I am always interested in hearing about the unique and this fits that billing perfectly.  It started with a teenager that drove his truck into a tree.  The crash killed his passenger and police say that the teen admitted to drinking.  While his blood alcohol level was below the legal limit, he was underage and police acted on that to charge him with the crime.

Fast forward to the court case, where the teen admitted to the crime.  The judge, instead of sending him to prison, passes a sentence that is unique, colorful and interesting.  The judge sentenced the teen to 10 years of mandatory church attendance.

Already you can picture the ACLU getting bent out of shape.  They will scream that separation of church and state needs to be respected.  Still, I think back on the forefathers and what they would have wanted in a case like this.  I think they would have been proud of the judge's decision.  They would have seen that church is a center for morality that would keep you from making decisions like the ones that led to the death of this teen's friend.  Admittedly, no one is perfect at church, but then where is anyone perfect?  This teen will be exposed to people trying to do the right thing and living a life that leads to more positive choices.  Does it mean that the teen has to believe what the church believes?  No, the church does not insist that you do that to go there.

I think it is a creative way of combating the problem of driving drunk.  If this teen is able to soul search and find the part of himself that makes better decisions, then why not have him in church?  Why not, indeed!