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?

2456716

Posts

  • KurnDerakKurnDerak 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?

    Apparently he summoned an element.
    Spoiler:
    TeaSpoon wrote:
    If the US is to have a freedom of religion, people should be allowed to actually practice that religion, even if that involves trying to convert people to their cause, so long as it does not turn into stalkerish behavior or becoming a public nuisance.

    This actually highly depends on how you interpret freedom of religion. If you interpret as each person is free to practice their own religion, then we can never have a complete freedom of religion. Any religion that involves actively attempting to convert others infringes on the others' freedom of religion, and not allowing the converting religious people to attempt to convert infringes on theirs as well. At this point, it really is just trying to make as many people happy as possible.

    If you look at it that the government shall not mandate one religion and will not show favor to any religion over another, then this is much more possible as each religion can be seen and treated equally in the eyes of the government/law.

    If only the founding fathers could have been just a little bit more specific.

    Also, as far as it being considered harrasment it really does depend on the intent and actions involved. Simply because you may take more offense to the fact that someone prayed for you more than others might doesn't mean it is more of a harrasment to you than others if the exact same action is taken. Again, this is ideally how it should work, IMO. In reality, I imagine the more distressed you are/act the more it seems like they harrassed you.

    Edit: Wow, I completely missed that this was happening in England. I know nothing of UK law.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Guys, I know who can make this right:
    supernatural3.jpg

  • ElldrenElldren 3067-6294-6208Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    KurnDerak wrote: »
    This actually highly depends on how you interpret freedom of religion. If you interpret as each person is free to practice their own religion, then we can never have a complete freedom of religion. Any religion that involves actively attempting to convert others infringes on the others' freedom of religion, and not allowing the converting religious people to attempt to convert infringes on theirs as well. At this point, it really is just trying to make as many people happy as possible.

    Religions that require human sacrifice aren't allowed to perform them either.
    KurnDerak wrote: »
    only the founding fathers could have been just a little bit more specific.

    This is sarcasm, right? Because it's pretty clear that the establishment clause is your second case.

  • lu tzelu tze Registered User
    edited October 2009
    KurnDerak wrote: »
    Edit: Wow, I completely missed that this was happening in England. I know nothing of UK law.
    Well, there was a time when Catholics used to keep their bloody heads down around these parts!

    World's best janitor
  • KurnDerakKurnDerak Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Elldren wrote: »
    KurnDerak wrote: »
    This actually highly depends on how you interpret freedom of religion. If you interpret as each person is free to practice their own religion, then we can never have a complete freedom of religion. Any religion that involves actively attempting to convert others infringes on the others' freedom of religion, and not allowing the converting religious people to attempt to convert infringes on theirs as well. At this point, it really is just trying to make as many people happy as possible.

    Religions that require human sacrifice aren't allowed to perform them either.
    KurnDerak wrote: »
    only the founding fathers could have been just a little bit more specific.

    This is sarcasm, right? Because it's pretty clear that the establishment clause is your second case.

    When have human sacrafice for religious reasons come up? I do imagine it would get shot down pretty fast and murder charges would get handed out.

    And yea... that... it wasn't intended as sarcasm but thats because I fail. I always try to join discussions hours after I should have been in bed.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Elldren wrote: »
    Proselytising is not practising religion, it is impinging upon the religious freedom of others.
    Um, proselytising is one of the most important parts of many religions. Freedom of religion doesn't mean much if the government can prevent you from peacefully trying to convert others to your religion.

    As for the law in question,
    (1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if 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,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    And, again, Hellfire Preachers do this constantly.

    Also maybe in his religion his demons trump church barriers because they use a new rulebook.

    Technicaly, they would say they point out the danger of demons, not invoking them to do their bidding. They would also say they give protection against them thru their sermons.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

    It's pretty much there so cops can take in people who swear at them (or in general), and behaviour they don't approve of.

