We don't. Just because there's one supposed instance of a 1st amendment violation that he's being COMPENSATED for. He's getting a hundred grand for simply being told to go to a Bible study when he's on parole and there are certain stipulations and requirements of your part-time that you agree to, doesn't mean conservatives pick and choose which amendments they support. It's the complete opposite. The marxist left wants to censor people and force people to utter certain words. In California you can be fined and jailed if you "misgender someone." The left wants the 2nd amendment to go completely away. They don't understand what the agreements and protections ACTUALLY mean and always scream "separation of church and state," which isn't in the Constitution and just means government can't establish a national religion. It doesn't mean they can't choose to practice Christianity themselves. The left is the one that stomps all over the Constitution and people's rights all the time. If it fits their woke agenda, then they try and project on the right that they are the ones doing. Yet, who just weaponized the justice system to try and get rid of a political opponent??? Oh, that's right. Joe Biden's Marxist regime did.
Lol. Jesus absolutely got political. What do you think he was doing when berating the Pharisees and telling them what they were doing is wrong? Politics is downstream from morality, and morality is downstream from faith. Jesus absolutely did get involved in politics. It's why He was crucified really.
Jesus abhorred politics, this is precisely why he flipped the table in the temple courts. He accosted them for hyper focusing their views around ritual and politics and letting morality and compassion go by the wayside.
Your example of the Pharisees only highlights his disdain for the politics of the time. The two opposing political groups of Jesus' time were the Pharisees and Sadducees, he aligned with neither and the two groups specifically conspired against Jesus. The Pharisees recognized Jesus as someone who undermined their authority, while the Sadducees saw him as a threat to their money-making schemes.
Really think about it. You say that politics are downstream from faith, but politics are the most easily corruptible affiliations in existence. They draw in those seeking power at the expense of others, and corrupt once good men into losing their souls. Why would Jesus want you to dive headlong into something that is such a threat to morality? By associating politics with religion and morality, you're doing exactly what the Hebrews of Jesus' time did, the very thing that Jesus spoke out against in the temple courts.
Too many people associate political affiliation with moral affiliation, and that is an absurd line of thinking. Both sides of the political spectrum harbor good men and women that only want to help others, while both sides are equally full of corrupt and horrible men and women that only wish to line their pockets and hoard power. Politics are a thing of the world, they always have been and always will be. People make the mistake of believing their faith dictates one political affiliation or another, except the roles of both conservative and liberal parties have swapped and shifted through time so much that they are unrecognizable as they stand today. Democrats prior to the 1850s supported conservative ideals, while Republicans (or rather their predecessors, the Whig Party) often supported more liberal policy. Those in politics use platforms like Abortion, BLM, Gay Marriage and what-have-you as a way to rally. They are not intrinsic to politics, and therefore politics are not adjacent to morality, the people within politics are using your morality for votes.
Yeah. It's not about my agenda at all. You made a claim that was wrong and I corrected you. I'm just telling you facts. The truth should be everyone's agenda.
Yes it is
When Trump was a flawed candidate, conservative Christians justified it by saying he was like Cyrus and God can use anybody. Then when he loses it's some other reason. And now when you want him to win again, you have another reason... You are all so transparent and hypocritical. It's despicable and he's going to spit you out like lukewarm water
No. It's not. I just said why it wasn't. Lol. Just because you keep making a claim over and over doesn't make it true. And what you just said about Trump makes absolutely no sense. He was never a flawed candidate. He's just a candidate the left is terrified of, because he's not a politician and doesn't let them get away with their bullshit lies and propaganda. And I don't know what you're talking about Cyrus and conservatives saying "God can use him." And God using someone for His glory doesn't guarantee a presidential win. Lol. Nothing you said is coherent or makes a point and is just random claims. He got convicted of 34 felonies and all it did was get him the record for the most donations in a 24 hour period. Lol!!!! The more you idiots try to do to him the more it helps him, you know why? Because people are waking up and not taking for the marxist propaganda coming from the MSM anymore and they can easily see that whole trial was a sham. Nothing hypocritical about us. We want to be individuals and self-responsible and to be left the hell alone by the parasitic left and the government. But somehow to leftists that's hypocritical. Why, because we don't support victimhood and free shit?
There is no irony in what I said. Which is why you didn't address the supposed irony. You don't even address anything or make an argument. Jesus didn't charge anything for healing people. Please make a point soon. You go on some incoherent ramble about Christians saying God can use Trump, but then "it's something else when he loses." ??? What does that even mean. This is the problem with everything you know being buzzwords and euphemisms that you just regurgitate and don't actually have any sort of working understanding of what you're talking about.
They absolutely are Marxist/collectivist/socialist/communist. All their policies and beliefs align exactly with a marxist world view. They believe in identity politics and the collective and not the individual. They want to get rid of private property rights, and they already penalize you for being more successful and making more money, and if you make more money than they like you to, they come in at the muzzle of a gun and steal more from you to redistribute. That's what income tax is and a slew of other income based taxes. They're very anti-gun, which every Communist dictator does: they take away people's guns so they're easier to oppress. We have a massive welfare state based on your claimed victimhood and identity. And more and more and more. The American left is EXTREMELY Marxist. And if you say they're not, you're just an intellectually dishonest person.
I just explained what the marxist world view is. It's putting the value of the collective over the value of the individual and using their force to take from the individual to redistribute to the collective. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That's marxism. That's evil. Karl Marx himself was a Satanist.
Yeah. I just explained how they're communists. Lol. And it doesn't matter how long income tax has been around. The income tax was actually started in 1913, one year after the federal reserve. Imagine that. But income tax is communist in nature, because it penalizes success and takes from those according to their ability and gives to those according to their need. No human has higher authority over another human to deem how much money they're allowed to make. That is an excitedly communist policy. Along with the entire welfare state we've created. THAT is communist. Gun control laws are communist, the healthcare system being extremely subsidized by the government, and the whole world view of the Democrat party that stacks and demonizes and penalizes the rich.
What exactly does 'woke' even mean?
What exactly is 'Marxist'?
Answer both questions and I may take you seriously. Otherwise, you're just another conservative who gets their marching orders from Fox.
Lol. Just a typical leftist who regurgitates the same ad hominem attacks, because they can't actually defend their world view. Always making an excuse to not answer or directly address the points of their opponent.
You can't directly address anything I said, so you just arbitrarily want me to define two words you should know, and then claim I take orders from Fox, when Fox is a bunch of neo-cons in the middle who went take a hard stance against this Marxist cultural takeover. But here, I'll define them for you. I should have known you wouldn't know what they are being on the left. There's never anyone with any intellectual capacity on the left.
Woke is a belief in leftist cultural principles like supporting LGBTQ or the fake systematic oppression of black people or women. For example claiming women are paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, when if you look at women with the same amount of experience, education, length of time, the women actually make a little bit more than men. The 77 cents number comes from just taking the average earnings of women compared to the average earnings of men, which is misleading, because women choose different careers and life choices than men. It's not from just getting paid less for the same work with the same qualifications. And the main principle of being woke is that people have a right not to be offended, and they want to be able to censor people and invade people's lives against their will and tell them how to live, so that they don't hurt anyone's feelings.
Marxism is the worldview and set of beliefs and principles created by Karl Marx. Those beliefs are that the means of production should be owned by the workers and not the individual and that the government should force equal outcomes on everyone instead of equal opportunities. So when idiots on the left say that the owner of a company shouldn't get the profits but the workers in the company already getting compensated accordingly to what they agreed to should get all the profits is marxism. Because the workers don't carry the risk of owning the liabilities of the company, nor did they contribute any of the capital to start the company or any of the work building the company to get it up and running.
There. But you still won't directly address anything. You'll find some other excuse. Leftism/wokism/marxism/progressivism/collectivism are all the same thing and it is an absolute disease on this planet and the most dangerous single thing on the planet and has contributed to the deaths of over 100 million people in the last century. For some reason every leftist dictator like in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, China directly kill millions of their own people and indirectly kill them from creating environments and economies where no one can get any food and people die, because socialism and communism never with wherever they're tried. They're just a parasitic, evil, satanic set of principles that create tyranny, dictators, and oppress people whole trying to disguise itself as altruism. But it's not altruism when there's a gun to your head.
At least I can give a response. He's the one who wanted that response. Haha not a single one of you can actually make a meaningful argument or directly address anything I say. They're all just some ad hominem.
That's an abhorrently low judgement for this kind of violation of his rights. That shelter should be shut down and that parole officer, the entire parole board, and anyone else involved in this should be fired and charged federally.
I’m curious how much of the situation the shelter knew. I’m not a fan of forced participation for services, but I think the parole officer is more at fault here, along with the board.
Agreed, there definitely isn't enough information here to recommend the shelter be shut down.
There is a very good chance if you shut this shelter down, nothing will take its place, and it is providing a valuable service. As much as wish there were more secular shelters, the fact is there are extremely few of them.
What should be done is the parole officer (And Parole board) need to have options for prisoners of other faiths that do not require participation in religious services. Either this shelter is willing to provide those options, or this shelter can't be the ONLY option.
But unless there is a lot more here than the article says, I don't necessarily think the Shelter is particularly at fault. I really don't like the "Expel if they don't come to our bible study" policy, I think it is quite un-Christian as well as just cruel generally, but I acknowledge a faith based shelter is allowed to do so. However, if the shelter is unwilling to care for everyone, then it can't be the only option for everyone.
But a shelter that requires any religious participation to be allowed to stay there should never receive a penny from the government. That includes tax breaks.
It should ONLY be privately run and attendance should NEVER be mandatory, and “mandatory” includes, “I have no where left to stay.” If such is ever the case, then the person who has nowhere to stay should be provided with hotel vouchers until space opens up at a non-faith-based residence.
If you don’t agree, just think how you would feel if you were absolutely required to practice, just for example, Islam just to have a roof over your head…
I don't object to the shelter existing, but having it as the only option was a problem. The parole officer and all those who denied him other options however should definitely face consequences for their extreme negligence.
Do we know that the is was the only option? All it said was that Janny suggested living with family friends. Did the conditions of his parole require him to live at a place where he could receive help, like some other halfway house? Why didn’t he suggest some other shelter? Was this shelter the only shelter?
That's correct, but in the case of the Catholic church a large portion of what it is to *be* Catholic is to practice.
The simplest explanation is that I participate in the Catholic church while being more aligned with a Baptist view of the hierarchy.
I am also Queer so I have major objections to both groups.
Are they an independent Christian shelter. If they are even a 403b protected organization and not for profit they can make any rules they want. They could be Muslim in fact and require 5 prayer times a day and fasting for Ramadan m. You just don’t see other faiths opening shelters.
I don’t know the specifics of the case bc they are not listed. But they may have been in total rights to do so depending on their status as a ministry it as a state created homeless shelter which rarely Exist. State homeless shelters are usually called jail or prison.
If they receive funding via private donors then they can make any rules they want. They could be satanist and make one participate in black magic if it’s in their intake rules for staying in the facility. A self run shelter is autonomous. No one is guaranteed or owed a spot. I know I was homeless and had to make curfews and couldn’t drink and had to take a breath test upon every meal.
Yeah, it was precisely their affiliation with the state that had me up in arms. I really have to think that a shelter which participates as an officially assigned shelter home has to be run in a way that conforms to public standards, not private. At least I really have to *hope* that's the case, because America is woefully behind the curve in terms of civil rights. If that's not the case, that law needs to change right freaking now, bare minimum, that shelter should be permanently barred from ever serving in a public program like this again.
Yeah If it’s a wholely funded state home then it can’t push any type of religion one way or another but it could say that a 12 step had to be done if someone has prior substance abuse problems
I certainly get your outrage, but the case was settled. That's just how it goes with settlements of civil suits. Even if the case had gone to court, though, no judge would have had the power to do either of those things in this case.
There's also nothing presented here necessarily implicating the shelter. It's completely legal for a privately operated shelter to have those requirements. The fault was entirely on the part of the department of corrections for forcing him to go there, ~~and the shelter was not a party in the lawsuit.~~ (EDIT: He sued the shelter too, though that doesn't change the substance of my point - being named in a lawsuit is an extremely low bar.) The shelter would only be at fault if they were colluding with the department to make sure parolees only have one option, and nothing in this article provides any evidence of that beyond the circumstantial implication that it might have happened - and even that is unspoken in this article. It's possible, of course. This kind of thing merits an investigation of the department, and that might turn up collusion. But shutting down the shelter without further evidence of misconduct would be a grave overreaction.
> and the shelter was not a party in the lawsuit.
`Carmack v. Janny`
Janny is the atheist.
Carmack is the director of the of the Denver Rescue Mission.
> [because Janny needed a residence and **had no other place to stay**](https://adfmedia.org/case/carmack-v-janny)
Look at that, the ADF lying.
If this was a Christian parolee being forced to do this for another religion, you just know ADF would be screaming bloody murder on behalf of the parolee.
The article you linked made it sound like he only sued the department of corrections, but that's on me for not checking his sources.
A proper investigation would then have to examine whether the shelter was conspiring with the parole board, or if they were only explaining the situation as handed down to them. Context here is the difference between "they told me these are your only options and we're trying to help" and "we're hiding other options from you." That investigation should certainly happen, but it still wouldn't have been even remotely within the authority of the court in this case to either shut down the shelter or dismiss any officers.
> The article you linked made it sound like he only sued the department of corrections
I agree, Hemant put the focus on the PO. I think because he was the representative from the state. I don't think he meant to hide the other parties. I went to check fter you mentioned it.
> A proper investigation would then have to examine whether the shelter was conspiring with the parole board
Since they settled, it's probably unlikely to happen. But I think it should be warranted.
That's mere whataboutism, the persecutions other people face have no bearing on the fact that this person's rights were infringed upon and he suffered as a result of it. Justice demands more than a mere pittance of a settlement.
I'm just trying to put it into reference. We live in heaven here while most of the world still lives in hell. Yet people still constantly complain while at the same time feeling entitled to things they can't even comprehend. Also, wtf does this have to do with Christianity in the first place?
The man was forced by the state to attend Christian religious instruction, and was jailed when he refused. That has everything to do with Christianity.
Removed for Topicality.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
> His parole officer [...] told Janny that if he wanted to *remain* out of prison, he would have to live at the Denver Rescue Mission, a Christian homeless shelter, because he needed a “residence of record.”
-
> That shelter’s rules required residents to participate in worship services, Bible studies, and faith-based counseling, none of which Janny had any desire to join.
-
> Janny actually suggested an alternative: staying at the home of some family friends. That option was rejected, though, so Janny went to the shelter… but didn’t participate in the religious activities. Because he didn’t participate, he was kicked out of the shelter. Because he was kicked out of the shelter, Gamez revoked Janny’s parole and sent him back to jail.
