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?
Posts
We have yet to see the results of this news coming out and if it has an effect. If it has no effect and the church does nothing to the guy, maybe you guys will stop the "OH GOD OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH" shit?
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
I'm pretty sure that the freedom of speech thing is a big deal in this thread only because certain people on this forum are arguing against it.
I've never blindly defended people who make it their business to so much as hand out pamphlets asking if you've found Jesus. I've already said earlier in this thread that people like that, hellfire preachers included, need to knock that shit off. If anything they're the number one reason why non-believers are so aggressive and ironically start these goddamn arguments.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
No, for me it's like some jackass standing on someone's sidewalk, waving their arms, and saying 'I HAVE SUMMONED A DEMON TO DESTROY YOUR FLOWERBED".
If someone works very hard on their flower bed-
-very hard-
-very hard indeed-
-and loves it more than anything else in his life-
Should that act, the guy waving his arms and pretending to summon a demon, <--- that act right there!! --entitle the owner of the flower-bed to restitution?
Is this what you honestly believe?
Sounds like you're offended, but uh, maybe the person who needs to get over themselves isn't one of us...
edit:
It started with bullshit about some conspiracy-theorist level pessimistic shit about how the law could be used to HOLY FUCK SILENCE PEOPLE. I at first tried to argue that freedom of speech has its time and places (don't yell 'bomb' in public settings, or that it was written to enable people to disagree with their government), and it spiraled out into this goddamn fucking shit.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
On another note, people in the U.K. generally don't take their religion anywhere near as seriously as people in the U.S. I doubt anyone going to that church actually gives a shit.
Why don't you go exercise your right regarding freedom of speech and go to a church and wait by the door, insulting everyone that comes out? Let me know how it goes Than. Can't wait to hear another of your "fuck the police" things when they tell you to move along.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
* drowsiness, dizziness, tired feeling;
* mild nausea, stomach pain, upset stomach, constipation;
* dry mouth;
* whispers of the true nature of the universe, secrets which are too vast for the frail human psyche to handle, leading to insanity and eventually suicide;
* changes in appetite or weight;
* sleep problems; or
* decreased sex drive, impotence, or difficulty having an orgasm.
And I really don't see what my feelings about cops have to do with this thread. I mean, keep bringing it up if you want, but all it does is make you look petty.
No. Stop. Listen.
I'm trying to make a point about free speech, not about hellfire preachers. I will welcome a personal hellfire preacher to follow me around if it means that I can continue to speak and write as I please without the fear of violence.
That's all the law is - the threat of violence. And we need that threat of violence, else things get nasty, brutish, and short. But we also need to selectively apply that violence, and discourse unconstrained by violence serves much more public good than "freedom from insult."
God has a plan.
And fuck you.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
Can the guy be prosecuted based on intent? I'm not familiar with laws in that area, but would you charge a man who believes that he can and will clobber you to death with a stick of celery with attempted murder even though there was never any realistic chance of it occurring?
Platinum FC: 2880 3245 5111
The thing is, even if someone from that church now commits suicide I think it's just way too far a stretch to blame it on the demon summoner (assuming he takes no further actions). If you accept that then the police shouldn't be involved at all and the fact that they are is fucked up.
Spoken like a true Christian.
So, if church shootings are part of god's plan, why aren't demon summonings?
Yelling "bomb" causes a panic in 2009. Yelling "I did voodoo on you" hasn't caused panic since 1638.
I really want a response to this, Henroid. Because I fail to see a difference between this spiritual attack, and the spiritual attack that the Westboro Baptist Church feels they're under.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
You know, the year they shipped all of their religious crazies overseas.
Problem solved.
XBL: TwntyOneTwlv
PSN: TwentyOneTwelve
Prosecuting still requires a trial process which will decide if WBC has grounding. Thankfully people are sane and will say no.
It's one thing to be taken to court for something. It's another to actually be found accountable in that court.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
This isn't an issue of free speech. First, it's not symbolic speech because conduct (raising of demons) does not have a clear expressive purpose. Second, there wasn't an audience to comprehend the communicative aspect had there been one.
Now, let's assume this is an issue of symbolic speech. I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but there are different levels of scrutiny applied to conduct and speech. Speech holds priority over conduct, and the state needs a compelling reason to limit it (national security issues for the most part). Here, strict scrutiny isn't applicable and rather intermediate scrutiny ought to be applied. In that case, the state needs only to provide substantial interest in limiting rights. Shadee, crazy demon summoner, impinged on the rights of the church, a representative of its constituent members, to freely associate and practice their religion.