  • ElldrenElldren 3067-6294-6208Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Proselytising is not practising religion, it is impinging upon the religious freedom of others.
    Um, proselytising is one of the most important parts of many religions. Freedom of religion doesn't mean much if the government can prevent you from peacefully trying to convert others to your religion.

    Depends on whether you consider it a positive or negative liberty.

    For you, and in the US, it's a positive one.

    In, say, India, it's a negative one.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

    It's a matter of if it gets enforced in that manner. Just because it has potential to doesn't mean it will be. Let's not slippery slope this shit. And let's not slip it into politics (since you mentioned "unpopular viewpoints," a phrase not used when speaking of religion often).

    "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)
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo wawing a note with the cinema code Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    (1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if 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,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Awesome contribution there Deebaser.

    "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)
  • matt has a problemmatt has a problem Six pack on a dick Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    (1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if 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,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.
    "Representative Kennedy's mother is a whore!" = abusive and insulting

    "Representative Kennedy's positions on healthcare are draconian and counter-productive" = not abusive and insulting

    It depends on the application of the law, but that goes for any law.

    h1DI1.jpg
    All my fuckin life I lived a normal fuckin life
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Arch wrote: »
    Yea how could you summon a demon into a church anyway (if you go by Christian Theology)?

    Wouldn't they be...un..summoned as soon as you brought them to this plane?

    Or did this guy just spec deep into Demonology?

    Well, the presence of the demon depends on whether or not the demon's Magnitude (Infernal Power / 5) is greater than the Divine Aura of the Church in question. Summoning the demon is actually more tricky, as the summoner would need to subtract the Divine Aura of the Church from his summoning roll, and that modified roll would then need to exceed the demon's Infernal Power. If the Magus has actually accomplished what he claims, then either he's quite powerful or the Divine Aura of the Church is quite low.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

    It's a matter of if it gets enforced in that manner. Just because it has potential to doesn't mean it will be. Let's not slippery slope this shit. And let's not slip it into politics (since you mentioned "unpopular viewpoints," a phrase not used when speaking of religion often).
    It's not a slippery slope argument- on its face, this law would allow police to arrest someone for expressing racist, homophobic or other jackass opinions that upset someone. Whether it is used that way, i have no idea. But the law seems to pretty clearly allow such use.

    And why do you want to just ignore politics? This law makes no distinction between political and religious views.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

    It's a matter of if it gets enforced in that manner. Just because it has potential to doesn't mean it will be. Let's not slippery slope this shit. And let's not slip it into politics (since you mentioned "unpopular viewpoints," a phrase not used when speaking of religion often).
    It's not a slippery slope argument- on its face, this law would allow police to arrest someone for expressing racist, homophobic or other jackass opinions that upset someone. Whether it is used that way, i have no idea. But the law seems to pretty clearly allow such use.

    And why do you want to just ignore politics? This law makes no distinction between political and religious views.

    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?

    "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)
  • SiskaSiska Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    It's rather nice of them to go through the trouble of charging him with witch craft, instead of just having giggle fits. This person seems starved for attention and this should do wonders for his self esteem.

    Izuela.png
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

    It's a matter of if it gets enforced in that manner. Just because it has potential to doesn't mean it will be. Let's not slippery slope this shit. And let's not slip it into politics (since you mentioned "unpopular viewpoints," a phrase not used when speaking of religion often).

    You mean such as
    wrote:
    Cranmer has been contacted by a personal friend of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, Christians and members of the Bootle Christian Fellowship who run the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool. He has written that ‘they are the most inoffensive people you could meet’.

    Yet they were arrested and charged under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and Section 31 (1) (c) and (5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for using ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words’ that were ‘religiously aggravated’. They face prosecution for defending the Christian faith and for criticising Islam. A criminal trial has been set for 8th and 9th December at Liverpool Magistrates' Court. If convicted, they face a fine of up to £5,000 and a criminal record.