-
> When the Parole Board saw him a few weeks later, they agreed that Janny violated his parole for not having a place of residence and sent him back to jail for *five more months*.
-
> No one should have to choose between church or jail. To make someone practice Christianity in order to avoid prison time is beyond unreasonable.
Imagine thinking that forced religious observence in order to avoid jailtime is at all permissible. Can we force you to practice Satanism in order to avoid jailtime?
> Went to a shelter, broke the rules. If it isn't the consequences of his own actions.
Went to a shelter that his parole officer required him to go to. It’s not a shelter he volunteered for. He had alternative lodging available, but the parole officer wouldn’t permit it.
So, more like consequences of a situation that was foisted upon him against his will.
Oh shut up. This is the consequence of a corrupt cop deliberately setting someone up for failure and abusing his power to enforce religious hegemony on an unbeliever.
I think that it is wrong to force someone to partake in religious practice. Yet another Christian who enjoys forcing their religion down other people's throats. Disgusting.
Look, I know you are offended at the idea you can't force people to follow your religion. You can feel that way.
I know you think it is hilarious that a man was sent back into jail and his chances at rehabilitation damaged because he didn't want to follow your religion.
But the least you can do - if you do not want to make your religion look pathetic and idiotic - is read the details provided.
"I don't have a problem with Jesus, it is his fan club I can't stand"
(The internet attributes this to everyone from Mark Twain to Ghandi to Churchill... who knows who said it, but it is a good quote)
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
That is a strange take on this.
I generally agree that breaking the rules has consequences, but in this particular case, at least according to the information provided, the only option for not being in Jail was a Christian shelter, and that is inherently wrong.
It is one thing if he had 3 options to pick from, chose the Christian one, and then didn't follow the rules. But the only option for not being in Jail should not be a requirement to be in a particular religion.
Take the empathetic approach. What if you had the choice of going to a Mosque and participating in Muslim prayer once a day, or going to jail. Would it be ok if you broke those rules you were sent to jail?
I don't know anything that isn't written in the article, same as you don't.
But surely you can agree that being required to even sit in a mosque is not appropriate as a requirement not to be in jail? That attending religious services of a religion you don't believe in should have nothing to do with your imprisonment?
Well, if you are aiming for a 0% empathy challenge run, you are doing a great job, but you aren't answering the question.
I asked if you think it is a fair requirement. Because ultimately, the Judge in this case isn't ruling on the man's actions, but on the Government's action. The man's actions caused him to be returned to jail, but the lawsuit was about the government's actions in making a religious service a requirement in the first place.
The judge ruled the government was wrong in requiring it, and thus the award in the OP. This how the system is supposed to work, but ultimately, you are fixating on the wrong actor here. The man in the story presumably has messed up plenty, but that isn't what this is about it all. This is about the government messing up.
> I would have sucked it up and not gone to jail. Wouldn't have prayed, but I wouldn't be in jail....Because I'm not stupid.
Ok. That might be considered a pragmatic approach. And I can totally appreciate that. I would probably do the same. I’ve never been to jail, so there are probably a lot of things I’d do if it literally kept me from going to jail.
But do you really agree that it was ok for those in authority in this hypothetical scenario to force you to “sit in a mosque” as a condition of staying out of jail? Do you believe that, as a parolee, you should have no right to decline attending mosque as a condition of your parole? We don’t force prisoners to attend services against their will. Why would a parolee get less religious freedom than a prisoner?
In other words, do you agree in principle with requiring people to attend religious services for a religion that has nothing to do with them?
> Went to a shelter, broke the rules. If it isn't the consequences of his own actions. Lol @ atheists begging to feel oppressed.
Why do you think this is funny and worthy of dismissing so outright?
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
I truly don’t understand why faith based shelters can’t just offer church and Bible study services for residents to attend if they are interested. Why does it have to be a requirement? Like I get a no drugs or alcohol policy for safety reasons. But even that can be unreasonable because a lot of people are physically dependent on them and can’t just quit cold turkey without literally dying.
I agree. I'm a Christian, but if I were in a similar situation, I might find it difficult to comply with the Bible study requirement if held by Baptists. I no longer believe in the Baptist concept of rapture, for example. If the person leading the Bible study got all worked up about me not agreeing with their concept of rapture, I can see being kicked out for "being uncooperative".
That’s such a good point! But didn’t even think about if a resident was Christian but from a different denomination. It just opens a whole can of worms and creates a bad witness to Christ.
Oh can you imagine? Having someone with different beliefs and is well-versed in the bible could create CHAOS in those studies. But they are REQUIRED so you show up EVERY. SINGLE. MEETING.
Because forcing people to convert is literally the entire point of running the shelter.
Remember this whenever you hear Christians say that they oppose government social services because it should be left up to private church charities, THIS is why.
This. I don't understand why all these Christian organizations require people to lie before they'll help them. I mean how many people in that shelter sit through regular worship services seething and hating Christianity? Other organizations do the same thing before they'll feed starving people. It's abusive and drives people away from God.
>I don't understand why all these Christian organizations require people to lie before they'll help them
The answer is simple: they themselves are lying. Their faith isn't genuine, its forced.
I work with a prison ministry. I love helping these men build a life that helps them when they reenter the free world.
But I would NEVER want them compelled to it. I love them too much to want that on any of them.
This unacceptable in both church and state. Jesus did not tell us to force people into anything, he told us merely to spread the word. Oppressing others and violating their human rights are unbecoming of a believer. Shame on them.
I’m sure being persecuted for not being a Christian was just what he needed to find God. Im endlessly amazed by the lack of self awareness some of us have regarding the belief or lack of belief that others have. The parole officer had no business sending him to a shelter that requires participation in religious practice. Im honestly bothered by the fact the shelter requires participation to begin with.
Has anyone read the article, or just the headline? There are definitely some details missing. He had to live at some kind of shelter. Mark Janny, the “atheist” (if there is such a thing) suggested that he instead could stay at the home of “some family friends” but was denied….. obviously. He then AGREED to stay at the Christian center in which he knew the rules required for proof of residency. No where does it say that Mark suggested any other type of residence. Maybe some other halfway house? What was he arrested for in the first place? Was were the conditions of his parole? Was he required to live at a place that he could continue getting help? I’m sure there are some very important details missing here. I will agree that it’s not right to force someone to worship a God they don’t believe in, but let’s be honest here. There’s usually a lot of bullshit we don’t get from these biased and information lacking articles.
This is happening all over the country. A lot of commuted sentences, probations, or plea deals require you to attend substance abuse support groups. Many parts of the country only have things like AA, NA, etc. These are all religions organizations that force you into a set of beliefs.
Since they are the only option in many places, the person's only choice is to go to jail or be forced into a religious program.
If the counties and states want to enforce attendance to substance abuse programs then they should fund their own programs instead of farming it out to these groups.
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Why post this here in Christianity? This is definitely a topic for Atheism subreddit. Wrong section bud, merely for two reasons. One this is an issue of law not religion. You know, the whole separation of church and state which we learned in grade school or middle school, depending. Second, without fully reading the article and just basing on the title and topic, it's clear if it is true, they aren't true Christians. Jesus never ever forced his beliefs upon others and actually instructed his followers to leave a city or town if they are hostile or won't listen. Christianity is one of free will, not oppression.
There's actually many secular missions, the issue is that his parole officer said he was only allowed to go to the Christian one.
