you, what you said is true. Anyway, we digress.
 
bmxxx said:
a candidate's beliefs (and virtually *anything* that a candidate consciously chooses) are wholly relevant to their person/character.
/not even sure who/what you're referring to with that, but don't see how it's improper to consider any and all aspects of a presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

You'll never really get to hear a candidate's true beliefs on most topics. There's no way to tell the difference between a candidate who is really Christian and one who is just Christian for show. They know that a huge portion of America is Christian so of course they're going to look all religious to get votes.

I really wish people would see through the dishonesty of politicians. Once they are at the level of a Presidential election, they really are lying scum.
 
o i agree foreigner, and that doesn't just apply to their religious beliefs but to tons of other (far more important) beliefs.

Re religion, hell, *i've* pretended to be christian for business purposes (will leave the firm's name out, but an important realty company i worked with for like 3-4mo, the branch i worked with, and particular the two ppl there i had to be around the most, were devout xtians and believed me to be. Well, at least off the bat, i think they had their doubts towards the end, and not because i contradicted anything but just because, if you knew me, you'd find it incredibly hard to believe i was religious)
 
LogicSoDeveloped said:
In high school, one of classmates was struggling on a quiz. He knew the teacher was strongly christian. He didn't know 7 of the answers on a 12 question quiz so he just wrote "Jesus" in the the rest of the blanks. The next day, the teacher held him after class to ask why he wrote Jesus for 7 answers. He told her, "Because Mrs.teacher, Jesus is always the right answer." and she gave him 100% on the quiz.

I shit you not...
Click to expand...

Just.... damn.
So wrong on so many levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top