Okay, so now lets examine the statute in question having established substantial interest. The main constitutional questions relevant here are, is the statute content-neutral? And, on its face, it is. Groups are not delineated and expression isn't explicitly mentioned nor is there intent to limit expression, rather the statute is erected simply to prevent harassment and mental/emotional damage. Shadee is still in the wrong.
Also, I think people misunderstand the clear and present danger doctrine. Clear and present danger regards those forms of speech that inherently have a form of action in them with an intent to express some idea or expression. The whole fire and bomb threat scenarios are logical contradictions because the speech utilized in them is inherently an action, there's no expression underlying it and has the sole purpose of creating chaos. The whole doctrine was also used mostly in wartime and all the cases using it expressly note the difference in civil liberties during peace and war time.
I will totally admit to my first post being pretty conspiracy-theorist-level pessimistic. I was mostly interested in exploring this whole idea of a law against insults, which struck me with such force that I think my brain retreated to the second half of Hot Fuzz as a defense mechanism.
It was mostly Modern Man, actually, who tends to do that sort of thing when it comes to government.
Edit - To elabroate:
That was the point that triggered this.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
I'm pretty sure there has to be a realistic chance of it happening. I think it's called a credible threat.
Both parties (if indeed the police do get involved) should be charged with wasting police time, since the whole thing is clearly ridiculous.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
Fake edit: it's called "Don't get me Started" and part 1 can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU]
There's also a debate about blasphemy by Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens on the Guardian website (it's an mp3, link is in the article).
Although it's debatable if they're exactly congruent with this thread topic (harassment is not blasphemy, and vice versa), it's heading that way anyway with the free speech stuff so what the hey, some of you might find them interesting.
This is a jokepost, right? The police made a reference to a British law that would only have come to effect if Shadee had, in fact, communicated his intent verbally to the churchgoers. If all he did is make a few gestures, then even under what passes for justice there he's off scot-free.
And I'm totally baffled by your introduction of the idea that Shadee "impinged on the rights of the church, a representative of its constituent members, to freely associate and practice their religion." You are aware that the establishment clause applies to the government and not individuals, right? Also, Britain.
I've been arguing in favor of free speech as a natural right of man and a sound principle of governance, not as an American legal institution. Pardon the confusion since, well, I use the same words.
EDIT: Actually, I got that bit about communicating intent wrong. All they had to do is be distressed by the ritual, I guess (?) even if they didn't understand it. This has not elevated my opinion of the Public Order Act.
Or a whole bunch of them for that matter. I'll bet it would really fuck with a lot of people if all of a sudden like 5 church members start killing thsemselves every day. Hell, I'm sure even the guy who "summoned the demon" would be scared shitless.
GT: batshido Hit me up on ME3.
In terms of law, it should be that those who practice religion have a right to do so without harassment from others (be they of another religion or not), just like how people who don't practice any religion have a right to not be harassed by those who do. So it's not just religions "people like," or my personal take - it's all religions. I'm not saying, "Hey, Christians get special treatment." If someone went to a Mosque and pulled some shit, it's still wrong.
If it's to be a law, it'd have to be carefully worded. It'd have to be specific about actual intent to harass or disrupt the religious people. Otherwise things would get out of hand with religions flipping their shit about people's lifestyles (and then we'd be a shitty theocracy).
Look, all I want is for people of my religion, of any religion, to be left alone and worship as they please as long as that worship doesn't include going out and disrupting other people's lives, other through violent retribution or attempts at converting.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
I hate the "God has a plan" thing and have never accepted it myself. Part of my "Fuck you" comment is because I got fed up trying to answer Thanatos and just jumped to an answer I don't believe.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog
Yeah. Uh.
There should be some sort of evidence right? Like can we get the two parties to spend an afternoon conjuring at one another until something happens because that would be quite the case.
Oh we should also prosecute everyone who has ever forwarded a chain letter about a creepy kid killing you at night if you don't forward it. Because I believe kids are creepy. Point is it's a dangerous road to head down and it sets precedent for a lot of silly legislation.
It's cool that there's a point there, but the way he chose to word it made it seem like he was going into another "oh government" thing. Interpretation of the law is a bitch sometimes, but that's the Supreme Court's job (in America) right? And for the most part in our country, the Supreme Court has made the right decisions regarding civil rights. I don't know how the UK handles this sort of thing.
PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog