White Conservative judge lets white kid get away with murder.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.