mrlewish: So when he gets out in a couple years and drunk drives again is the Judge going to declare that the Bible is full of shait?

No, but it will mean that the Bible turns people to sex change operations (it was a woman).

technicolor-misfit: FTA - While some have expressed some constitutional concerns, Kenneth Gaines, a University of South Carolina professor of law specializing in civil and criminal litigation, told a local publication that such a sentence is acceptable if the defendant consents to it.

"Under normal circumstances, the judge wouldn't have the authority to do that ... You can't just arbitrarily add anything you want to a sentence," said Gaines in an interview with The Herald of Rock Hill.

"But if she consented, it's really not an issue. It's critical that the defendant was in entire agreement with it."


I think that's a crock. It's still the court showing preference to and promoting one religion over all other beliefs or lack thereof.

Can he sentence the defendant to suck his cock, so long as "she was in entire agreement with it?"

Improper is improper, regardless of what the person who is at your mercy "consents" to.

That's the very definition of "abuse of authority," leveraging your power in order to do something that you shouldn't, couldn't, and/or likely wouldn't be able to do otherwise.

Derp.

1. Cocks aren't traditionally on the approved reading list in jail.

2. Cocks have nothing to do with drinking too much.

3. You can't write a book report on a cock.

4. This ADDED to her sentence.

If anything you should be outraged he's discriminating against Christians.

majshark: The defendant agreed to this. Faith-based recovery works (94% successful recovery), versus the government-sanctioned solutions (only 3% recover).

Facts are great things.


None of those facts mean shiat. The judge should keep his religious beliefs out of our farking legal system. I'm curious: What alternative sentence was hanging over the defendant's head if she had decided NOT to consent to reading the Bible as punishment? What if the defendant was Buddhist? Would they be offered the same opportunity?

Waldo Pepper:

actually the government can not force it's way into the church or favor one religion over another and at first this only held to the federal gov't and not state gov't. there is nothing about religion not being part of the people (which is the government).

and the Christian religion pretty much guided a whole lot of who we were for the first couple hundred years. DC schools the first two books chosen by jefferson for the kids to learn to read from were a hymnal and the Bible.

the founding fathers never meant for God/Religion to be taken out of our government like it is being forced out today like it is a crime to believe.

the separation was meant so the feds wouldn't be involved in the church not so the churches wouldn't be involved in our government or do not those who have faith not count as being part of the government.

Would you accept a government that explicitly honored a religion other than your own? For example, would you accept an explicitly Muslim government?

If not, why not?

Waldo Pepper: friday13: rumpelstiltskin: kid_icarus: Circuit Court Judge Michael Nettles of Rock Hill has included in his sentencing of Cassandra Tolley the assignment of reading through the Book of Job and then writing a summary on the Old Testament Scripture.

You know, I could almost be okay with this if he'd assigned her to study something like Proverbs or the teachings of Jesus (which for the most part contain a lot of universal, practical wisdom). I'm a little unsure what he expects her to glean from such an obscure old testament book, though, that is essentially a Jewish fable.

Job is a rejection of retributative justice; I'm not sure what the judge means that to imply in the context of an 8 year prison sentence. Maybe he means something like, "I think you're scum. But maybe God disagrees." Which is probably as close to thinking like a Christian as a Baptist is likely to get.

Really? Even when I was still a practicing jew, I always saw Job as a pretty clear demonstration of how dickish/gullible god could be.

and yet it seems everyone knows about or has read the book of Job and at some point in our life we feel like Job that everything is going against us and we did nothing to deserve it.

hmmm, seems like a brilliant plan on God's part to allow for such a story to take place.

Nobody's ever made it to the second half of Job, where Job confronts God and God doesn't answer his question ("Why did you do all this to me, dickhead?")

