DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Texas Judge offers Bible Study

Texas Judge Under Fire for Offering Convicts Christian Alternatives | Print | E-mail
Written by Raven Clabough
Wednesday, 30 March 2011 16:15
0

A newly elected Houston judge has come under harsh criticism for “thinking outside the box.” After Judge John Clinton proposed that convicts in his court read a Christian book and write a book report on it as an alternative to community service, critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union censured the idea, forcing the judge to retract his proposal. Fox News explains:

Judge John Clinton, a former police officer who was elected in January to preside over Harris County Criminal Court No. 4, offered nine people the chance to avoid community service last week by instead reading The Heart of the Problem, a Bible study book by Henry Brandt and Kerry L. Skinner that "proselytizes Christianity and advocates turning to God to solve problems," according to a March 29 letter from officials at the Texas branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

KHOU.com describes the Christian book as “a Bible study that touts itself as a workbook that provides insights for victorious Christian living.”

The judge's proposal was particularly geared for those charged with misdemeanors ranging from domestic assault to drug possession. The offenders were asked to return in a few months to discuss the book with the judge.

Clinton explained his philosophy: “I felt it as a calling. I’m just trying to think outside the box. Trying to mold the punishment to help these individuals, instead of set them up to fail.”

Not everyone viewed the recommendation in the same way as the judge.

Houston criminal defense attorney Dan Gerson asserted:

That is illegal, unconstitutional, and unfair. We are offended, as far as preaching from the bench, especially by requiring people, or asking people that they perform religious study in lieu of serving their sentence.

Houston criminal defense attorney Brett Podolsky does not regard Clinton’s intentions as malicious, but concludes that the judge has an “apparent misunderstanding of the First Amendment.”

The ACLU targeted the judge’s actions, commending him for “thinking outside of the box” but labeling his proposal “inappropriate and unconstitutional.”

Though Judge Clinton believed his recommendation could potentially have helped put the defendants in his court on the right track, the criticism has since caused him to revise his plan: "I have stopped the book," he indicated, "and [am] looking for something similar that I can offer to everyone.”

Clinton has also adamantly denied accusations that he is attempting to impose his religious beliefs on anyone, explaining,

All I was trying to do was help. I was told about the book. I received the book. I read the book. I thought, "Hey, this is a great book." Again, me thinking based on my faith, not thinking in general.

While the ACLU is delighted that Judge Clinton has since stopped the practice of offering the alternative option to community service, Lisa Graybill, legal director for the Texas ACLU affiliate, contends that it never should have been posed as an option in the first place:

It is inexplicable to me how anyone with a law degree could think that what this judge was doing was constitutional. Thinking with his faith is not what he’s elected to do. When he dons the robe and takes the bench, his obligation is to think as a judge.

Graybill asserts that an investigation should still be conducted by the presiding judge of the county’s criminal courts, Judge Sherman Ross, adding:

It takes a lot to surprise me and this surprised even me. It’s the most egregious case I’m aware of, assuming the facts are as reported to us.

Ross, however, has indicated that he will not conduct an investigation, but has since discussed Clinton’s “inappropriate” behavior. “Technically, Graybill is correct,” he commented. “In Clinton’s defense, being on the bench for less than four months, he’s been experimenting with a number of things that help in the rehabilitation process. That said, I did have a chat with him and we both agreed that although not unethical, it was inappropriate and he understands completely.”

Judge Ross added that he believes Clinton never intended to impose his religious beliefs on anyone and contends that Clinton was simply trying “to do the right thing.”

Closing the discussion, Ross declared, “We’re here to enforce man’s law.”

Not everyone was displeased with Clinton’s proposal. For example, Houston criminal defense attorney Stanley Schneider asserts that Clinton should be praised for the idea:

I think this is a man that we really need to get behind. Anyone who wants to take the initiative, and trying to do something to help people in his courtroom to succeed in life, he’s someone we need to applaud.

As far those offenders already working on the Christian reading and book report, Clinton indicates that they may choose something else if they prefer.

New American

Thought this was interesting

Couldn't AA also be considered the same way? I have no idea what is in this book but I am leery about how it is portrayed as a Bible study guide. The judge did the right thing imo by reversing course.

btw.. I think Lisa Graybill is an ass.

I also know that while this could be seen as a violation of separation of church and state ... if you are assigned community service (at least when I lived in PA) for any reason ... whether it was for high school graduation or punishment for things like breaking community curfews or getting in X amount of trouble at school ... you were aloud to do that community service at any church and were allowed to have the paster/priest/reverend sign off on your papers.

IMO its just a tricky issue and can probably be debated multiple ways over considering when you look at history (and especially ours) all of our laws were influenced by the laws of the church ... that's more or less the first law /government forms ... from the ones found in the old testament of the bible when god passed the law onto moses ...

and whether or not you actually believe in said law, it's important to remember that others did. And they did so strongly enough that that's how they created our legal system ... and then they wonder why we have problems trying to keep religion seperate from our laws...?

