I’m turning myself in on Friday. Anyone wanna liveblog it?
.

I’m so not in love with this program.

Separation of church and state? What separation of church and state?

I’m so not in love with this program.
-
You won’t be liveblogging my surrender, then? I am crushed.
.

Jeffraham -

I won’t be live blogging but I’ll be there to cover it on Saturday. Not having a laptop makes live blogging … ummmm … sorta challenging. Plus, us responsible citizens (as opposed to you criminal types **grin**) have to work!

Also, KC - why the long face?

BCM

Plus, us responsible citizens (as opposed to you criminal types **grin**) have to work!
.
Hey, man, that’s eight hours of work I’m missing at $20/hour… I have no bennies, no vacay days, no sick days… but that’ll be the least of my worries, dollar-wise. I’m sure I’ll have the privilege of ponying up the $1255 the Davidson County Criminal Court wants, and then several hundred more getting the driver’s license reinstated.
.

Jeff -

Ugh! Sorry you have to miss all that but I’m glad you’re getting it straightened out. No way you can do Saturday?

Plus, from what I’ve read on the program, they’re trying to be considerate of the folks coming in and take into consideration that they are doing so. Hopefully, that will translate into some grace and mercy.

I’m not in favor of an amnesty but I think that people coming forward like this should get a carrot for doing the right thing.

Thanks for sharing the story with us originally. Your post is where I found out about it.

BCM

I’d prefer shootouts. Much more entertaining. Oh, and don’t forget car chases. What else would Fox News show during the day?

-
This is very much akin to the idea of “safe spots” for child abandonment. Once again a controversial idea, of which I am in favor.
-
This idea is as old as, well the Old Testament. Separation of church and state does NOT mean that churches and the religious cannot participate in community life.
-
I have no interest in a theocracy, but I have no interest in the ghettoization of religion, either.

I put in a fake “sarcasm” tag in the above comment, and the darn parser took it as HTML.

The first paragraph is sarcasm, of course.

Well, I must say that this is a novel idea. Gives true meaning to the word “forgiveness”. As a Christian, I am against amnesty for criminals, but like you said BCM, they should get a carrot for coming in to take care of their outstanding warrants in this way.
-
Just remember, “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution or the amendments. And what it means in its original context is the state is not to rule over the church (like they do in England). But there is nothing wrong with the church influencing the state.
-
Just my two cents.

BTW, Kat, I took the World’s Shortest Political Quiz and came out Libertarian!
-
My brother and I have opposing views on whom to support: He supports Paul, I support Tancredo…Very interesting, that.

No way you can do Saturday?
-
It would be lots more difficult, given what I do on weekends to prepare for the following workweek, and the limited MTA bus schedule on weekends. My plan is to get there early Friday morning (not knowing how long this might take — indeed, not knowing if I may still be taken to jail, though it would seem unlikely), and if I get things worked out in a reasonable amount of time, spend the rest of the day at the Dept. of Safety, et al, getting the license situation on track to full resolution.
.

Jeff -

Coolio!

Let me know if you need rides and stuff. I’m self employed and can maybe get you back and forth on a couple of those legs of the journey. Especially those related to the Dept. of Safety on Foster. My biz is in that general area.

Email me at the addy at my site or Ivy, Hutch or Kat C. here can get you the addy and we can hook up with contact info and such if you’re interested.

Best of luck!

BCM

Slarti - Shootouts? Car Chases? Maybe explosions and lots of running around and testosterone? Woohoo! I’m SO there …

Separation of church and state does NOT mean that churches and the religious cannot participate in community life.
.
Yeah, but I’m pretty sure it means churchs can’t “be transformed into a make-shift courthouse from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. during those days, complete with judges, prosecutors, and assistant public defenders.”
.
Church members participating in community life is NOT synonymous with churches acting as formal agents of the government.
.
Just remember, “separation of church and state” is not in the Constitution or the amendments. And what it means in its original context…
.
What the First Amendment means in it’s original context is precisely what Thomas Jefferson said it meant when he coined the phrase “separation of church and state.” I highly suspect that Thomas Jefferson was more knowledge about the “original context” of the Bill of Rights than 21st century theocrats are.