The book of Job is the best example I know of that the Bible is just a bunch of folk tales stapled together. The first half of Job is the old story of how bad things happen to good people, with the then-current theological explanation. The second half--obviously not written by the same author--is a mystical and poetic account of how God works in mysterious ways, and has NOTHING to do with the first half's bet between Satan and God. In the first part, there is a human-like and involved god, in the second, a distant and unconcerned God is so busy with everything else, man's welfare is just an afterthought.

Proof positive thou shalt not read the Bible for its prose.

Waldo Pepper:

Would you accept a government that explicitly honored a religion other than your own? For example, would you accept an explicitly Muslim government?

If not, why not?

well this is not the case with our country, if I moved to iran I would have to accept it even if they offered freedom of religion I would know most of those folks in power have believe a certain way.

the point is that separation of church/state was not meant to be that the church doesn't get involved with the state , if was meant that the state doesn't try to run the church. Also it left it up to the states how much they wanted to get involved

You really didn't answer my question.

If the US government selected one religion that all citizens were required to pay fealty to, and it was not yours, would you consider that a legitimate thing for the federal government to do?

Waldo Pepper:

well since I'm still waiting for your answer on where does it say that our government is not allowed to have any religion it, i find your question moot.


I'll go with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Does that work for you? I could discuss the 14th amendment and a couple centuries worth of case law that support the notion that the US is not, never has been, and was explicitly designed not to be a theocracy, but it really does derive from those 16 words.

Nobody (especially not me) is suggesting that religion should be prohibited, so please climb back down off the cross and discuss this as though you were a reasonable adult.

The government is not allowed to favor any one religion over any other. Not even yours. That's what the establishment clause really means.


but I do believe I answered it as I stated our government was not allowed to pick one religion which when founded was almost more denominational based than religion based. but it did permit the states to do so.


Amendment 14, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The individual states are prohibited from abridging those rights of citizens that are guaranteed by the Constitution. The various states may not enact or enforce laws that violate the freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution. This includes the establishment clause. Your state does not have the right to institute an official state religion any more than the federal government has the right to institute a national religion. The laws are quite explicit here- you cannot use the force of law to require people to observe, practice, or pay fealty to your preferred religion, and they cannot use the force of law to require you to observe, practice, or pay fealty to their religion.

This is a good thing.

I understand that you are convinced that your religion is the only one that is "really true" and all others are wrong. I want to make sure that you are aware that everyone else thinks that their religion is really true, and yours is wrong.

If you want the government to protect you from having to pay homage to their beliefs, you have to understand that they want the same freedom to avoid paying homage to your beliefs.



but it also permitted the schools to teach the 10 commandments, to have Bible studies and prayer.

Those are still permitted. They just are not required. There is a difference.


so we have moved quite far away from what our founding fathers permitted in government life.

You will want to look up the words "permitted," "required," and "prohibited," and think deeply about the subtle, but important differences between them.

You should also know that I am a teacher, and therefore a representative of my city, county, state, and national government, and so I have looked into this issue. My students are permitted to pray, but they are not required to do so and I am not permitted to lead them. The restrictions are on me, the "authority figure," and not on my students.



So now I have answered your question, but you still have not answered my question. If the US government selected one religion that all citizens were required to pay fealty to, and it was not yours, would you consider that a legitimate thing for the federal government to do?

TV's Vinnie: Just wait till some judge imposes a brutally harsh sentence on a defendant just because they're wiccan. Oh, the ACLU won't stop fappin' once that happens.

Not likely. The ACLU isn't exactly known for picking up on Wiccan/Pagan injustices. The only ones they might get involved in would be slam-dunk guaranteed wins, and those that are extremely high profile. But when it comes to smaller cases, if it is a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Etc being discriminated against, the ACLU often will get involved. But there have been smaller cases that involved Wiccans and Pagans that the ACLU declined to assist with.

/Not saying they are anti-Pagan
//Just saying

If you live a good life and do everything right, God will strike you down just to impress the devil by showing him that no matter what happens, you're still an ass kissing tool.

Another great pearl of wisdom from 3000-years-dead goat herders.