That's my only issue. Not knowing what is in the book but overall the idea was alright if you ask me

What if that book was just one of many that was an option? Maybe choose from a humanist or a secularly oriented book of success and goal acheiving? Maybe include a Dale Carnegie book? What would be so bad then?

Next time I'm in trouble,I hope someone reminds me not to call one these stupid Defense Attys.I'll gladly write a book report.To hell with the
aclu and my rights.

If there were a couple different options... I don't think it's a bad idea.

The report though would have to fit the crime. I'm talking about 20 pages single spaced. Part of the criteria.. would have to explain to me if the book actually had an effect on their life in anyway.

Great, state-sponsored religion.

What is this judge going to do next? I know, he's going to tell all non-Christians that in order to avoid jail sentences they must convert or face the consequences!

And ignorance raises its ugly head once again....

You mean as opposed to your idea...State sponsored atheism which is what we have now???....You seem to forget that the right towards religion is a right to CHOOSE....and these people were not FORCED to do the report.....they were given the OPTION to do so. In other words...they could CHOOSE to do it or another sentance.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My only issue is the same as what others have brought up. The content of the book, the selection of books. Was it strictly Christian? Or did they have a choice to report from a book from other religions such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.....

Charlie

link

Quote:

---

No. If you bothered to read the article you would know that he had changed what he was doing when the issue was brought up. He realized what he did was wrong.

He will continue to think outside of the box to come up with a better solution then we have now.

---

What do we need that for? The current system is working so well...

Did any of these people even think to counter offer the judge and say "I'd like to take you up on that but I'd rather do it with a different book." or did they just throw a fit first?

Quote:

---

sounded like the 'fit' was thrown not by the people but by lawyers who heard about it and figured they could make some $$$/publicity out of it.

---

Wish I was in the room when the judges found out they "won"... "Good news, I got that stupid judges offer to read a book and write a report thrown out based on first amendment grounds.. now you get to do 50 hours of community service."

Quote:

---

Atheists, like myself, would be thrown in jail unless they agreed that Christianity is "the answer".

---

First, they weren't in his court because they weren't Christian, they were in his court because they were criminals... second, nobody was thrown in jail for being an athiest.... third, nobody had to agree to anything, you just had to read a book and write a report...

had it been me, I would have read a book on the joy of marxism or the truth of global warming and written the report even though both of them are wrong.

Furthermore,

You commit the crime, you do the time. IF your crime is minimal enough that you are sentenced to community service - you do community service. You don't write a damn book report to get out of it.

everybody could do themselves a favor and do a book report on the bible. i am an atheist and i minored in Theology. expand the horizons man

And another point. I read "Mein Kampf" when in college. I am not a Nazi nor have I ever been. I do not hate the Jews or even agree with Hitler's thinking. It doesn't mÝan I couldn't learn something from it whether as examples or as examples of what not to do.

I am a (primarily) right wing individual when it comes to fiscal spending, global policy an economics. That doesn't mean I think I am any better than anyone else, but it's just to help demonstrate a point. I have been to Left wing demonstrations, read their reports, listened to their news and etc. Why? Because either I learn something, or I disagree with them. But it doesn't mean that just by being there I am "brainwashed" into something I disagree with... anymore than it means an Ohio State fan who watches a bowl game with Michigan playing in it would make them a Michigan fan. They just want to see what happens and see if they can learn from it.

Respectfully,

Are you suggesting that it's more important to "punish" than to actually rehabilitate?

Quote:

---

Religion is just another way to enslave mankind.

---

And to one with an open mind it can also be a way to set them free.

Well then I don't see how you can read different books yet not understand how important it would be for individuals to actually read them for themselves and see what they are REALLY about. To me this would spark thinking in many, so I would assume you should see it as a good thing. Let the people really read and come to know what they claim to follow.

I agree with your views though I would not consider myself "radical" (on a side note I am against most government spending and believe privatization would become more efficient in almost any scenario as long as it has a form of checks and balances and cannot be monopolized).

And with you finale ... I agree. But just because that's the popular things to say in the news and what gets people going doesn't mean that it's the majority of what people think. Anymore than the majority of left wingers still think Bush was a Nazi, that the right wing wants the poor to die in the streets, or that anyone who is on the right and doesn't believe in heterosexual marriage, suit and tie attire, having a well funded 401k, and being anything but christian or jewish is wrong. ...

believe me ... it's hard to argue stereotypes

Quote:

---

I know plenty about religion. I know that there are things that enslave mankind and other things that set them free. Religion is just another way to enslave mankind.

---

Speaking of being enslaved, I read an article the other day that there are more black men in the prison system now (in prison, on parole, etc) than there were black slaves in this country in 1850... so your thought of "if you do the crime, just shut up and do the time" isn't working to fix the problem.

As much as I am 100% certain that applying Christian principles would keep almost all of these people from ending up in prison (or back in prison), I am also sure that mandating Christian reading is unconstitutional... I am however aware of the need to get creative with rehabbing prisoners.

Quote:

---

I read it so that I can "know my enemy" so to speak.

---

So, someone who believes in something different than you is your enemy? I think you are the type of "mental cases" we need to be worried about.