Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Man raises demon in church. Is this a crime?

1356716

Posts

  • DelzhandDelzhand motivated battle programmerRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    When people ask about the demon, the proper response is "Him? He was upset that we wouldn't turn the heat up, so he took off. Something about going to the mall."

    jk0Btsj.png
  • meekermeeker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    This headline is misleading. I expected a feel good story about a man taking in a small demon and raising him up to be good in a world of evil. Maybe he would have a fish-man friend.

    I leave disappointed...

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It sounds like he only made the announcement after his visit to the church, implying that there was no "boorish speech" or whatever bullshit (seriously Britain get your fucking act together, between your libel laws and this nonsense it's like you want a V for Vendetta future). At least, I suspect he did nothing noticeable in the church... but even then, that wouldn't prevent a few churchgoers from coming forward with traumatic experiences conjured of the same stuff as this man's "element". If they can all manage to keep details straight like when he visited and what exactly he "did" that was traumatic, a local jury would have an open-and-shut case.

    I think the "Public Order Act" is a much more interesting topic than this demon-crazy loon. He's really only interesting inasmuch as he might get bitten by it.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Aright, I'm, going to hit up the church. Any particular questions you guys want asked?
    Ask them about what I said earlier regarding churches being safehouses from evil and if that's why they feel no exorcism is necessary. And if that isn't it, ask them if they don't think it's necessary because they don't think the guy was capable of doing it at all.
    If churches are supposed to be safehouses from evil, care to explain how all the kiddy-fucking happens in them...?

    I guess that goes on with God's blessing.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If he specifically told the churchgoers he was summoning this thing to harass them in their church, then it's obviously harassment. That is a crime.

    If he didn't tell them, and actually believes he summoned a demon to terrorize them, it's a delusion. This is not a crime, it's a disease.

    And don't even get me started on the people in the church. If they actually believe this is possible, we need to start medicating the sacramental wine.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Aright, I'm, going to hit up the church. Any particular questions you guys want asked?
    Ask them about what I said earlier regarding churches being safehouses from evil and if that's why they feel no exorcism is necessary. And if that isn't it, ask them if they don't think it's necessary because they don't think the guy was capable of doing it at all.
    If churches are supposed to be safehouses from evil, care to explain how all the kiddy-fucking happens in them...?

    I guess that goes on with God's blessing.

    Thanatooooooooss! :evil:

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Nobody should have to put up with some racist bigot barking shit at them. That's harassment, and the law is 100% fine if enforced in that situation.

    Society is trying to move beyond racist or homophobic ignorance. Aren't you up to speed yet?
    You make my point for me- racist opinions are vulgar and boorish, but they are still opinions that people have a right to express. Banning peaceful hate speech is a clear example of government power being used to silence unpopular or minority opinions.

    You seem to be comfortable with ceding to the government the power to decide which opinions are okay and which ones are out of bounds. I'm not- when given that power, government has traditionally used it to eventually silence the opposition.

    I may not like what members of racist and homophobic groups have to say, but I fully support their right to speak their opinions. The fact that some douchebag doesn't use their rights in a civil manner is unfortunate, but it is not a reason to give government the power to silence peaceful speech.

    The point of protecting freedom of speech is to protect unpopular or controversial views. Popular and noncontroversial views don't need legal protection.
    I can't believe I'm agreeing with Modern Man, but the rest of you guys are off your fucking rockers.

    I mean, really, do you guys even look at the sheer volume of things we say here that would be considered "abusive and insulting?" For fuck's sake, Larry Flynt did an article about how Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his mother (Jerry Falwell's mother, not Larry Flynt's). I don't think that crosses (or should cross) a legal line. Sticks and fucking stones.

    And these people should just use their Jesus-magic to cancel out his Devil-magic. That makes as much sense as any of the rest of this bullshit.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Leitner wrote: »
    Aright, I'm, going to hit up the church. Any particular questions you guys want asked?
    Ask them about what I said earlier regarding churches being safehouses from evil and if that's why they feel no exorcism is necessary. And if that isn't it, ask them if they don't think it's necessary because they don't think the guy was capable of doing it at all.
    If churches are supposed to be safehouses from evil, care to explain how all the kiddy-fucking happens in them...?