Yet dolphin presume to know more about Thomas Jefferson’s “original context” than those very same presumptuous 21st Century Theocrats.
-
Per Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-
If you read the man’s actual thoughts, it sounds like he’s keeping the governmental peanut butter out of the religious chocolate, not the other way around.

I always thought it meant that we would not establish at “State religion” as the English did (i.e. the Church of England).

Yeah, but I’m pretty sure it means churchs can’t “be transformed into a make-shift courthouse from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. during those days, complete with judges, prosecutors, and assistant public defenders.”
-
If it were a case of the government taking the church by force, and doing this, I’d agree with you. However, it seems clear that the church in question invited the prosecutors and officials to make use of their space, as it met common goals of both.
.

Holy cow, mark it on your calendars… I agree with Jeff.

it sounds like he’s keeping the governmental peanut butter out of the religious chocolate, not the other way around.
.
I’d be curious to know how you can do one without the other.
.
I always thought it meant that we would not establish at “State religion” as the English did
.
Among other things. Funny thing about wannabe theocrats is they forget that the first amendment says more about religion than just the establishment clause.
.
If it were a case of the government taking the church by force, and doing this, I’d agree with you.
.
I really can’t see how a church acting a a government official can pass a first amendment test regardless of whether they were made to do it or not. I’m sure nobody MADE the Pope crown the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, still I think it’s clear that the medieval Catholic Church was an agent of government that would not be permissible had it been under our Constitution.

I really can’t see how a church acting a a government official can pass a first amendment test regardless of whether they were made to do it or not. I’m sure nobody MADE the Pope crown the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, still I think it’s clear that the medieval Catholic Church was an agent of government that would not be permissible had it been under our Constitution.

Well, had they done this at the local Steelworker’s union hall, I would have still been on board. I think the thinking behind the approach that FSS has taken is that criminals who might be wary of such an offer were it not for the involvement of the ministers in question… but I admit, that’s their take on it, and just a perception thang on my part.
-
As it doesn’t seem to be a permanent or even ongoing collaboration, I don’t see a lot of 1st Amendment downside to it.
.

Actually, you’re wrong about nobody making the Pope crown the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne supported Pope Leo III, who was deposed by the Romans in 800 (who hated him for his common background). As a reward for Charlemagne’s assistance in regaining the Papacy (marching into Rome with Leo III and daring the Romans to stop him), he was crowned Imperator Augustus (it was also an attempt by the Pope to wrench the title of Holy Roman Empire from the Byzantines). So, technically, in exchange for armed service, the Pope crowned Charlemagne.
-
You seem to forget that a church is just a BUILDING. They’re not surrendering to the Pope or the head of the Southern Baptists, they’re surrendering to LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to be tried by an OFFICIAL COURT in a building that just so happens to be used as a place of worship on Wednesdays and Sundays.

I agree with Slarti that this seems to be akin to providing sanctuary (as the church always has-or is supposed to) for the criminal to come and find forgiveness. Perhaps using the church is merely a symbolic gesture.

Actually, according to his nearly contemporary biographers, Charlemagne had intended to crown himself and have the pope celebrate a mass in his honor. Leo was afraid that if this happened, the church would lose both prestige and power over political appointments, grabbed the crown, and performed the ceremony himself; churchmen thereafter used the ceremony as it was carried out as a precedent for deposing secular rulers who opposed them.

It depends on which biographer you go by, I suppose. Einhard is quite clear when he says that Charlmagne wanted no business with being Holy Roman Emperor, but would later come to use the office. HG Wells, who is far from a contemporary of Charlemagne, is the one who said Charlemagne wanted to be made Holy Roman Emperor due to the vastness of his empire.

Let’s not forget that at this point in time, the Church actually had a physical empire (the Papal States) that the Pope had a political duty to protect from rampaging Germans.

I don’t know. Even ignoring the church/ state issues for a moment, I see one glaring hole. How much of a criminal’s reluctance to turn himself in is borne out of a genuine fear of police vs. how much of it is borne out of their drive not to go to jail?
-
Setting aside all moral questions related to this issue, I just don’t believe this will be all that effective.