    It transpires that a Muslim guest complained that she was offended by comments allegedly made on 20th March, during a discussion about whether Jesus is the Son of God or just a minor prophet of Islam. Although the facts are disputed, the Muslim says that Mohammed was referred to as a ‘warlord’ and that Islamic dress for women is ‘a form of bondage’.

    (the sites biased but certainly something to look into).

    Or the subsect of this law which has had a man arrested for writing some unseemly fanfiction about the Pussy Cat Dolls?

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.

    It's a matter of if it gets enforced in that manner. Just because it has potential to doesn't mean it will be. Let's not slippery slope this shit. And let's not slip it into politics (since you mentioned "unpopular viewpoints," a phrase not used when speaking of religion often).
    It's not a slippery slope argument- on its face, this law would allow police to arrest someone for expressing racist, homophobic or other jackass opinions that upset someone. Whether it is used that way, i have no idea. But the law seems to pretty clearly allow such use.

    And why do you want to just ignore politics? This law makes no distinction between political and religious views.

    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.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    They don't have the right to bark it at people, which I also included in my post. If a black family is sitting at a restaurant, people don't have the right to go up to them and disturb them to express the opinion that black people are somehow bad people.

    The fact of the matter is, freedom of speech has a time and place.

    Edit - And since you're one of those people who have a hard-on for the government as a whole being oppressive enough to ZOMGSILENCE PEOPLE, explain Fox news. You can't. Because you're an idiot and wrong.

    "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)
  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Technically, an exorcism isn't required. All churches are the safe houses of God's children, and they are by proxy warded from evil.
    Doesn't matter to a victim of a Dark Quickening.
    MikeMan wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    And, again, Hellfire Preachers do this constantly.

    Also maybe in his religion his demons trump church barriers because they use a new rulebook.
    Maybe said Hellfire Preachers should be prosecuted too?
    How about no one's prosecuted because people are allowed to say silly things
    Not in the UK. They don't have a First Amendment. Because, they're there. Not here.
    Leitner wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    I have a problem with the bolded portions. Abusive and insulting speech, though boorish, should not be outlawed. This law seems like a great way to silence unpopular viewpoints.
    It's pretty much there so cops can take in people who swear at them (or in general), and behaviour they don't approve of.
    We have our own solution for this on our side of the pond.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • WillethWilleth Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Leitner, as someone in Cambridge, what kind of attention has this been getting? Are people genuinely concerned?

    @vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming!
    @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Willeth wrote: »
    Firstly, I want to talk about the Public Order Act. Section 5 states:
    (1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if 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,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
    Ah, but at the same time, there is an interesting oddity in British criminal law (here, from the Criminal Code of Canada, but it's the same throughout the Commonwealth):
    228. Killing by influence on the mind - No person commits culpable homicide where he cases the death of a human being

    (a) by any influence on the mind alone, or
    (b) by any disorder or disease resulting from influence on the mind alone,

    but this section does not apply where a person causes the death of a child or sick person by willfully frightening them.
    Of course, this witch hasn't actually killed anyone, just allegedly annoyed them, but this is exactly the kind of situation the exception was created for - unusual religious practices, witch doctors, curses, etc. that the British Empire came across around the world.

    Besides, these "cause disorder" offences the OP quoted usually require more than just bothering someone - the "target" has to be bothered, upset, alarmed, etc. so much that there is an actual disturbance. I.E. if this "demon" causes a near-riot of upset parishioners, someone takes a swing at this witch, etc.

    Of course, at the end of the day, people shouldn't be jerks, blah, blah, blah, respect reasonable religious practices, blah, blah, blah.

  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Willeth wrote: »
    Leitner, as someone in Cambridge, what kind of attention has this been getting? Are people genuinely concerned?