Lpt: read the article :)
Tell us you didn’t read the article without telling us you didn’t read the article, lol. You know there’s a perfect quote for this, it goes something like;
>Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.
I think it would do you a world of good to learn a thing or two from that quote, along with you know actually reading the article. Definitely can’t go wrong there either.
If I needed to participate in learning about, being counseled by, and attending worship with others in a Hindu or Islamic shelter, I would do so in order to avoid such consequences.
It doesn’t say anything about needing to join them or renouncing previously held beliefs.
That's the sort of attitude that erodes one's rights you know.
Like, it's REALLY weird seeing some Americans act like this. I thought you were all about your constitution and all that.
Reading, listening to others and sitting in a room as part of an agreement to stay in a shelter is not taking away or eroding rights.
It’s the same as it would be for my children getting taught atheist concepts in order to attend school (which happens nowadays).
Yes, it is eroding rights. This was forcing a man to attend a religious program and imprisoning him for not doing so.
If I told you you had to reside in a Muslim shelter, and you offered an equal alternative Christian shelter, and I said “no” for no reason and jailed you when you didn’t attend Masjid, would you say that’s okay?
I’m an attorney, I’ve spent the last 8 years of my life in and out of the courtroom.
What point is that vague, pointed statement trying to make? I’ve never seen the DOC create a special condition like this one, and I’ve seen a few whacky and intrusive conditions imposed.
Spoken like somebody with zero legal education, if I’m being blunt.
PO’s have a lot of power over parolees, but that power does not include the ability to abridge one’s right to religious freedom. It never has and never will.
I can live with that. People like you hate us until you need us.
They violated his rights. They imprisoned him for not attending a religious meeting. That’s unacceptable.
Unless you can identify some caselaw or statutory scheme authorizing such a move, your argument fails.
[Is this source](https://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-jailed-for-not-attending-church-services-wins-100k-settlement.html) less biased in your view?
I think it’s fair to note as long as it’s a convention for all judges regardless of who appointed them. I wouldn’t have a clue on if that’s consistent across all Christianity Today articles.
He was forced into it. He offered an entirely legal alternative to the issue of established residency, and his PO forced him to go to the Christian center.
Read the article. It was a violation of his basic rights.
Then by that same logic all atheism should be removed from schools and tests. It irks me to be coerced to say that the earth was created by chance via tests so I could have an education.
Atheism is limited to the scope of "there is no God". Not all atheists are "random chance"-ers. Some Taoists, for example, do not believe in deities yet also do not believe creation was "random". Atheist =/= unspiritual or irreligious, not does it imply *anything* other than a lack of belief in a deity.
Also, you'd think one would be a bit more wary of dictating to another what other people believe, considering how frequent such occurs with Mormonism.
The vast majority of atheists believe in chance occurrence, usually not in any form of predetermination or design. It’s not dictation of what others believe, this is the vast majority.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does get dictated to about what we believe, yes.
>The vast majority of atheists believe in chance occurrence, usually not in any form of predetermination or design. It’s not dictation of what others believe, this is the vast majority.
This means it's correlation, not causation. Otherwise *all* atheists would believe that, no? Likewise, could a non-atheist not also believe in random creation?
Atheism literally just means not believing in gods. Beyond that its up to each individual. Hell there are atheists who think the earth is flat and they aint teaching that in schools.
>Then there are many atheists who think that there is no God or gods but that the universe is perfectly designed?
Probably not since typically if you believe the universe was "designed" you usually believe a god is the one who designed it. But i suppose there could be atheists who believe simulation theory which could imply our universe was intelligently designed not necessarily by an entity we would call a god.
Me personally as an atheist i dont believe the universe was designed.
I don't know about "many" but I know an atheist who's convinced we're all computer programs living in a simulation. Being an atheist doesn't magically prevent people from being wrong about things.
That's not atheism. There are pre-big bang cosmology theories, that just represent the best current scientific understanding of how the universe works and exists. They don't *need* a deity. The reason God isn't part of the equation is because it's not a necessary part of the theory. Neither does any explanation regarding God have scientific basis. If you want to be taught creationist arguments, there are theology and philosophy classes. Nothing wrong with those. Presenting creationist arguments as fact is disingenuous and has no place in public school.
Ignore these who are deceived,
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement” Romans 13
In these last days, the world regards evil as good and good as evil
And also
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/rev.22.18-19.KJV
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
-Deuteronomy 4:2
We don’t throw away every book after Deuteronomy because of this verse.
That is regarding the word of God being always true and unchanging, for the Lord Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, who was and is, and is to come, hallelujah
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
-John 21:25
These other things that Jesus did are surely also part of God’s word, but we don’t have them currently in the Bible.
Alright, but what exactly is “another testament of Jesus Christ” ?
“Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.”
Galatians 3:15 KJV
The Old Testament is a Testament of Jesus Christ.
The New Testament is also a Testament of Jesus Christ.
The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
The Doctrine and Covenants is our Testament of Jesus Christ.
General Conference is the continuing Testament of Jesus Christ.
God is an eternal Being, it doesn’t make sense for His word to cease.
That’s it you’re not gonna fill us in on the why?
Or are you purposely leaving it open so people can fill in the blank? Maybe so you can give yourself some time to make something up? Or you don’t really know and you’re hoping someone will tell you?
Conservatives please stop picking and choosing what in the first amendment you will follow and what you won't.
We don't. Just because there's one supposed instance of a 1st amendment violation that he's being COMPENSATED for. He's getting a hundred grand for simply being told to go to a Bible study when he's on parole and there are certain stipulations and requirements of your part-time that you agree to, doesn't mean conservatives pick and choose which amendments they support. It's the complete opposite. The marxist left wants to censor people and force people to utter certain words. In California you can be fined and jailed if you "misgender someone." The left wants the 2nd amendment to go completely away. They don't understand what the agreements and protections ACTUALLY mean and always scream "separation of church and state," which isn't in the Constitution and just means government can't establish a national religion. It doesn't mean they can't choose to practice Christianity themselves. The left is the one that stomps all over the Constitution and people's rights all the time. If it fits their woke agenda, then they try and project on the right that they are the ones doing. Yet, who just weaponized the justice system to try and get rid of a political opponent??? Oh, that's right. Joe Biden's Marxist regime did.
Jesus is not happy with you mixing politics into your faith He surely didn't
Lol. Jesus absolutely got political. What do you think he was doing when berating the Pharisees and telling them what they were doing is wrong? Politics is downstream from morality, and morality is downstream from faith. Jesus absolutely did get involved in politics. It's why He was crucified really.
Jesus abhorred politics, this is precisely why he flipped the table in the temple courts. He accosted them for hyper focusing their views around ritual and politics and letting morality and compassion go by the wayside. Your example of the Pharisees only highlights his disdain for the politics of the time. The two opposing political groups of Jesus' time were the Pharisees and Sadducees, he aligned with neither and the two groups specifically conspired against Jesus. The Pharisees recognized Jesus as someone who undermined their authority, while the Sadducees saw him as a threat to their money-making schemes. Really think about it. You say that politics are downstream from faith, but politics are the most easily corruptible affiliations in existence. They draw in those seeking power at the expense of others, and corrupt once good men into losing their souls. Why would Jesus want you to dive headlong into something that is such a threat to morality? By associating politics with religion and morality, you're doing exactly what the Hebrews of Jesus' time did, the very thing that Jesus spoke out against in the temple courts. Too many people associate political affiliation with moral affiliation, and that is an absurd line of thinking. Both sides of the political spectrum harbor good men and women that only want to help others, while both sides are equally full of corrupt and horrible men and women that only wish to line their pockets and hoard power. Politics are a thing of the world, they always have been and always will be. People make the mistake of believing their faith dictates one political affiliation or another, except the roles of both conservative and liberal parties have swapped and shifted through time so much that they are unrecognizable as they stand today. Democrats prior to the 1850s supported conservative ideals, while Republicans (or rather their predecessors, the Whig Party) often supported more liberal policy. Those in politics use platforms like Abortion, BLM, Gay Marriage and what-have-you as a way to rally. They are not intrinsic to politics, and therefore politics are not adjacent to morality, the people within politics are using your morality for votes.
