heh.... Speaking Of Christianists...

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm most outraged about how numb I'm getting to this kind of thing.

T
K
O

What r u going to DO about your outrage for being num ?
Maybe ride your motorcycle to a psychiatrist ?

David

0 Replies

Ok... so can we charge that pastor with attempted murder? He obviously believes in the "power of prayer" and that it affects reality. So if he prays for someone to die, he is doing so with the intent that his action will cause the death of another. Isn't that homicide? Granted, it's probably not the most efficient method, but we charge people all the time with attempted murder when they, say, contract a 3rd party to kill someone. Isn't this man essentially doing the same - with that 3rd party being his god ?

1 Reply

@sstainba,

I wonder whether there is First Amendment protection for that.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to Joe Schmoe when he asks his friend to kill his wife. That is attempted homicide - or, at the very least, conspiracy to commit homicide. Also, given that this was directed at the president, that right is suspended.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

maybe freedom of religion

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

What would that have to do with his intent to cause harm? We still prosecute people who shoot other people and say "God told me to do it."

1 Reply

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

What would that have to do with his intent to cause harm?
We still prosecute people who shoot other people and say "God told me to do it."

If what he prays for
is immune from scrutiny or liability under freedom of religion,
then maybe his freedom of religion protects him from application of the criminal law.

If a statute is inconsistent with the Constitution, then it is subordinated thereto.

Incidentally,
tho I have never supported the M'Naghten Rule,
if the jury accepts the defense that defendant
believed that God told him to do it (as M'Naghten did), then he 's free.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

sstainba wrote:

What would that have to do with his intent to cause harm?
We still prosecute people who shoot other people and say "God told me to do it."

If what he prays for
is immune from scrutiny or liability under freedom of religion,
then maybe his freedom of religion protects him from application of the criminal law.

Haha, no. Not so much. Can't pray your way out of trouble in court.

Quote:

Incidentally,
tho I have never supported the M'Naghten Rule,
if the jury accepts the defense that defendant
believed that God told him to do it (as M'Naghten did), then he 's free.

Free to be carted off to the looney bin, you mean. M'Naghten doesn't mean you get to walk free.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

sstainba wrote:

What would that have to do with his intent to cause harm?
We still prosecute people who shoot other people and say "God told me to do it."

If what he prays for
is immune from scrutiny or liability under freedom of religion,
then maybe his freedom of religion protects him from application of the criminal law.

Quote:

Haha, no. Not so much. Can't pray your way out of trouble in court.

Quote:

Incidentally,
tho I have never supported the M'Naghten Rule,
if the jury accepts the defense that defendant
believed that God told him to do it (as M'Naghten did), then he 's free.

Quote:

Free to be carted off to the looney bin, you mean.
M'Naghten doesn't mean you get to walk free.

Cycloptichorn

Yes; that IS what I mean.

There was a USSC holding within the last several years
voiding animal cruelty laws insofar as thay 'd render animals
immune to religious sacrifice. That holding subordinated
a criminal statute to constitution freedom of religion.

I am reporting this holding, not approving of it.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

There was a USSC holding within the last several years
voiding animal cruelty laws insofar as thay 'd render animals
immune to religious sacrifice. That holding subordinated
a criminal statute to constitution freedom of religion.

I am reporting this holding, not approving of it.

Sacrificing an animal isn't inherently cruel; only if you cause it undue pain or distress. Otherwise, it's no different than what we do to get our meat every day.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Now that u mention it:
I seem to vaguely remember that the means of killing was in controversy.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

maybe freedom of religion

depends on whether or not one accepts that claim in regard to osama bin laden.

personally, i do not.

nor do i accept it for murderers like rudolph, kopp, terry and now roeder.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

maybe freedom of religion

depends on whether or not one accepts that claim in regard to osama bin laden.

personally, i do not.

nor do i accept it for murderers like rudolph, kopp, terry and now roeder.

The answer of "maybe freedom of religion"
was addressed to a question qua attempting to cause death by prayer.

Was THAT their technique, DTOM ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

maybe freedom of religion

depends on whether or not one accepts that claim in regard to osama bin laden.

personally, i do not.

nor do i accept it for murderers like rudolph, kopp, terry and now roeder.

The answer of "maybe freedom of religion"
was addressed to a question qua attempting to cause death by prayer.

Was THAT their technique, DTOM ?

just for the sake of discussion, i suppose one could assert that the physical acts of violence were simply the divine fulfillment of prayer and that the humans involved were just god's instruments.

heh.... Speaking Of Christianists...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know