White Conservative judge lets white kid get away with murder.

[TX-Beau]

The worst sentence he got is having to live with this on his conscience for the rest of his life.

I don't think there is need for the justice system to give him a harsh sentence.

Which would be fine except that the collective American Psyche has this Sub/Dom kink wherein if little Mikey has been a bad boy there MUST be spanking!!!!

Oh and yeah welcome aboard! The dungeon is down the hall on the right.

[Rolyo85]

Most people do have a conscience

[Kulindahr]

That's beyond the point. There is no such thing as "atheist morals". Morals that are secular don't come from atheist groups. Atheism isn't an organized religion and it doesn't have a structure. Dawkins is a very intelligent man, but he speaks for himself (and I respect that).

Ah -- so you admit that ahteists have no morals, and the fundamentalist Christians are right?

Nothing you say here is relevant. There are atheist groups which uphold and advocate morals. You are assuming that if he kid had been an atheist, the judge would have still told him to go to church, a position for which there is no evidence.

You're the one making the assertion, you have to provide evidence, but all you have is assertions.

Read the source I posted.

I did. It doesn't address the issue.

Guilty until proven innocent? That's ironic.

Just because I don't lock step with the founding fathers elevating them above everything else does not mean I'm a bad person or a bad citizen for that matter. They are not infallible. And I wish people would stop citing the history as something desirable to replicate. This is the 21st century. Not the 18th century.

Your position boils down to that they should have thrown out their slaves to live in homelessness and extreme poverty, just waiting to be kidnapped and sold back into slavery. The Founding Fathers had more compassion than that. Jefferson and Washington both patiently built up wealth not for themselves, but to set up their slaves, once freed, in security and not destitude.

Oh -- yes, your approach is guilty until proven innocent, because you've charged the judge with something for which you have no evidence, and convicted him on the basis of your assumption.

[Kulindahr]

not sure if you are more concerned about the 'sentencing' or the 'conviction'. i agree with you in spirit that ya he was responsible for someones death and i could see how you may feel its murder. however American culture has accepted two things that are slowly changing: a penchant for conservative Christianity and our irresponsible society as it relates to traffic deaths/cars/alcohol.

The alcohol laws we have in place result in teen death because it deprives them of any guidance. What's needed is a system where adult mentors would be trained, and teens would be allowed to drink with their responsible supervision.


Point of Information: that's reactionary Christianity -- conservative Christians hold that the church has no business trying to impose its views on unbelievers by the coercion of law, but are to devote themselves to preaching the Gospel and doing the good works that proceed from it.

[Kulindahr]

The worst sentence he got is having to live with this on his conscience for the rest of his life.

I don't think there is need for the justice system to give him a harsh sentence.

This.

And if the friend for whose death he's responsible went to the same church, every time he walks in there will be a reminder of what by any measure in Christianity was a grievous sin.

[Kulindahr]

Most people do have a conscience

In a way it doesn't matter if he has a conscience. He will replay this in his mind, trying to make it come out different, wishing it hadn't happened that way, longing to have done things differently.

And in that last there is the beginning of a conscience.

[Rolyo85]

I am not sure why you are arguing with Giancarlo. Whether the judge would have sentenced the kid to Atheist Camp or whatnot is beside the point. What he DID was he included going to church in a secular sentence. Which is unconstitutional.

[TX-Beau]

Well, technically speaking I don't think it is.

Unconscionable? Sure, illegal - grey area.

[JayHawk]

What is the difference between that sentence which is direct and the local community service management that takes in ALL persons sent by the courts and then sends them to work community service? SOme of those are keep the neighborhood beautiful stuff but alot of them are churches... so another free benefit for those that hate you not so straight acting people.... lets try Missouri for kicks...

