Admittedly, I am not the most informed citizen on the map in terms of the legal system. But, from what I do understand of the criminal court system, i am fairly certain that sentencing an offender to a year in church is not quite within the bounds of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, the officials in Bay Minette, Alabama seem to understand the legal system about as well as I do; they are giving non-violent offenders the choice of either jail time and a fine, or mandatory church attendance.
The claim by Bay Minette police chief is that this sentencing is not illegal (separation of church and state) because the inmates are offered the choice–jail or church–and they are allowed to choose the venue.
Perhaps it is my atheism showing through, but all of that still feels remarkably like a government sponsorship of religion.
First, let’s address the “choice.” It does not take a genius to recognize that what is being offered is a “false choice.” We can likely all think of similar choices between something that will genuinely cost you something, and another which will just be mildly convenient. It all reminds me very much of Eddie Izzard’s bit “Cake or Death.” The only difference is Eddie Izzard’s comedy bit was funny; what’s happening in Bay Minette is not (unless you make jokes about how church is literally becoming a punishment).
Seriously, though, offenders are asked to choose between giving up their freedom and paying a fine, or simply attending a church of their choice for perhaps ninety minutes a week. Months in jail, or ninety minutes sitting on a pew? That, I should not need to point out, is a choice that virtually makes itself. Officials use the language of choice, but in reality they know what the vast majority of offenders will choose. They offer a false choice that forces offenders to attend a religious institution.
So, offenders are being sent to church to do what, precisely? They must listen to a sermon, possibly sing some songs, and have a chat with the pastor? Where is the rehabilitation? Where is the “giving back” to their community? I know they expect religion to engender a powerful transformation, but, as my wife eloquently stated, “I went to church for four years and it didn’t change me.” Attending worship once a week does not mean offenders will be doing anything positive for their community; a worship service rarely includes service, despite the name. The hope, I am certain, is that the power of Jesus will break through and–POOF!–the criminal is now a contributing member of society. But that is simply not realistic. Going to church, aligning oneself with a religion does not make one a better person morally or legally.[1] It may work for some, but church attendance in no way demands change, transformation, or rehabilitation. All it guarantees is that offenders will have to listen to sermons that may, themselves, be questionable.
The offenders’ choice should be between jail and an option that genuinely offers the reasonable potential for change and positive social contribution. Teach them a trade, have them do community service, clean up city parks, volunteer in hospitals, soup kitchens, schools. Granted, all of this would need to be highly supervised, but I can think of at least a dozen potentially transformative alternatives to “sit at church for an hour.”
Regardless of the reasons and motives for this mandatory church attendance “choice,” the fact still remains that this represents a government sponsorship of religion. Whether you think that church really is rehabilitative, it does not matter. The government should never be allowed to enforce mandatory religious involvement.
_______________________________
[1] According to one source, about 80% of prison inmates report religious affiliation (cf. here).
Unfound Places 