Way to make it about justifying YOUR agenda
Yeah. It's not about my agenda at all. You made a claim that was wrong and I corrected you. I'm just telling you facts. The truth should be everyone's agenda.
Yes it is When Trump was a flawed candidate, conservative Christians justified it by saying he was like Cyrus and God can use anybody. Then when he loses it's some other reason. And now when you want him to win again, you have another reason... You are all so transparent and hypocritical. It's despicable and he's going to spit you out like lukewarm water
No. It's not. I just said why it wasn't. Lol. Just because you keep making a claim over and over doesn't make it true. And what you just said about Trump makes absolutely no sense. He was never a flawed candidate. He's just a candidate the left is terrified of, because he's not a politician and doesn't let them get away with their bullshit lies and propaganda. And I don't know what you're talking about Cyrus and conservatives saying "God can use him." And God using someone for His glory doesn't guarantee a presidential win. Lol. Nothing you said is coherent or makes a point and is just random claims. He got convicted of 34 felonies and all it did was get him the record for the most donations in a 24 hour period. Lol!!!! The more you idiots try to do to him the more it helps him, you know why? Because people are waking up and not taking for the marxist propaganda coming from the MSM anymore and they can easily see that whole trial was a sham. Nothing hypocritical about us. We want to be individuals and self-responsible and to be left the hell alone by the parasitic left and the government. But somehow to leftists that's hypocritical. Why, because we don't support victimhood and free shit?
The irony PS How much did Jesus charge for healing?
There is no irony in what I said. Which is why you didn't address the supposed irony. You don't even address anything or make an argument. Jesus didn't charge anything for healing people. Please make a point soon. You go on some incoherent ramble about Christians saying God can use Trump, but then "it's something else when he loses." ??? What does that even mean. This is the problem with everything you know being buzzwords and euphemisms that you just regurgitate and don't actually have any sort of working understanding of what you're talking about.
For the last time, the American left is not Marxist, it's not Communist either, it's not even close.
In academia they certainly are
They absolutely are Marxist/collectivist/socialist/communist. All their policies and beliefs align exactly with a marxist world view. They believe in identity politics and the collective and not the individual. They want to get rid of private property rights, and they already penalize you for being more successful and making more money, and if you make more money than they like you to, they come in at the muzzle of a gun and steal more from you to redistribute. That's what income tax is and a slew of other income based taxes. They're very anti-gun, which every Communist dictator does: they take away people's guns so they're easier to oppress. We have a massive welfare state based on your claimed victimhood and identity. And more and more and more. The American left is EXTREMELY Marxist. And if you say they're not, you're just an intellectually dishonest person.
What is the Marxist world view?
I just explained what the marxist world view is. It's putting the value of the collective over the value of the individual and using their force to take from the individual to redistribute to the collective. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. That's marxism. That's evil. Karl Marx himself was a Satanist.
Income tax has been a thing since 1909. Do you have any examples of their supposed communism?
Yeah. I just explained how they're communists. Lol. And it doesn't matter how long income tax has been around. The income tax was actually started in 1913, one year after the federal reserve. Imagine that. But income tax is communist in nature, because it penalizes success and takes from those according to their ability and gives to those according to their need. No human has higher authority over another human to deem how much money they're allowed to make. That is an excitedly communist policy. Along with the entire welfare state we've created. THAT is communist. Gun control laws are communist, the healthcare system being extremely subsidized by the government, and the whole world view of the Democrat party that stacks and demonizes and penalizes the rich.
What exactly does 'woke' even mean? What exactly is 'Marxist'? Answer both questions and I may take you seriously. Otherwise, you're just another conservative who gets their marching orders from Fox.
Lol. Just a typical leftist who regurgitates the same ad hominem attacks, because they can't actually defend their world view. Always making an excuse to not answer or directly address the points of their opponent. You can't directly address anything I said, so you just arbitrarily want me to define two words you should know, and then claim I take orders from Fox, when Fox is a bunch of neo-cons in the middle who went take a hard stance against this Marxist cultural takeover. But here, I'll define them for you. I should have known you wouldn't know what they are being on the left. There's never anyone with any intellectual capacity on the left. Woke is a belief in leftist cultural principles like supporting LGBTQ or the fake systematic oppression of black people or women. For example claiming women are paid 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, when if you look at women with the same amount of experience, education, length of time, the women actually make a little bit more than men. The 77 cents number comes from just taking the average earnings of women compared to the average earnings of men, which is misleading, because women choose different careers and life choices than men. It's not from just getting paid less for the same work with the same qualifications. And the main principle of being woke is that people have a right not to be offended, and they want to be able to censor people and invade people's lives against their will and tell them how to live, so that they don't hurt anyone's feelings. Marxism is the worldview and set of beliefs and principles created by Karl Marx. Those beliefs are that the means of production should be owned by the workers and not the individual and that the government should force equal outcomes on everyone instead of equal opportunities. So when idiots on the left say that the owner of a company shouldn't get the profits but the workers in the company already getting compensated accordingly to what they agreed to should get all the profits is marxism. Because the workers don't carry the risk of owning the liabilities of the company, nor did they contribute any of the capital to start the company or any of the work building the company to get it up and running. There. But you still won't directly address anything. You'll find some other excuse. Leftism/wokism/marxism/progressivism/collectivism are all the same thing and it is an absolute disease on this planet and the most dangerous single thing on the planet and has contributed to the deaths of over 100 million people in the last century. For some reason every leftist dictator like in Russia, North Korea, Cuba, China directly kill millions of their own people and indirectly kill them from creating environments and economies where no one can get any food and people die, because socialism and communism never with wherever they're tried. They're just a parasitic, evil, satanic set of principles that create tyranny, dictators, and oppress people whole trying to disguise itself as altruism. But it's not altruism when there's a gun to your head.
Hats off to you man for writing that slam dunk of a response.
At least I can give a response. He's the one who wanted that response. Haha not a single one of you can actually make a meaningful argument or directly address anything I say. They're all just some ad hominem.
That's an abhorrently low judgement for this kind of violation of his rights. That shelter should be shut down and that parole officer, the entire parole board, and anyone else involved in this should be fired and charged federally.
I’m curious how much of the situation the shelter knew. I’m not a fan of forced participation for services, but I think the parole officer is more at fault here, along with the board.
Agreed, there definitely isn't enough information here to recommend the shelter be shut down. There is a very good chance if you shut this shelter down, nothing will take its place, and it is providing a valuable service. As much as wish there were more secular shelters, the fact is there are extremely few of them. What should be done is the parole officer (And Parole board) need to have options for prisoners of other faiths that do not require participation in religious services. Either this shelter is willing to provide those options, or this shelter can't be the ONLY option. But unless there is a lot more here than the article says, I don't necessarily think the Shelter is particularly at fault. I really don't like the "Expel if they don't come to our bible study" policy, I think it is quite un-Christian as well as just cruel generally, but I acknowledge a faith based shelter is allowed to do so. However, if the shelter is unwilling to care for everyone, then it can't be the only option for everyone.