    I guess that goes on with God's blessing.
    Thanatooooooooss! :evil:
    What? You want me to spoon-feed you some bullshit about how I want to be "sensitive towards your feelings?" Fuck that.

    If your god only wards against evils which can't possibly be perceived, then he's a pretty fucking useless god.

  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I think that the head priest or whatever of the church should have just grinned a wry smile when the demon summoner told him, and said "You just activated my trap card."

    camo_sig2.png
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Anything to make it harder for the police to abuse their position right Thanatos?

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    If he specifically told the churchgoers he was summoning this thing to harass them in their church, then it's obviously harassment. That is a crime.

    It is, but I am absolutely floored by the kind of idiocy that would commit this crap
    Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
    4A.
    — (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
    (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
    (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
    thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
    — (2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling.
    — (3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
    (a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
    (b) that his conduct was reasonable.

    to law. Doesn't the EU have some kind of standards regarding freedom of speech in its member nations?

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Anything to make it harder for the police to abuse their position right Thanatos?
    Please contextualize this in a way that makes it not a non-sequitor personal attack.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Anything to make it harder for the police to abuse their position right Thanatos?

    There are not enough facepalms in the world for this. Are you seriously so dense that you don't see a problem with speech being "free except if it's insulting"

    my brain

    trying to escape via my nose nghdkjla;nfd;galskfmdgfasoae;hn

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Doesn't the EU have some kind of standards regarding freedom of speech in its member nations?
    Europe as a whole isn't great on the free speech thing. There's a reason Neil Gaiman lives in the US.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • Zilla360Zilla360 Spaaaace! In Space.Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    zeeny wrote: »
    I don't see how we could conclude if it's or isn't a crime as we're severely lacking information.
    I mean, come on people - What kind of demon is it?
    ryuk2.jpg

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I ascribe to the idea that we don't know everyone on the planet, let alone a solid percentage. We don't know what people have been through in their lives, or go through currently, whether it be long term or short term. So y'know what? Yeah, I am in favor of laws in place that make it so that you can potentially be legally charged for hurting someone's feelings. Just as there are the oddball cases of people actually holding people up to those crimes, there are oddball cases of people getting stressed by this sort of shit to the point of doing crazy things, let alone killing themselves.

    Freedom of speech, even though it has nothing to do with this England case, has a time and place. More importantly, it was a basis of America regarding government, not a free ticket to harass people.

    If you can dish it out, you can take it. If someone is going to shit on my religion, you're welcoming my own unfair non-sequitor personal attacks. You can address my religion and how you disagree with it, as a whole or this case specifically, in a diplomatic manner and not be an insulting shit head.

    Get over yourselves.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Anything to make it harder for the police to abuse their position right Thanatos?
    I find the implication that I am some sort of anti-police crusader to be insulting and abusive.

    I expect that you're already on your way to the police station to turn yourself in.

  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm surprised that people in here are willing to say you shouldn't be allowed to have freedom of speech if it offends someone.

    Well Henroid, for what it's worth, I hope the pretend demon didn't kill your pretend god or anything bad like that. Have you seen your god since the incident? Is he OKAY?

    Edit: I'd check things out myself, but my floor is water and I have to stay on my carpets or I'll drown. Can't make it out the door.
    Spoiler:

    Erik
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I ascribe to the idea that we don't know everyone on the planet, let alone a solid percentage. We don't know what people have been through in their lives, or go through currently, whether it be long term or short term. So y'know what? Yeah, I am in favor of laws in place that make it so that you can potentially be legally charged for hurting someone's feelings. Just as there are the oddball cases of people actually holding people up to those crimes, there are oddball cases of people getting stressed by this sort of shit to the point of doing crazy things, let alone killing themselves.

    Freedom of speech, even though it has nothing to do with this England case, has a time and place. More importantly, it was a basis of America regarding government, not a free ticket to harass people.

    If you can dish it out, you can take it. If someone is going to shit on my religion, you're welcoming my own unfair non-sequitor personal attacks. You can address my religion and how you disagree with it, as a whole or this case specifically, in a diplomatic manner and not be an insulting shit head.

    Get over yourselves.
    I'm sorry that you believe kiddy-diddling isn't evil, Henroid. And I'm not being insulting, here; I'm just taking the logical conclusion from your arguments:

    You believe that churches are warded against evil.
    Kiddy-diddling occurs in churches.
    Therefore, you must not think that kiddy-diddling is evil.