http://kc-crime.org/?zone=/unionacti...rvice20Program

Adopt Downtown KCK (Wyandotte Services & Works)
Adopt Prospect
Adopt Truman Road
All Saints Perish
Christ Church of Second Chances
City of Blue Springs
City of North Kansas City
City of Oakview
City of Randolph
City of Smithville
City of Smithville - Recycling Program
Community Assistance Council
Community Mediation Center
Cross-Lines
Cross-Lines Retirement Center
Fairmount Community Center
Faith Bible College
First Call
Habitat Restore KCMO
Halfway Home Pet Adoption
Harvesters
Heartland Habitat Restore
Helping Hands Therapeutic Riding Center
Hillcrest Community Center
Hillcrest Thrift Shop
Independence Animal Shelter
Independence Public Works Clean-Up Program
Ivanhoe Neighborhood Council
James A. Reed Memorial Wildlife Area
Jewish Vocational Services
Kansas City Municipal Court
Kansas City North Community Center
KC Masonic Temple
Kansas City Parks & Recreation Department (Districts 1,2,3)
Kansas City, KS Clean-Up Program
Kansas City, MO Clean-Up Program
Lee's Summit Social Services
Mercy Oakwood Gardens
Metropolitan Lutheran Ministry
Metropolitan Lutheran Ministries (KCK)
MODOT
Mohart
National World War I Museum at Liberty Memorial
New Reflections
Palestine Neighborhood Center
Preferred Family Healthcare
Restart
Ruskin Heights Homes Association
Southside Clean Up
Synergy In Style Thrift Store
The Don Bosco Center
Tony Aquire Community Center
Turnstyles - Olathe
Turnstyles - Overland Park
Union Station of Kansas City
Unity Church of Overland Park
VFW Hall - Lee's Summit
Vietnam Veterans of America
Wayside Waifs
Westport-Roanoke Community Center
Wyandotte County Unified Goveranment - Records Management

That is just the blatant "in name" orgs that are faith based and get free work from the criminals.... I could if i cared probably find a religious connection to the fifty percent of the remaining orgs but i don't have the time....

[TX-Beau]

There is a difference between being ordered to help an org clean up the street, and being ordered to go practice a religion.

Not that the judge said that EXPLICITLY , or maybe he did, this is all murky waters as far as constitutionalit is concerned.

[Kulindahr]

I am not sure why you are arguing with Giancarlo. Whether the judge would have sentenced the kid to Atheist Camp or whatnot is beside the point. What he DID was he included going to church in a secular sentence. Which is unconstitutional.

It's THE question. If he would have required attendance at an atheist organization one might expect to build morals, then his purpose is entirely secular and does not actually promote religion. It's the same with day care centers, medical centers, adoption agencies, and other sorts of institutions across the country which are religious but serve a secular function.

[Rolyo85]

Well, technically speaking I don't think it is.

Unconscionable? Sure, illegal - grey area.

You know, this has always pissed me off. What good is separation of church and state, if it is never clearly defined anywhere?

[Rolyo85]

It's THE question. If he would have required attendance at an atheist organization one might expect to build morals, then his purpose is entirely secular and does not actually promote religion. It's the same with day care centers, medical centers, adoption agencies, and other sorts of institutions across the country which are religious but serve a secular function.

So you are saying that promoting a Christian church as some arbiter and teacher of MORALITY in a SECULAR sentence is in no way in contradiction with separation of church and state? I have to admit to confusion of Olympian proportions.

[Kulindahr]

Well, technically speaking I don't think it is. Unconscionable? Sure, illegal - grey area.

By case law he's fine, but right on the edge. That's why it would be essential to know what he would have done if the kid was an atheist: it reveals whether he actually has a secular purpose.

I would have preferred the judge send him to a three-month or even one-year treatment program, and required attendance at AA for the duration, along with having him give talks to younger kids about the consequences of drinking -- like killing your own friend, even by accident.

Though since no one is challenging it, for that jurisdiction that approach is legit.

[JayHawk]

You know, this has always pissed me off. What good is separation of church and state, if it is never clearly defined anywhere?

That is because concept that separation of Church from state is a mythic concept suppose to be about keeping religion out of government but it is in fact the opposite reason that it was included in the first place... it was intended to keep the government from enforcing a religion...which of course was the religious persecution being experienced by most of our founders... however it has been taken so far out of context it is amazing...