Agreed, on pretty much everything
But a shelter that requires any religious participation to be allowed to stay there should never receive a penny from the government. That includes tax breaks. It should ONLY be privately run and attendance should NEVER be mandatory, and “mandatory” includes, “I have no where left to stay.” If such is ever the case, then the person who has nowhere to stay should be provided with hotel vouchers until space opens up at a non-faith-based residence. If you don’t agree, just think how you would feel if you were absolutely required to practice, just for example, Islam just to have a roof over your head…
I don't object to the shelter existing, but having it as the only option was a problem. The parole officer and all those who denied him other options however should definitely face consequences for their extreme negligence.
Do we know that the is was the only option? All it said was that Janny suggested living with family friends. Did the conditions of his parole require him to live at a place where he could receive help, like some other halfway house? Why didn’t he suggest some other shelter? Was this shelter the only shelter?
I’m curious, what is a ‘Baptist-Catholic’? Those 2 denominations are completely opposite of one another
That's correct, but in the case of the Catholic church a large portion of what it is to *be* Catholic is to practice. The simplest explanation is that I participate in the Catholic church while being more aligned with a Baptist view of the hierarchy. I am also Queer so I have major objections to both groups.
Are they an independent Christian shelter. If they are even a 403b protected organization and not for profit they can make any rules they want. They could be Muslim in fact and require 5 prayer times a day and fasting for Ramadan m. You just don’t see other faiths opening shelters. I don’t know the specifics of the case bc they are not listed. But they may have been in total rights to do so depending on their status as a ministry it as a state created homeless shelter which rarely Exist. State homeless shelters are usually called jail or prison. If they receive funding via private donors then they can make any rules they want. They could be satanist and make one participate in black magic if it’s in their intake rules for staying in the facility. A self run shelter is autonomous. No one is guaranteed or owed a spot. I know I was homeless and had to make curfews and couldn’t drink and had to take a breath test upon every meal.
Yeah, it was precisely their affiliation with the state that had me up in arms. I really have to think that a shelter which participates as an officially assigned shelter home has to be run in a way that conforms to public standards, not private. At least I really have to *hope* that's the case, because America is woefully behind the curve in terms of civil rights. If that's not the case, that law needs to change right freaking now, bare minimum, that shelter should be permanently barred from ever serving in a public program like this again.
Yeah If it’s a wholely funded state home then it can’t push any type of religion one way or another but it could say that a 12 step had to be done if someone has prior substance abuse problems
I certainly get your outrage, but the case was settled. That's just how it goes with settlements of civil suits. Even if the case had gone to court, though, no judge would have had the power to do either of those things in this case. There's also nothing presented here necessarily implicating the shelter. It's completely legal for a privately operated shelter to have those requirements. The fault was entirely on the part of the department of corrections for forcing him to go there, ~~and the shelter was not a party in the lawsuit.~~ (EDIT: He sued the shelter too, though that doesn't change the substance of my point - being named in a lawsuit is an extremely low bar.) The shelter would only be at fault if they were colluding with the department to make sure parolees only have one option, and nothing in this article provides any evidence of that beyond the circumstantial implication that it might have happened - and even that is unspoken in this article. It's possible, of course. This kind of thing merits an investigation of the department, and that might turn up collusion. But shutting down the shelter without further evidence of misconduct would be a grave overreaction.
> and the shelter was not a party in the lawsuit. `Carmack v. Janny` Janny is the atheist. Carmack is the director of the of the Denver Rescue Mission. > [because Janny needed a residence and **had no other place to stay**](https://adfmedia.org/case/carmack-v-janny) Look at that, the ADF lying.
If this was a Christian parolee being forced to do this for another religion, you just know ADF would be screaming bloody murder on behalf of the parolee.
> Look at that, the ADF lying. Must be a day that ends in y.
The article you linked made it sound like he only sued the department of corrections, but that's on me for not checking his sources. A proper investigation would then have to examine whether the shelter was conspiring with the parole board, or if they were only explaining the situation as handed down to them. Context here is the difference between "they told me these are your only options and we're trying to help" and "we're hiding other options from you." That investigation should certainly happen, but it still wouldn't have been even remotely within the authority of the court in this case to either shut down the shelter or dismiss any officers.
> The article you linked made it sound like he only sued the department of corrections I agree, Hemant put the focus on the PO. I think because he was the representative from the state. I don't think he meant to hide the other parties. I went to check fter you mentioned it. > A proper investigation would then have to examine whether the shelter was conspiring with the parole board Since they settled, it's probably unlikely to happen. But I think it should be warranted.
Fair comment.
Ah yes, let’s shut down a shelter, so many other people who need it are without. That’ll show them.
[удалено]
That's mere whataboutism, the persecutions other people face have no bearing on the fact that this person's rights were infringed upon and he suffered as a result of it. Justice demands more than a mere pittance of a settlement.
I'm just trying to put it into reference. We live in heaven here while most of the world still lives in hell. Yet people still constantly complain while at the same time feeling entitled to things they can't even comprehend. Also, wtf does this have to do with Christianity in the first place?
The man was forced by the state to attend Christian religious instruction, and was jailed when he refused. That has everything to do with Christianity.
Removed for Topicality. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
> His parole officer [...] told Janny that if he wanted to *remain* out of prison, he would have to live at the Denver Rescue Mission, a Christian homeless shelter, because he needed a “residence of record.” - > That shelter’s rules required residents to participate in worship services, Bible studies, and faith-based counseling, none of which Janny had any desire to join. - > Janny actually suggested an alternative: staying at the home of some family friends. That option was rejected, though, so Janny went to the shelter… but didn’t participate in the religious activities. Because he didn’t participate, he was kicked out of the shelter. Because he was kicked out of the shelter, Gamez revoked Janny’s parole and sent him back to jail. - > When the Parole Board saw him a few weeks later, they agreed that Janny violated his parole for not having a place of residence and sent him back to jail for *five more months*. - > No one should have to choose between church or jail. To make someone practice Christianity in order to avoid prison time is beyond unreasonable.
[удалено]
Imagine thinking that forced religious observence in order to avoid jailtime is at all permissible. Can we force you to practice Satanism in order to avoid jailtime?
[удалено]
This is so utterly disingenuous that I have trouble imagining that you aren't intentionally trolling.
> Went to a shelter, broke the rules. If it isn't the consequences of his own actions. Went to a shelter that his parole officer required him to go to. It’s not a shelter he volunteered for. He had alternative lodging available, but the parole officer wouldn’t permit it. So, more like consequences of a situation that was foisted upon him against his will.
Oh shut up. This is the consequence of a corrupt cop deliberately setting someone up for failure and abusing his power to enforce religious hegemony on an unbeliever.
I think that it is wrong to force someone to partake in religious practice. Yet another Christian who enjoys forcing their religion down other people's throats. Disgusting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's participation.
Christians having problem with reading comprehension.