    And I don't think the attack was at all a non-sequitur. You were making a point that Jesus-magic protects against evil; you didn't specify a particular kind of evil, just "evil."

    And whatever, I'm not going to cry myself to sleep or kill myself because you said I don't like cops. They're just fucking words. And it's one thing to harass someone to the point of suicide; it's another thing entirely to just say "lol I summoned teh demonz in your church." That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    I'm surprised that people in here are willing to say you shouldn't be allowed to have freedom of speech if it offends someone.
    It's the manner in which it is done. If you're going to specifically offend someone with some action or words, you're an asshole. And if the offended feels it enough, they can hold you responsible to it by law. If you're a clever enough person, maybe you can properly defend yourself in court. And pat yourself on the back.

    Or maybe you can not make it a goal to go out and offend people for the sake of doing so. Accidental offenses made happen, sure. Aren't we all reasonable to understand that?
    Ego wrote: »
    Well Henroid, for what it's worth, I hope the pretend demon didn't kill your pretend god or anything bad like that. Have you seen your god since the incident? Is he OKAY?

    I'll answer you as soon as you read what the guy was attempting to do with regard to his pet demon. We'll play it on your turf, you zomgnon-believer. Get your facts right! GOSH!

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    I'm surprised that people in here are willing to say you shouldn't be allowed to have freedom of speech if it offends someone.

    Well Henroid, for what it's worth, I hope the pretend demon didn't kill your pretend god or anything bad like that. Have you seen your god since the incident? Is he OKAY?

    Edit: I'd check things out myself, but my floor is water and I have to stay on my carpets or I'll drown. Can't make it out the door.
    Spoiler:
    I haven't left the apartment in weeks, because my roommate declared the cement outside is lava, and he has the only pair of lava-proof shoes in the place.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    I'm surprised that people in here are willing to say you shouldn't be allowed to have freedom of speech if it offends someone.
    It's the manner in which it is done. If you're going to specifically offend someone with some action or words, you're an asshole. And if the offended feels it enough, they can hold you responsible to it by law. If you're a clever enough person, maybe you can properly defend yourself in court. And pat yourself on the back.

    Or maybe you can not make it a goal to go out and offend people for the sake of doing so. Accidental offenses made happen, sure. Aren't we all reasonable to understand that?
    Being an asshole isn't illegal, nor should it be.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And it's one thing to harass someone to the point of suicide; it's another thing entirely to just say "lol I summoned teh demonz in your church." That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.

    Because it isn't properly contextualized for you. If someone did something offensive to Muslims, of course you and I would unphased by it - neither of us are Muslims, neither of us have that understanding.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    I'm surprised that people in here are willing to say you shouldn't be allowed to have freedom of speech if it offends someone.
    It's the manner in which it is done. If you're going to specifically offend someone with some action or words, you're an asshole. And if the offended feels it enough, they can hold you responsible to it by law. If you're a clever enough person, maybe you can properly defend yourself in court. And pat yourself on the back.

    Or maybe you can not make it a goal to go out and offend people for the sake of doing so. Accidental offenses made happen, sure. Aren't we all reasonable to understand that?
    Being an asshole isn't illegal, nor should it be.

    Yeah, seriously. If he was, say, going to the place of worship and disrupting things by flinging goat blood on people, that would be both a dick move and punishable by law. But it wouldn't be punishable by law because it was a dick move.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Well it's a good thing the police have only considered this a case of harassment, isn't it? So you can stop getting your panties in a bunch about how this guy has his right to be a dick.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Ego wrote: »
    I'm surprised that people in here are willing to say you shouldn't be allowed to have freedom of speech if it offends someone.
    It's the manner in which it is done. If you're going to specifically offend someone with some action or words, you're an asshole. And if the offended feels it enough, they can hold you responsible to it by law. If you're a clever enough person, maybe you can properly defend yourself in court. And pat yourself on the back.

    Or maybe you can not make it a goal to go out and offend people for the sake of doing so. Accidental offenses made happen, sure. Aren't we all reasonable to understand that?
    Ego wrote: »
    Well Henroid, for what it's worth, I hope the pretend demon didn't kill your pretend god or anything bad like that. Have you seen your god since the incident? Is he OKAY?