Einhard says something to the effect of “Charlemagne always said that if he had known what was going to happen he wouldn’t have gone into the church that day.” Which he then, in his idolizing fashion, interprets to mean that C. didn’t want to be emperor. There’s another biographer (not Notker, but a name I’m blanking on) from a few years after Einhard who says that C. had meant to crown himself. Read in that light, C.’s comment shows that if C. had known that the pope was going to put the crown on his head, he wouldn’t have gone into that church. And the church wouldn’t have had any empire left if it hadn’t been for C. coming over the Alps and rescuing it (the rampaging Germans, in fact, had rescued the pope from the Italians), which is why C. thought he could get away with making himself the new Roman Emperor, Protector of the Church and all, which is what Leo was desperate to avoid.
-
Rick, there are some folks who, rightly or wrongly, don’t trust the cops unless they’ve got witnesses with them. I think that’s the problem this program is trying to address.

I got my Germans confused with my Lombards, d’oh. I mentioned the rampaging Italians earlier in the thread myself, so I shouldn’t have gotten confused. It’s getting late.

Rick -

Setting aside all moral questions related to this issue, I just don’t believe this will be all that effective.

You’re not alone in that. But so far each of the other four FSS cities has felt that way and yet the program has done well. In fact, the Phoenix FSS was under the tender mercies of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and still had over 1,000 people take advantage of the offer.

I wondered in my first post if people would object this was being done in a church. Thanks to all of you who do for not disappointing. Some things are simply so predictable that it’s heartbreaking. The church and its teachings which are the basis for most of successful Western society is now prevented from having any influence or input into that society. **headshake**

BCM

now prevented from having any influence or input into that society.
-
Well, I think that’s overstating your case, a bit, don’t you?
.

My goodness, Ron, what are you apologizing for? Someone who knows who Einhard was is ahead of the game.

I try to make sure I don’t confuse myself, let alone other people. It’s amazing this all started because someone brought up Thomas Jefferson.

I can change almost any topic in the world to a medieval one, even without help.

And I would question whether it’s “the church and its teachings” which are at the basis of western societies, unless you mean “some religions and their teachings as filtered through the Enlightenment and a lot of revolutions.”

Some things are simply so predictable that it’s heartbreaking.
.
You bet it’s predictable. I’ll ALWAYS fight for my (and your) right to practice or not practice religion as you see fit. You may find love of freedom of religion heartbreaking, I find it heartbreaking so few people are willing to defend freedom of religion.
.
The church and its teachings which are the basis for most of successful Western society
.
That’s a heck of a statement to make without backing up. The “church and its teachings” are not the basis for successful western society. The church, its teachings and actions (both the positive and the negative) have impacted western culture (and western culture has impacted it). Culture is the basis for a society and that is impacted and influenced by an infinite number of factors.
.
now prevented from having any influence or input into that society.
.
Martyr complex much? The church has MASSIVE influence in society. We should all be so lucky as to have the influence in society that the church does.

For those wanting some backup for my statement on the church and its influence on Western Society, please see ‘How Should We Then Live’ by Francis Shaeffer.

The comment that predictability was heartbreaking was not related to the statement that followed it but the statement that preceded it. The predictability that someone would not be able to resist objecting to this event being held in a church and do so on the basis of the separation of church and state. Nevermind that churches are used for polling places and Bible studies are held in public schools and this has gone on for years and it’s all Constitutional. This is a mockery of the Constitution! How dare they do something like this! Church and State are apart and n’er the twain shall meet!

Regarding the church having MASSIVE influence and my possible overstatement of the case as well as defending my freedom of religion, consider the following.

Pastors are being locked up charged with hate crimes for preaching the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful.

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

Can I refuse to rent residential property I own and purchased with my own money to a non-married couple living together on the basis that I believe their relationship to be wrong?

Can a Christian chaplain pray in Jesus name in the US Navy?

The list goes on but you get the point. 50 years ago these things would have been unthinkable! Yet not only are we thinking them, we’re putting them into practice. Please don’t try to tell me the church and its message are still as strong and relevant and impactful as they were. The truth is that there are intentional and systematic efforts to remove the church’s message from all public discourse and relegate it to only private practice and discussion.

Perhaps I’ve overstated the current level of anti-Christian practice. Certainly the level of anti-Christian thought and intent is not overstated. Nor is it a martyr complex. It is simply demonstrable truth.

Dolphin - you were quite close on one point. We should all be so lucky as to live in a society that has been so massively influenced by the church. As I mentioned, it’s the basis for most successful western societies, cultures what have you. But that influence is waning in many areas. Trust me when I say, you won’t want to live here if it ever is eradicated.