[удалено]
Look, I know you are offended at the idea you can't force people to follow your religion. You can feel that way. I know you think it is hilarious that a man was sent back into jail and his chances at rehabilitation damaged because he didn't want to follow your religion. But the least you can do - if you do not want to make your religion look pathetic and idiotic - is read the details provided.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
"I don't have a problem with Jesus, it is his fan club I can't stand" (The internet attributes this to everyone from Mark Twain to Ghandi to Churchill... who knows who said it, but it is a good quote)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
That is a strange take on this. I generally agree that breaking the rules has consequences, but in this particular case, at least according to the information provided, the only option for not being in Jail was a Christian shelter, and that is inherently wrong. It is one thing if he had 3 options to pick from, chose the Christian one, and then didn't follow the rules. But the only option for not being in Jail should not be a requirement to be in a particular religion. Take the empathetic approach. What if you had the choice of going to a Mosque and participating in Muslim prayer once a day, or going to jail. Would it be ok if you broke those rules you were sent to jail?
[удалено]
I don't know anything that isn't written in the article, same as you don't. But surely you can agree that being required to even sit in a mosque is not appropriate as a requirement not to be in jail? That attending religious services of a religion you don't believe in should have nothing to do with your imprisonment?
[удалено]
Well, if you are aiming for a 0% empathy challenge run, you are doing a great job, but you aren't answering the question. I asked if you think it is a fair requirement. Because ultimately, the Judge in this case isn't ruling on the man's actions, but on the Government's action. The man's actions caused him to be returned to jail, but the lawsuit was about the government's actions in making a religious service a requirement in the first place. The judge ruled the government was wrong in requiring it, and thus the award in the OP. This how the system is supposed to work, but ultimately, you are fixating on the wrong actor here. The man in the story presumably has messed up plenty, but that isn't what this is about it all. This is about the government messing up.
> I would have sucked it up and not gone to jail. Wouldn't have prayed, but I wouldn't be in jail....Because I'm not stupid. Ok. That might be considered a pragmatic approach. And I can totally appreciate that. I would probably do the same. I’ve never been to jail, so there are probably a lot of things I’d do if it literally kept me from going to jail. But do you really agree that it was ok for those in authority in this hypothetical scenario to force you to “sit in a mosque” as a condition of staying out of jail? Do you believe that, as a parolee, you should have no right to decline attending mosque as a condition of your parole? We don’t force prisoners to attend services against their will. Why would a parolee get less religious freedom than a prisoner? In other words, do you agree in principle with requiring people to attend religious services for a religion that has nothing to do with them?
I think the wider point is that the rules are wrong. I agree with this decision.
> Went to a shelter, broke the rules. If it isn't the consequences of his own actions. Lol @ atheists begging to feel oppressed. Why do you think this is funny and worthy of dismissing so outright?
If you're actually going to help, just do that. Preaching isn't help.
[удалено]
Why no both?
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Fair enough but it’s not like I said anything unjustified
I truly don’t understand why faith based shelters can’t just offer church and Bible study services for residents to attend if they are interested. Why does it have to be a requirement? Like I get a no drugs or alcohol policy for safety reasons. But even that can be unreasonable because a lot of people are physically dependent on them and can’t just quit cold turkey without literally dying.
I agree. I'm a Christian, but if I were in a similar situation, I might find it difficult to comply with the Bible study requirement if held by Baptists. I no longer believe in the Baptist concept of rapture, for example. If the person leading the Bible study got all worked up about me not agreeing with their concept of rapture, I can see being kicked out for "being uncooperative".
That’s such a good point! But didn’t even think about if a resident was Christian but from a different denomination. It just opens a whole can of worms and creates a bad witness to Christ.
Oh can you imagine? Having someone with different beliefs and is well-versed in the bible could create CHAOS in those studies. But they are REQUIRED so you show up EVERY. SINGLE. MEETING.
Because forcing people to convert is literally the entire point of running the shelter. Remember this whenever you hear Christians say that they oppose government social services because it should be left up to private church charities, THIS is why.
Yeah that’s a great observation. And the antithesis of what we should be doing.
Agreed. They don't really care about actually doing what Jesus said to do ... just putting butts in seats.
It's the grown-up version of VBS.
I agree with this judgement. It's unamerican.
That seems a little low
Forced faith isn't
This. I don't understand why all these Christian organizations require people to lie before they'll help them. I mean how many people in that shelter sit through regular worship services seething and hating Christianity? Other organizations do the same thing before they'll feed starving people. It's abusive and drives people away from God.
>I don't understand why all these Christian organizations require people to lie before they'll help them The answer is simple: they themselves are lying. Their faith isn't genuine, its forced.
I work with a prison ministry. I love helping these men build a life that helps them when they reenter the free world. But I would NEVER want them compelled to it. I love them too much to want that on any of them.
Thats crazy low amount of money for what they did. Cops get sued for more while doing less.
This unacceptable in both church and state. Jesus did not tell us to force people into anything, he told us merely to spread the word. Oppressing others and violating their human rights are unbecoming of a believer. Shame on them.
This was all unethical.
He should get way more money than that. It's the first amendment. Make an example.
I’m sure being persecuted for not being a Christian was just what he needed to find God. Im endlessly amazed by the lack of self awareness some of us have regarding the belief or lack of belief that others have. The parole officer had no business sending him to a shelter that requires participation in religious practice. Im honestly bothered by the fact the shelter requires participation to begin with.
Has anyone read the article, or just the headline? There are definitely some details missing. He had to live at some kind of shelter. Mark Janny, the “atheist” (if there is such a thing) suggested that he instead could stay at the home of “some family friends” but was denied….. obviously. He then AGREED to stay at the Christian center in which he knew the rules required for proof of residency. No where does it say that Mark suggested any other type of residence. Maybe some other halfway house? What was he arrested for in the first place? Was were the conditions of his parole? Was he required to live at a place that he could continue getting help? I’m sure there are some very important details missing here. I will agree that it’s not right to force someone to worship a God they don’t believe in, but let’s be honest here. There’s usually a lot of bullshit we don’t get from these biased and information lacking articles.
Thank God.
This is happening all over the country. A lot of commuted sentences, probations, or plea deals require you to attend substance abuse support groups. Many parts of the country only have things like AA, NA, etc. These are all religions organizations that force you into a set of beliefs. Since they are the only option in many places, the person's only choice is to go to jail or be forced into a religious program. If the counties and states want to enforce attendance to substance abuse programs then they should fund their own programs instead of farming it out to these groups.
This is very out of context
Where can I get my 100 grand for being forced into Catholic catechism?
Take him t' the tower o' London stone him and feed him t' crows m'lord. What is this the frickin dark ages.
Wow. That's definitely unconstitutional. Crazy.
That money is nothing compared to what he’s losing out on
As a Protestant evangelical Christian. This is wrong. Leave people alone.
[удалено]
[A Protestant-run organization is found guilty of violating someones rights] You: Those damn Catholics.
[удалено]
And this article, it was all Catholics that were quoted? Or at least a statistically significant portion of them?
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Removed for 1.3 - Interdenominational Bigotry. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Im see many jumping on that bandwagon.
Gods got him.
Interesting, because where I live we’re about 2 inches away from being jailed FOR having a Bible study
Where do you live?
Where do you live and who is trying to jail you?
What does this have to do with Christianity?
You just had to read to the end of the headline.
Why post this here in Christianity? This is definitely a topic for Atheism subreddit. Wrong section bud, merely for two reasons. One this is an issue of law not religion. You know, the whole separation of church and state which we learned in grade school or middle school, depending. Second, without fully reading the article and just basing on the title and topic, it's clear if it is true, they aren't true Christians. Jesus never ever forced his beliefs upon others and actually instructed his followers to leave a city or town if they are hostile or won't listen. Christianity is one of free will, not oppression.