    I'll answer you as soon as you read what the guy was attempting to do with regard to his pet demon. We'll play it on your turf, you zomgnon-believer. Get your facts right! GOSH!

    Artistic leeway, my pale religious friend.

    Yeah, accidental offenses happen. But do you want to live somewhere that it's not alright to criticize or challenge the populous viewpoint, for fear of being fined or tossed in prison for 'offending' people?

    Free speech can be offensive as fucking hell. But you know what: I'd rather have guys saying that offensive stuff out in public where people can mock them for it and, as a society, we can see how stupid it is, than have those guys just passing on the racism/sexism/intolerance of sexual orientation/religious intolerance whatever to their kids at home and teaching them it's OK based on 'how many people on death row are black/white/hispanic' or 'how many of the 9/11 bombers were followers of Islam' or 'how many of blah blah blah were blah blah blah' or any of the weak-assed arguments that bigots and zealots everywhere like to break out when they're indoctrinating kids.

    I want people saying that shit in public, so, as a society, we all see how dumb it is and move past it. That sort of vileness shrivels into nothing when it's out in the plain day where everyone can get a look at it.

    Erik
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.

    What would?

    I speak for myself here, but I draw the line at the "fire in a crowded theater" example, where people come immediately and directly to harm as a result of a lie, and not a jot before. I am firmly in the camp of defending to the death the right of racists to speak and publish their horrifying nonsense. As uncomfortable as it makes me, I can't imagine the law that would stop them without opening the door for abuse of a really terrifying kind.

    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    And it's one thing to harass someone to the point of suicide; it's another thing entirely to just say "lol I summoned teh demonz in your church." That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.
    Because it isn't properly contextualized for you. If someone did something offensive to Muslims, of course you and I would unphased by it - neither of us are Muslims, neither of us have that understanding.
    Say something offensive to white people, Democrats, liberals, socialists, ethnic mutts, people with brown hair, fat people, whatever. I don't care. I mean, you might say some shit that pisses me off; I'm still not going to say that you should be thrown in jail for it. Because saying shit that pisses me off is your god-given right.

    I mean, really, I don't think you should be thrown in jail for saying god thinks child molestation is good, even though that's way more offensive than anything I've said.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I ascribe to the idea that we don't know everyone on the planet, let alone a solid percentage. We don't know what people have been through in their lives, or go through currently, whether it be long term or short term. So y'know what? Yeah, I am in favor of laws in place that make it so that you can potentially be legally charged for hurting someone's feelings. Just as there are the oddball cases of people actually holding people up to those crimes, there are oddball cases of people getting stressed by this sort of shit to the point of doing crazy things, let alone killing themselves.

    Freedom of speech, even though it has nothing to do with this England case, has a time and place. More importantly, it was a basis of America regarding government, not a free ticket to harass people.

    If you can dish it out, you can take it. If someone is going to shit on my religion, you're welcoming my own unfair non-sequitor personal attacks. You can address my religion and how you disagree with it, as a whole or this case specifically, in a diplomatic manner and not be an insulting shit head.

    Get over yourselves.

    Hurt Feelings is a stupid and ridiculous standard that no judge would ever uphold.

    Free speech should be protected unless it demonstrably caused harm or damages.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.

    I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.
    What would?

    I speak for myself here, but I draw the line at the "fire in a crowded theater" example, where people come immediately and directly to harm as a result of a lie, and not a jot before. I am firmly in the camp of defending to the death the right of racists to speak and publish their horrifying nonsense. As uncomfortable as it makes me, I can't imagine the law that would stop them without opening the door for abuse of a really terrifying kind.

    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
    There's a gray area of emotional abuse that I think should at least involve civil liability, if not criminal. For instance, the case with the MySpace page where that woman pulled this elaborate plot and caused one of her daughter's classmates to commit suicide. That's at least worth a second look.

    "I summoned a demon in your church this one time" doesn't come anywhere near that.

  • Raiden333Raiden333 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.

    I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'

    Actually, dealing with demons sounds like a perfect way to practice one's religion.

    camo_sig2.png
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos, the people responsible for the child molestation you're obsessing about are in the position to desanctify the churches it occurred in. They're traitors to the religion.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.