[GiancarloC]

Ah -- so you admit that ahteists have no morals, and the fundamentalist Christians are right?

Where did I admit that? Atheism isn't about morals. It's about the lack of belief in god. People get morals from societal standards. Secularism isn't atheism. Humanism isn't necessarily atheism either. Atheism isn't a cohesive belief system. It's not about beliefs. Keep on twisting what I said.

Nothing you say here is relevant. There are atheist groups which uphold and advocate morals. You are assuming that if he kid had been an atheist, the judge would have still told him to go to church, a position for which there is no evidence.

Everything I have said is highly relevant. Come with some ACTUAL proof. And name those atheist groups which upholad and advocate morals. NAME THEM. Atheism isn't about teaching morality. Atheism is about the lack of belief in god. End of story.

You're the one making the assertion, you have to provide evidence, but all you have is assertions.

Pot calling the kette black.

Your position boils down to that they should have thrown out their slaves to live in homelessness and extreme poverty, just waiting to be kidnapped and sold back into slavery. The Founding Fathers had more compassion than that. Jefferson and Washington both patiently built up wealth not for themselves, but to set up their slaves, once freed, in security and not destitude.

That's not my position. The entire slave trade was wrong. The founding fathers had more compassion by keeping slaveS? Yeah, that sure makes a lot of sense.

Oh -- yes, your approach is guilty until proven innocent, because you've charged the judge with something for which you have no evidence, and convicted him on the basis of your assumption.

Again speaking for me... wrongly. Innocent until proven guilty. This was a sentence hearing was it not? I have no evidence? Pot calling the kettle black.

[Kulindahr]

You know, this has always pissed me off. What good is separation of church and state, if it is never clearly defined anywhere?

It is defined, by case law. Every now and then a new situation arises that needs a court to decide it, and occasionally one of those goes to the Supreme Court.

I recall a case where the city was repairing and rebuilding streets in an area of town. In the plans they included expanded parking by a church. Some neighbors challenged it, claiming it was money being spent to support the church. The traffic division argued that church parking there was clogging streets and was a safety risk, so the construction was actually to benefit the public. The court came down on the side of the traffic division, noting along the way that the city could pay for not the least but more of expanded parking than needed to alleviate safety concerns. When the city extrapolated possible growth of the church, it went back to court....

There was a question that arose when I was helping staff a homeless shelter while in college. Some group went to court to bar sentencing people to community service at the shelter, because it helped the church. The clincher there was that a campus agnostic group also provided staffing, so the judge said it was not supporting religion, noting that keeping people sheltered was a public benefit.

In a constitutional law class, I encountered a bizarre case where a church claimed it was exempt from "attractive nuisance" laws on some religious basis, since the building in question was on church grounds. That was interesting, because the judge demanded proof that the building in its dilapidated state served a religious purpose. They couldn't show that, so he ruled that secular laws apply to churches when the instance in question has no specifically religious function.

So, bit by bit, the "wall" is defined.

[Kulindahr]

So you are saying that promoting a Christian church as some arbiter and teacher of MORALITY in a SECULAR sentence is in no way in contradiction with separation of church and state? I have to admit to confusion of Olympian proportions.

It all depends on whether it serves a secular purpose. If it doesn't matter (to the judge) whether it's a Christian church or not, it's a secular purpose; attorneys could cite instances clear back before the Founding Fathers holding that religion and especially morals are necessary for the good of the Republic.

[GiancarloC]

It doesn't serve a secular purpose. Sending someone to church doesn't serve a secular purpose and it is a contradiction to the separation of church and state.

[TX-Beau]

So you are saying that promoting a Christian church as some arbiter and teacher of MORALITY in a SECULAR sentence is in no way in contradiction with separation of church and state? I have to admit to confusion of Olympian proportions.

Thing is, you can read the Establishment clause and the free Exercise clause as contradictory if you want to, in such a way that one would bar this kind of thing, and the other wouldn't. The case law is also all over the place. So it comes down to semantics and context.

