Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time — in church

June 1, 2005

The principle of government neutrality towards religion isn’t complicated. But to see how badly some people understand the concept is nevertheless stunning.

A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab — a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.

District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to “help people and their families.”

“I don’t think there’s a church-state issue, because it’s not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church,” he said.

In all, since coming up with the idea, Caperton, who was elected in a non-partisan race, has offered the church-or-jail option about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders.

The defense for this is closer to a bad joke than a legal argument. It’s not mandatory, but if defendants ignore Caperton’s suggested religious alternative, they’re probably going to jail. He doesn’t mandate “church,” but when a sitting judge uses his position to promote and encourage religious services, he’s violating everything church-state separation stands for.

And as my friends at AU noted, it’s not the first time Caperton has had some problems separating his personal beliefs with his professional responsibilities.

…Caperton was reprimanded by the state’s Judicial Conduct Commission for presiding over a case involving a friend instead of disqualifying himself.

Sounds like that same commission needs to take a look at Caperton’s latest scheme as well.

June 1, 2005 at 11:49 am

“If English was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me.” I’ve heard this utterance attributed to all sorts of people, but I remember reading it in an issue of Time magazine (1961 I think) when the country was debating JFK’s proposal that high schools emphasize foreign language instruction. The speaker was a Tennesse superintendent of schools.

As with so many things like this, some much less obviously stupid, members of the dominant group seldom have a clue about life from the point of view of many non-dominant citizens: “I don’t think there’s a church-state issue — He may think not, but his presumption doesn’t make it so. None so blind as he who will not see.

Caperton, remember the name…he’s sure to be a Bush nominee somewhere in the future.

For some reason I find I’m a little in sympathy with this — at least without knowing more information. Mind you, I’m an atheist (though Unitarian churches do accommodate my beliefs)and when my kindergartner came home from the PTA-sponsored “holiday shop” with a necklace with a cross on it for her little sister I only barely restrained myself from kicking up a major fuss about it. But I guess what I’m wondering in this case is how effective is each measure at stopping the drug and alcohol abuse? Does prison work? Do worship services work? I look at my brother, who has a real problem, and my dearest interest is to get him into a local Unitarian church where he might make some non-alcoholic friends who share similar intellectual interests with him and whose company might make him less depressed and self-destructive. Do I think jail would be more beneficial to him? No. Should there be a delivery system for such programs that doesn’t involve religion? Not possible if much of your aim is to introduce the individual to a non-criminal peer group. So it seems to me the idea deserves some study to evaluate its effectiveness and its application should include alternatives for people whose religions are not represented locally or who are against organized religion for themselves. Maybe taking local college classes approved by the judge or participating in some local club.

The devil is in the details of what meets the requirment of worship. I read that in the UK, so many people listed their religeon as ‘Jedi Knight’ on the census, that the g’ment actually listed it as a religeon. Can defendents point to this, and head off to the megaplex to watch Star Wars?

What about religeons that enhance worship with mind altering drugs like peyote? I don’t see how that would discourage drug use.

The problem is you can’t define worship without defining religeon. The state can’t determine what qualifies as worship, without first deciding what’s acceptable as religeon.

Comments are closed.