    I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'

    Do you honestly find your faith threatened by Mr Wacko McDemonSummoner?

    I would truly like to hear your answer, as I can't really believe you were. I can't think you read the article and thought 'oh my god, he summoned a demon, how could he do such a thing? Has the demon hurt anyone? Is everyone OK? I am frightened and distressed.'

    Presumably this guy didn't break into the church. Churches tend to be open to welcome people in there. So he went in there, and acted like a wack-job.

    Why not just ask the guy never to come back, then get him for trespassing if he does? You know, look like a sane and sensible group responding to one crackpot?

    Also, am I the only guy who totally keeps thinking of that King of the Hill episode where bobby joins some group of witches?

    Erik
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.
    It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.

    I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'
    You can believe whatever the fuck you want to. It's not the government's job to pretend that your beliefs are real, though. He didn't actually do anything.

    To put it another way: under your legal regime, what exactly is stopping the Westboro Baptist Church from suing or prosecuting other churches for holding funerals for gay people, because they believe that that is bringing god's wrath down upon America?

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Raiden333 wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.

    I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'

    Actually, dealing with demons sounds like a perfect way to practice one's religion.
    Or at least having enough faith to believe your all-powerful skybeast can overcome one demon in his own house.

    I mean, the whole belief system actively flaunts logic, but you might as well be internally consistent.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Thanatos, the people responsible for the child molestation you're obsessing about are in the position to desanctify the churches it occurred in. They're traitors to the religion.
    What about the shootings that have happened in churches?

    I guess those aren't evil? Or, wait, I guess it happened because their priests deserved it, right? Since they must have done something to "desanctify" the church, right?

    And it's interesting that god can keep evil out of his churches, but not out of his priesthood.

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    That doesn't come anywhere near the level of what should be required for someone to actually be prosecuted.

    What would?

    I speak for myself here, but I draw the line at the "fire in a crowded theater" example, where people come immediately and directly to harm as a result of a lie, and not a jot before. I am firmly in the camp of defending to the death the right of racists to speak and publish their horrifying nonsense. As uncomfortable as it makes me, I can't imagine the law that would stop them without opening the door for abuse of a really terrifying kind.

    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    You can be sued for starting a riot, defamation and a number of other things but the usual standard is harm (damages), not hurt feelings.

    As far as I can tell no harm or damages has resulted in this church as a result of the demon summoning. The only way I could see this causing harm is if parishioners all refused to go to that church and donations to that church dropped off sharply. If the church wants to sue the demon summoner for lost donations they might have a case but I think that would only draw a massive wave of bad publicity on the church.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Ego wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.

    I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'

    Do you honestly find your faith threatened by Mr Wacko McDemonSummoner?

    I would truly like to hear your answer, as I can't really believe you were. I can't think you read the article and thought 'oh my god, he summoned a demon, how could he do such a thing? Has the demon hurt anyone? Is everyone OK? I am frightened and distressed.'

    Presumably this guy didn't break into the church. Churches tend to be open to welcome people in there. So he went in there, and acted like a wack-job.

    Why not just ask the guy never to come back, then get him for trespassing if he does? You know, look like a sane and sensible group responding to one crackpot?

    Also, am I the only guy who totally keeps thinking of that King of the Hill episode where bobby joins some group of witches?

    It isn't threatened, but it was attacked. And it was done so in a manner that has more weight to it in the church's view. I'm sure for you guys it's reading as something like some jackass riding his bike on someone's lawn and declaring he destroyed their flowerbed or something. But for that person that flowerbed might've been something they work on year to year.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with whatever laws America or any other country has on the books regarding harassment, but I was under the impression that a physical threat had to be involved.

    It's a threat toward people's spirituality and right to practice their religion in its designated place - the church. Believe it or not, we have rights too.

    I guess it's okay though since it's 'SCORE ONE FOR US, SCREW THE BELIEVERS!'

    Because you can't help but think in terms of "sides" consider the hypothetical of a hellfire preacher showing up to a meeting of atheists. Now, the atheists are within their rights (assuming they're on private property) to tell the preacher to take a hike, but it would be insane and evil for them to be able to call the police and have him arrested for insulting, abusive, and threatening speech.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
Sign In or Register to comment.