If there is no case law barring this (and I don't think there is) then the Judge can do as he pleases - but if he had ordered the guy to go to a church other than the one he (the kid) already attended THAT would definitely be unconstitutional.

[Críostóir]

That's beyond the point. There is no such thing as "atheist morals". Morals that are secular don't come from atheist groups.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. Google "ethical culture society" for more.

It doesn't serve a secular purpose. Sending someone to church doesn't serve a secular purpose and it is a contradiction to the separation of church and state.

Here I absolutely agree.

[TX-Beau]

What he's saying is that atheism the IDEA has no morals, no ethics, no dogma, no holy writ - and that's absolutely correct - atheism is more like a policy position, but that ATHEISTS as people can certainly have morals based on things like Humanism.

But the assertion that there is no God isn't anything other than that.

[Críostóir]

I was reacting to the untrue assertion that secular morals don't come from atheist groups. An ethical culture society is an atheist group and often has developed a set of moral and ethical standards based entirely on secular principles, which it then advocates and teaches to its youth.

[GiancarloC]

No. Criostoir, that's missing the point. Secularism isn't atheism. There are people who believe in a religion but are secularists. Atheism itself isn't about morality or ethics... it's about the lack of belief in god, end of story.

[Kulindahr]

Thing is, you can read the Establishment clause and the free Exercise clause as contradictory if you want to, in such a way that one would bar this kind of thing, and the other wouldn't. The case law is also all over the place. So it comes down to semantics and context.

If there is no case law barring this (and I don't think there is) then the Judge can do as he pleases - but if he had ordered the guy to go to a church other than the one he (the kid) already attended THAT would definitely be unconstitutional.

No argument there; telling someone which religion they're to be part of is definitely "establishment".

And the case law is all over the place on many things religious, because not many cases are taken up by the Supreme Court.

In practical terms, the way to test this would be to get a Catholic kid and a Muslim kid before the judge on a charge for which he's imposed this condition of release before. Until then, he's entitled to the presumption of following the law.

[Kulindahr]

I was reacting to the untrue assertion that secular morals don't come from atheist groups. An ethical culture society is an atheist group and often has developed a set of moral and ethical standards based entirely on secular principles, which it then advocates and teaches to its youth.

Yes. As I said, all one needs to do is to listen to various TED talks to know that atheists develop moral systems from first principles. Beyond that, one merely has to look at the landscape of America to find atheist groups which promote morals.


Then it needs to be discovered if this judge would order someone who attended such meetings to continue to attend them. If so, his order is for a secular purpose; if not, it's religious tyranny and not only should he be dumped from the bench but sued by his 'victim'.

[Kulindahr]

No. Criostoir, that's missing the point. Secularism isn't atheism. There are people who believe in a religion but are secularists. Atheism itself isn't about morality or ethics... it's about the lack of belief in god, end of story.

That may be your point, but it has nothing to do with the thread.

[GiancarloC]

That may be your point, but it has nothing to do with the thread.

Keep claiming that. Don't play mod.

[GiancarloC]

Yes. As I said, all one needs to do is to listen to various TED talks to know that atheists develop moral systems from first principles. Beyond that, one merely has to look at the landscape of America to find atheist groups which promote morals.

No. That may be SOME atheists, but not all watch "Ted Talks" or will follow what is on it. Atheists aren't all the same. I know that people like to slap labels on atheists, but it doesn't quite add up.

[Críostóir]

No. Criostoir, that's missing the point. Secularism isn't atheism. There are people who believe in a religion but are secularists. Atheism itself isn't about morality or ethics... it's about the lack of belief in god, end of story.

You're not paying attention. Ethical Culture Societies are EXPLICITLY atheist organizations that exist for the purpose of developing moral and ethical codes. If you don't want to accept that they exist, fine, but right now you're responding to things I didn't say.

Most of my friends, religious and not, are secularist. That's not what I'm talking about.

[GiancarloC]

You're not paying attention. Ethical Culture Societies are EXPLICITLY atheist organizations that exist for the purpose of developing moral and ethical codes. If you don't want to accept that they exist, fine, but right now you're responding to things I didn't say.