BCM

Pastors are being locked up charged with hate crimes for preaching the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful.
-
I’d need to see a cite on that one.
-
Please don’t try to tell me the church and its message are still as strong and relevant and impactful as they were.
-
Wouldn’t dream of it. I was just saying that your previous statement was a bit histrionic, as if religion (and religious figures) have no voice in today’s body politic. I see both parties pandering to religious concerns… even if it IS generally pandering.
-
Trust me when I say, you won’t want to live here if it ever is eradicated.
-
This sounds periously close to the common assertion that all morality flows from the font of religious practice, which isn’t remotely true.
.

Let me know if you need rides and stuff. I’m self employed and can maybe get you back and forth on a couple of those legs of the journey.
-
Thank you — that’s very generous, and I appreciate the offer. But I’m pretty sure the MTA bus will serve me well, unless the process takes a lot longer than I anticipate (which is maybe another reason to go early Friday morning, rather than anytime Saturday!). If I can be reasonably reassured that the police database will reflect that any outstanding warrant (if any) is resolved, I may even take the bus home, and ride the scooter, the rest of the day.
-
But thanks, man — you’re a good dude to offer!
.

bluecmuse says:
Trust me when I say, you won’t want to live here if it ever is eradicated.

You cannot presume to know what any of the rest of us could, would, or should want.

and Jeffraham says:
This sounds periously close to the common assertion that all morality flows from the font of religious practice, which isn’t remotely true.

I don’t think I’ve ever offered you a virtual smooch before, Jeffraham, so here’s your first from me: *smoooooch!*

I don’t think I’ve ever offered you a virtual smooch before, Jeffraham, so here’s your first from me: *smoooooch!*
-
[waves comment around]
-
See that, Anachronisto?!
-

.

Jeff -

You asked for citation for my statement that pastors are being locked up for preaching that homosexuality is a sin.

My problem is limiting what citations to use. There’s this one from Sweden. and then this one from here in the US.

Then there’s this proposed legislation from Brazil and this story for German pastors being jailed for preaching that abortion is murder and comparing it to the Holocaust.

A Google search for “pastors jailed preaching homosexuality is sinful” returned 138,000 results.
In closing, let me say that it is not “… perilously close to the common assertion that all morality flows from the font of religious practice …” it is exaclty that (although as a Christian I would specifically cite Christianity - not as a disrespect to other religions but out of respect for my God). That is not only remotely true, it is the only way that morality CAN exist in a society. We can have that discussion here if you like or we can put it off to another day. But it remains true regardless of it not being popular.

I think I’m going to need a fireproof monitor …
BCM

My problem is limiting what citations to use. There’s this one from Sweden. and then this one from here in the US.
-
Sweden isn’t really under our particular jurisdiction, so I didn’t even look at that one. The CBN link… I’ll see if I can get other references from local sources before I comment.
-
A Google search for “pastors jailed preaching homosexuality is sinful” returned 138,000 results.
-
… which is not to say that there may, in fact be 138,000 web pages quoting the same article, which may or may not be completely accurate in substantiating actual incarceration(s).
-
the only way that morality CAN exist in a society
-
Well, no. You’re completely wrong on this. There are plenty of people who do not believe the way you do who act in entirely moral ways, and conduct their lives accodingly, all without religion. If you can’t accep that as absolutely, irrefutably true, I will not try to convince you otherwise, since I know that religion can make otherwise reasonable people believe some outlandishly wrongheaded things… with all respect, intended. My mom thinks cats are in league with the devil, for instance.
.

Oh… I found 10,900,000 Google hits on unicorns, but I don’t believe they exist.
-

.

There’s this one from Sweden.
.
First of all, that dude compared homosexuality to cancer. I am compelled to say: what an asshat. But asshat or no, he didn’t belong being arrested for it. People should have just stared at him in horrified disbelief.
.
and then this one from here in the US.
.
See, that’s just wrong, too. Take away the nutty Christian protestors and what remains of a Pride festival? A bunch of rainbows and disco music, that’s all. Personally, the religious nuts whose signs tell me I’m going to burn in hell are a particular highlight for me of the many Pride parades I’ve marched in. I’m all, “Hell? Bitch, please! Try walking in these 4-inch platform heels and tell me you’re even concerned about hell.”
.
That is not only remotely true, it is the only way that morality CAN exist in a society.
.
And I’m sorry, but you just couldn’t be more wrong. Religion may seem to the religious as if it is the basis of morality, but it ain’t. Even we heathens know our relative rights from our relative wrongs, and it has nothing to do with fear of burning in hell. In fact, some philosophers have argued that morality is most pure when it is unmotivated by religious fear.

