quote:

An Alabama town is giving non-violent offenders a choice between going to jail or going to church. But critics, pointing to church-state laws, say the program is not really optional.

The "jail or church" program is called "Operation Restore Our Community," or ROC, and will begin next week, local TV station WKRG reports.

How the program works is simple: offenders found guilty of misdemeanors will either pay their debt to society by paying fines and going to jail, or going to church every Sunday for a year. If offenders choose church, they will have to check in with pastors and police weekly. At the end of the year, their case is dismissed.

"It's an easy choice for me," says Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland. "If I had to choose between going to jail and paying a heavy fine or going to church, I'd certainly select church."

"That's no choice at all," Robert Boston, the senior policy adviser at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The Christian Post. "The equivalency is so out of whack, it’s ridiculous."

The lop-sidedness of the two choices is essentially a way of "funneling people into churches," Boston said.

He also noted the ROC program is offensive to nonreligious people as well as people of other faiths, since offenders are not given a choice that represents their beliefs.

However, even with religious alternatives, Boston still finds the program to be problematic. "It's not the job of the government to place people in places of worship," he said.

quote:

It’s a long-settled principle of law that the government cannot condition a desirable benefit, such as staying out of jail, on a person’s willingness to adopt a certain faith or even be exposed to it. This program is patently unconstitutional, and if the city insists on going ahead with it, it’s only a matter of time before someone sues.

In the media coverage about this matter, I’ve noticed that all of the talk centers on churches. Supposedly, 56 churches have agreed to take part. I did a little research about Bay Minette this morning. What struck me was that for a town of 8,500, it sure has a lot of Baptist churches. (I guess I shouldn’t have been too surprised. This is southern Alabama, after all.) Other denominations listed included Pentecostal, United Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Roman Catholic and Assemblies of God. I didn’t see anything non-Christian listed.

Of course, the town’s religious diversity (or lack thereof) isn’t relevant. Bay Minette could have a range of Christian and non-Christian houses of worship in town. It still wouldn’t be right for the government to set up a program to channel people into them. Rehabilitating small-time offenders is a noble goal, but the town will need to come up with something else. Putting people in a position where they are forced to choose between sitting behind bars or going to religious services is patently unconstitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lazarus1983

Well that's an interesting idea. Take people who commit selfless actions, and put them in a setting that promotes selflessness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Unconstitutional.  Years ago, these same people would have been the choice--jail or the military.  Now its jail or church??  I wonder if the town went so far as to say which churches are acceptable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel

Unconstitutional.  Years ago, these same people would have been the choice--jail or the military.  Now its jail or church??  I wonder if the town went so far as to say which churches are acceptable?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

In this instance

Church = freedom
Jail = incarceration

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So as an act of redemption for a civil or criminal impropriety, the civil and criminal adjucator will offer me a choice in my act of contrition to perform a civil and criminal impropriety?

Why not just make me smoke a funnie? I could get with that.