Most of my friends, religious and not, are secularist. That's not what I'm talking about.

No. you're the one that isn't paying attention. Atheism itself doesn't promote morals. Ethical Cultural Societies are irrelevant to most atheists. Some may attend them, but that's not relevant.

[bankside]

One might find a moralist organisation composed of atheists, but properly speaking, atheism focuses on the divinity hypothesis with the observation that no good evidence has been mustered in favour of it, and not on questions of how to treat each other decently or how to improve the well-being of conscious creatures (as Harris would put it).

One might also say that, if the defendant identified himself as a christian, the judge was exercising proper respect for religious autonomy of the individual by making the sentence conform to the individual's chosen beliefs. Compare with a judge sentencing a christian defendant to attend the secular humanist organisation for 10 years, likely a violation of freedom of conscience.

One might say that, but I still think this is a cockamamie punishment with very low value in terms of doing justice, ensuring rehabilitation, etc, even if it does not violate the criminal's rights.

[Críostóir]

No. you're the one that isn't paying attention. Atheism itself doesn't promote morals. Ethical Cultural Societies are irrelevant to most atheists. Some may attend them, but that's not relevant.

What you said was "Morals that are secular don't come from atheist groups." Ethical Culture Societies are atheist groups. Secular morals (sometimes) come from Ethical Culture Societies. Therefore secular morals sometimes come from atheist groups.

[GiancarloC]

What you said was "Morals that are secular don't come from atheist groups." Ethical Culture Societies are atheist groups. Secular morals (sometimes) come from Ethical Culture Societies. Therefore secular morals sometimes come from atheist groups.

What I said is that "secular morals aren't necessarily from atheism and that atheism is not organized and does not set up rules". Pay attention. Keep up the faulty logic. I know there is an agenda in this forum against atheism among the religious members... and they have to degrade atheism at every opportunity. But atheism is NOT an organized belief system and it isn't about setting morals. If a group of atheists want to set up an organization fine, but that does not speak for the rest of us period.

And just keep in mind the morals set by that organization are the morals of that organization. So your entire argument has backfired already. It's not the morals set by atheism and they don't speak for most of us. The difference between religion and atheism is that atheists speak for themselves and don't repeat what they are told by church leaders.

And I'll reiterate my point: I frankly don't give a shit about ethical culture societies. They speak for a small fraction about of atheists. Not for most of us who choose not to be involved in organized activities of brainwashing.

[AngolaZee]

So let me get this straight. This guy got drunk (of his own free will), went driving , caused an accident leading to the death of a human being. And he did not go to jail. Geez why dont we all smoke crack climb into our cars and mow down the whole town (by mistake of course) and then get off with a slap on the wrist. This is a gross miscarriage of justice and if I was a relative of the deceased I would feel hard done by.

This is exactly what causes people to take justice into their own hands

[Rolyo85]

Because a first offense is exactly the same as a deliberate carmageddon. Justice is blind, not demented.

[Laufey]

Did his friend know he was drunk? In most cases they do.

In my opinion that puts the responsibility on him. Just like the driver he decided to take the risk.

[Críostóir]

What I said is that "secular morals aren't necessarily from atheism and that atheism is not organized and does not set up rules". Pay attention. Keep up the faulty logic. I know there is an agenda in this forum against atheism among the religious members... and they have to degrade atheism at every opportunity. But atheism is NOT an organized belief system and it isn't about setting morals. If a group of atheists want to set up an organization fine, but that does not speak for the rest of us period.

And just keep in mind the morals set by that organization are the morals of that organization. So your entire argument has backfired already. It's not the morals set by atheism and they don't speak for most of us. The difference between religion and atheism is that atheists speak for themselves and don't repeat what they are told by church leaders.

And I'll reiterate my point: I frankly don't give a shit about ethical culture societies. They speak for a small fraction about of atheists. Not for most of us who choose not to be involved in organized activities of brainwashing.