But even if that’s a little difficult for you to swallow, trust me when I tell you: Christians (or even believers in general) don’t have the market cornered on being good people. It just ain’t so.

That is not only remotely true, it is the only way that morality CAN exist in a society.
.
And one other reason why I call bullshit on this: religion and religious belief have been the basis for some of the most disturbing acts perpetrated upon society. I’m not saying we need to get into that discussion — I’m just saying you can lay off the “woe betide the society with no religion” nonsense.

I found 10,900,000 Google hits on unicorns, but I don’t believe they exist.
.
But trust me, you don’t want to live in a society without unicorns!

BCM,

YOu may seriously want to find another news source. CBN.com is NOT a place to go if you want remotely accurate news. The Sweden article possibly has merit though I highly doubt it considering the source. I simply can’t argue against it because I have no knoweldge of the situation besides the biased agenda-ridden politically motivated article you provided. The second article however I am WELL aware of. The group “Repent America” (who are big proponents of murdering abortion doctors, so if that is the kind of christianity you see as the moral backbone of society, I DON’T want to live in your ideal society) were not arrested for “preaching against homosexuality” regardless of what your precious CBN news source tells you. They were protesting a gay pride festival. It’s a free country so if they want to demonstrate hatred instead of love by protesting a festival, that’s their prerogative, but they do not have the right to block the flow of automobile traffic which is what they were doing. They were asked REPEATEDLY by police officers to simply move their protest to the sidewalk. They refused and several of them were arrested. Being arrested for intentionally and maliciously disrupting traffic is a far cry from being arrested for “preaching against homosexuality.” I may not approve of hatred, but I will fight for your right to hate whoever you please. That is not (all) this group was doing though.

Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

The only people who give a rat’s ass about the “War on Christmas” are extreme right-wing christians suffering from a martyr complex. A couple of thoughts you might consider if they won’t make your brain explode: (a) Christmas is a holiday last I checked, so you are being included when you are wished “Happy Holidays,” (b) if a business wishes to appeal to their entire customer base instead of only part of it, what business is it of yours. If you feel that you are personally better than the rest of the human race and require that people honor your superiority by only acknowledging your beliefs, then take your business to only places that do that (I suspect you’ll run out of places to shop soon).

The interesting thing about the War on Christmas nonsense is it truly exposes what the extreme christian right means when they say “freedom of religion.” They mean freedom for them to forcibly make everyone practice their religion.

As for Christianity being the only way morality can exist, that is about the craziest thing I have ever heard. There are plenty of moral non-christians, and more than a few immoral christians.

Ken - I can’t speak for all your foreign sources re people being arrested/persecuted for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, but the U.S. cite is weak. They were impeding a parade and a celebration. If they were standing along side with placards and not messing with the parade, then it would have been horrid if they had been arrested. Your comment made it sound like police were coming into churches and pulling ministers out of pulpits.

Well, I didn’t address the “Happy Holidays” thang, since that’s about goofy. Yes, one group is being persecuted because in a country with many different religious beliefs, a lot of people use an all-inclusive salutation, rather than one that addresses one particular sect’s beliefs. Imagine that.
.

So, y’all are sayin’ that the group in Blue’s second reference were arrested for the same reason Cindy Sheehan kept getting arrested? Being confrontational and not yielding to a police officer’s lawful request? Again, I am shocked.
.

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

There is real evidence that morality and religion are inherently separate concepts.

There are cultures in existence today in varying stages of development that can be observed with regards to their behavior and attitudes relative to both concepts. It turns out that morality is forged through emotional responses to individual acts. Eventually, as culture evolves, the responses are codified into a “morality code” in one form or another.

Religion evolved separately. As humans became more successful and tribes became kingdoms; priests would usurp moral codes to facilitate wielding power. This actually had the effect of corrupting, rather than reinforcing morality.

Science, it’s a beautiful thing:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/mccabe02.htm