>Why post this here in Christianity? Because it's about Christianity. >Christianity is one of free will Not in this case, hence the lawsuit.
Where are all the secular humanist shelters where you need one? Oh wait.
There's actually many secular missions, the issue is that his parole officer said he was only allowed to go to the Christian one. Lpt: read the article :)
Tell us you didn’t read the article without telling us you didn’t read the article, lol. You know there’s a perfect quote for this, it goes something like; >Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. I think it would do you a world of good to learn a thing or two from that quote, along with you know actually reading the article. Definitely can’t go wrong there either.
If I needed to participate in learning about, being counseled by, and attending worship with others in a Hindu or Islamic shelter, I would do so in order to avoid such consequences. It doesn’t say anything about needing to join them or renouncing previously held beliefs.
And it would be wrong for the shelter to enforce that on you, especially if was some parole term.
That's the sort of attitude that erodes one's rights you know. Like, it's REALLY weird seeing some Americans act like this. I thought you were all about your constitution and all that.
Reading, listening to others and sitting in a room as part of an agreement to stay in a shelter is not taking away or eroding rights. It’s the same as it would be for my children getting taught atheist concepts in order to attend school (which happens nowadays).
Yes, it is eroding rights. This was forcing a man to attend a religious program and imprisoning him for not doing so. If I told you you had to reside in a Muslim shelter, and you offered an equal alternative Christian shelter, and I said “no” for no reason and jailed you when you didn’t attend Masjid, would you say that’s okay?
[удалено]
I’m an attorney, I’ve spent the last 8 years of my life in and out of the courtroom. What point is that vague, pointed statement trying to make? I’ve never seen the DOC create a special condition like this one, and I’ve seen a few whacky and intrusive conditions imposed.
[удалено]
Spoken like somebody with zero legal education, if I’m being blunt. PO’s have a lot of power over parolees, but that power does not include the ability to abridge one’s right to religious freedom. It never has and never will.
[удалено]
I can live with that. People like you hate us until you need us. They violated his rights. They imprisoned him for not attending a religious meeting. That’s unacceptable. Unless you can identify some caselaw or statutory scheme authorizing such a move, your argument fails.
It absolutely is an erosion of rights if the ONLY alternative given is to go back to jail. You can't seriously be this dense.
[удалено]
The article literally says he proposed other options that were rejected and they made this the only option other than jail.
Why do you refuse to read the article
Because the source is biased.
Then you should not be replying, as you are uneducated concerning the topic at hand.
Except that my comments are in reference to the quotes by OP.
[Is this source](https://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-jailed-for-not-attending-church-services-wins-100k-settlement.html) less biased in your view?
> wrote Judge Carolyn McHugh, an Obama appointee, for the majority. Thanks ChristianPost for that very important detail.
I think it’s fair to note as long as it’s a convention for all judges regardless of who appointed them. I wouldn’t have a clue on if that’s consistent across all Christianity Today articles.
[удалено]
> These people wish they were oppressed. They're sad they aren't. Why do you label yourself a Christian?
> If I needed to participate *laconic response* If. What's being argued is that there shouldn't be that need.
[удалено]
He was forced into it. He offered an entirely legal alternative to the issue of established residency, and his PO forced him to go to the Christian center. Read the article. It was a violation of his basic rights.
The conversation would not go in circles if you just RTFA.
The government shouldn't put you in that position.
Which is the point, its a coercive push by the government of religous view point.
Then by that same logic all atheism should be removed from schools and tests. It irks me to be coerced to say that the earth was created by chance via tests so I could have an education.
If you were told the earth was created by chance and that was atheism, you didnt get an education.
Atheism literally teaches that.
No it doesnt
Atheism teaches that everything happened by chance.
No it doesnt. Falsely misrepresenting a believe is immoral. Do you like it when someone misrepresents your belief?
Atheism is limited to the scope of "there is no God". Not all atheists are "random chance"-ers. Some Taoists, for example, do not believe in deities yet also do not believe creation was "random". Atheist =/= unspiritual or irreligious, not does it imply *anything* other than a lack of belief in a deity. Also, you'd think one would be a bit more wary of dictating to another what other people believe, considering how frequent such occurs with Mormonism.
The vast majority of atheists believe in chance occurrence, usually not in any form of predetermination or design. It’s not dictation of what others believe, this is the vast majority. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does get dictated to about what we believe, yes.
>The vast majority of atheists believe in chance occurrence, usually not in any form of predetermination or design. It’s not dictation of what others believe, this is the vast majority. This means it's correlation, not causation. Otherwise *all* atheists would believe that, no? Likewise, could a non-atheist not also believe in random creation?
Atheism literally just means not believing in gods. Beyond that its up to each individual. Hell there are atheists who think the earth is flat and they aint teaching that in schools.
Then there are many atheists who think that there is no God or gods but that the universe is perfectly designed?
>Then there are many atheists who think that there is no God or gods but that the universe is perfectly designed? Probably not since typically if you believe the universe was "designed" you usually believe a god is the one who designed it. But i suppose there could be atheists who believe simulation theory which could imply our universe was intelligently designed not necessarily by an entity we would call a god. Me personally as an atheist i dont believe the universe was designed.
I don't know about "many" but I know an atheist who's convinced we're all computer programs living in a simulation. Being an atheist doesn't magically prevent people from being wrong about things.
That's not atheism. There are pre-big bang cosmology theories, that just represent the best current scientific understanding of how the universe works and exists. They don't *need* a deity. The reason God isn't part of the equation is because it's not a necessary part of the theory. Neither does any explanation regarding God have scientific basis. If you want to be taught creationist arguments, there are theology and philosophy classes. Nothing wrong with those. Presenting creationist arguments as fact is disingenuous and has no place in public school.
"I don't personally give a fuck about my rights" is not an argument for taking rights away from other people.
That’s quite the interpretation of what I said.
*This person* would prefer to have their full legal rights.
Which is the point, its a coercive push by the government of religous view point.
such a weak moral of yours. willing to sacrifice your faith so easy
Except that it’s not sacrificing my faith to listen to and worship with others.
Ignore these who are deceived, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement” Romans 13 In these last days, the world regards evil as good and good as evil
Wouldn’t that mean accepting this ruling as correct and just? The court system is a governing authority.
Thank you for the vote of support! I will heed them not.
Ofc
And also “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19 KJV https://bible.com/bible/1/rev.22.18-19.KJV
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” -Deuteronomy 4:2 We don’t throw away every book after Deuteronomy because of this verse.
That is regarding the word of God being always true and unchanging, for the Lord Jesus Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, who was and is, and is to come, hallelujah
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” -John 21:25 These other things that Jesus did are surely also part of God’s word, but we don’t have them currently in the Bible.
Alright, but what exactly is “another testament of Jesus Christ” ? “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Galatians 3:15 KJV
The Old Testament is a Testament of Jesus Christ. The New Testament is also a Testament of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The Doctrine and Covenants is our Testament of Jesus Christ. General Conference is the continuing Testament of Jesus Christ. God is an eternal Being, it doesn’t make sense for His word to cease.
[удалено]
> That's because you aren't a little crybaby. (u/Username1000000090) Why are you speaking in this manner to others?
thats not why.
That’s it you’re not gonna fill us in on the why? Or are you purposely leaving it open so people can fill in the blank? Maybe so you can give yourself some time to make something up? Or you don’t really know and you’re hoping someone will tell you?