I quoted you exactly. The post where you said that is still in this thread. You may have said other things, but I'm not constrained only to address those of your statements that support YOUR argument. Pay attention to your own damned posts. If you think I'm anti-atheist, your ability to observe reality rivals Mitt Romney's. I've spent a lot of time explaining to religious people that religion of any kind is NOT a prerequisite for being a decent and ethical person.

But you know what? I frankly don't give a fuck if you agree or not; the facts are there for all to see. And I don't give a shit about your opinion of ethical culture societies, or me, or anything else.

[GiancarloC]

I quoted you exactly. The post where you said that is still in this thread. You may have said other things, but I'm not constrained only to address those of your statements that support YOUR argument. Pay attention to your own damned posts. If you think I'm anti-atheist, your ability to observe reality rivals Mitt Romney's. I've spent a lot of time explaining to religious people that religion of any kind is NOT a prerequisite for being a decent and ethical person.

Then I will correct myself with that post above.

I will make this quite clear: Atheism itself does not produce morals. Those who choose to be part of some organization is their own prerogative. Those organizations do NOT speak for most atheists and do not set the rules of atheism.

But you know what? I frankly don't give a fuck if you agree or not; the facts are there for all to see. And I don't give a shit about your opinion of ethical culture societies, or me, or anything else.

What facts? I don't give a shit about ethical culture societies cause they only speak for a fraction of atheists. There are some atheists that are existentialists and nihilists. But I won't even go into that. Most of us don't operate under the auspices of some screwed up corrupt organization... like the former religion I was once part of that sits in the Vatican.

[Rolyo85]

Why are you guys talking about atheists as if they are a cohesive group of people with rules? The point of atheism is that it has no rules. It's the opposite of rules. Atheists have whatever morals their environment gave them growing up, just like any other person around them. They just don't believe in religions. Is it a hard concept to grasp really?

If I weren't a bit superstitious (and in a way that goes more into String Theory than true Agnosticism), I'd call myself an atheist.

[GiancarloC]

Yes that's my point, rolyo. I am an atheist and I do not subscribe to any organization or religion of any kind. Ethic Culture Societies were discussed... but most atheists aren't associated with these groups. Most of us don't subscribe to any organization. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deity.

And quoting George Carlin: "I was once a Catholic... until I reached the age of reason." - One of his best lines...

[bankside]

He is entitled to no such presumption. As a government official he is not a criminal defendant enjoying the presumption of innocence. He is obliged to be demonstrably compliant with the law. Any time anyone from the government starts referencing religion he takes on the onus of explaining why. The judge's approach seems much more cavalier.

[Ninja108]

On a whole different note,the sentence many drunk drivers get if they kill or injure someone is still far below many other crimes.

[Laufey]

I was hoping people would comment on whether the passenger is also responsible if he knew that the driver was drunk.

Its pretty clear to me but some might disagree.

[opinterph]

Did his friend know he was drunk? In most cases they do.

How did you determine the driver was drunk?

[Críostóir]

Then I will correct myself with that post above.

Well. OK then. I have to admit you've surprised me, and in a good way.

I will make this quite clear: Atheism itself does not produce morals. Those who choose to be part of some organization is their own prerogative. Those organizations do NOT speak for most atheists and do not set the rules of atheism.

I find nothing to disagree with here. I wasn't saying otherwise. It begins to appear that our disagreement arose primarily from misunderstanding.

One of my favorite statements by an atheist is that he doesn't actually like to be called one; he says he doesn't have a special name for the fact that he doesn't believe in ghosts, and doesn't see why he should be labeled and categorized for not believing in deity/ies. Implicit in that is the idea you're objecting to, which is treating atheists as if they're some international organization or, worse, a conspiracy.

Again, I don't disagree with that at all. And I apologize for my intemperate language in previous posts, where I thought you were denying saying the things I WAS disagreeing with.

[Ninja108]

I was hoping people would comment on whether the passenger is also responsible if he knew that the driver was drunk.

Its pretty clear to me but some might disagree.

I go with that theory as well. ALl due respect, I have a problem with many cases where a drunk driver is held fully responsible for his or her actions yet a passenger who makes the choice to get into the car with the drunk driver is absolved of any blame.