    Been RAing since this went down. But nobody in Halls has said anything, or on the news. I'm actually curious now, Church of Our Lady isn't far. Maybe I'll drop in.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    They don't have the right to bark it at people
    Define "bark." It seems like you are trying to outlaw bad manners.
    If a black family is sitting at a restaurant, people don't have the right to go up to them and disturb them to express the opinion that black people are somehow bad people.
    That's a bad example- you're talking about a private restaurant, where free speech protections do not apply, typically. In that scenario, it would be up to the owner to decide what was and wasn't acceptable speech.
    The fact of the matter is, freedom of speech has a time and place.
    The Supreme Court calls these time, place and manner restrictions. But, that is different from banning speech based on content. This law seems to be aimed at going after people because the content of their speech upsets others.
    Edit - And since you're one of those people who have a hard-on for the government as a whole being oppressive enough to ZOMGSILENCE PEOPLE, explain Fox news. You can't.
    What does Fox News have to do with this discussion?

    And are you really claiming that government oppression of free speech is something that people shouldn't be worried about? Are you okay with the so-called "free speech zones" that governments set up during economic summits and the like, to make sure that protestors don't injure the ears of delicate politicians?
    Because you're an idiot and wrong.
    This statement is funny, because I could see using the law in question against you for calling me that in public.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I don't have the patience to argue about something that isn't really the focus of the thread, let alone with a pessimistic airhead.

    "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)
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    If the guy is going to summon an eldritch beast, he should go for Cthulhu or go the fuck home.

    We don't have time for piddly little no name dread beasts around here.

    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I don't have the patience to argue about something that isn't really the focus of the thread, let alone with a pessimistic airhead.
    It seems like insults are the only thing you have the patience, and intellectual capacity, for.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo wawing a note with the cinema code Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    Awesome contribution there Deebaser.

    I find your public display of writing insulting and abusive. The police have been notified.

    This isn't a matter of slippery sloping. This is a matter of shitty legislation that can only be applied arbitrarily or completely retardedly if people crybaby it up.

    Hurt feelings should not be a limit to free speech. Creating a disturbance is an acceptable limit.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo wawing a note with the cinema code Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    I don't have the patience to argue about something that isn't really the focus of the thread, let alone with a pessimistic airhead.

    (1) A person is guilty of an offence [of harassment, alarm, or distress] if 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,

    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.


    thought criminal!

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    You guys are awesome internet detectives.

    "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)
  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo wawing a note with the cinema code Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Henroid wrote: »
    You guys are awesome internet detectives.

    tell it to the judge.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    brb, summoning internet demons

    "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)
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Aright, I'm, going to hit up the church. Any particular questions you guys want asked?

  • mere_immortalmere_immortal So tasty!Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Aright, I'm, going to hit up the church. Any particular questions you guys want asked?

    "Why are you so mental?"

    Steam: Dr. Mark Sloan - XBL: lego pencil - Wii U: mimmortal - 3DS: 0748-1545-6684
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    You guys are awesome internet detectives.

    tell it to the judge.
    He doesn't get it, and I doubt he ever will.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    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.
    Leitner wrote: »
    Aright, I'm, going to hit up the church. Any particular questions you guys want asked?

    "Why are you so mental?"
    Henroid wrote: »
    As a person of faith I'm not about to slam people for believing in demons like some people here already are, because y'know, we can't let bygones be bygones.

    :?

    "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)
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Police said a potential crime under the Public Order Act could have been committed if anyone was in the church at the time of the ritual and was alarmed or distressed by it.
    If there was a crime, there may have been a crime! Good work gents!

    Its OK though, I banished the demon. So no harm no foul.

    Claiming to have raised a demon in a Church should not be a criminal matter on both the grounds of religious and expressive freedoms. Going into the Church and harassing someone is different but there doesn't seem to be evidence of that, nor does the silliness of this topic make it criminal. If he was going in there and saying that they smelled of elderberries it would be no different.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Hunh, I assumed he'd actually you know, told anyone about it? Went to the priest and made threatening demon-summoning gestures? How did the church even find out?

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Hunh, I assumed he'd actually you know, told anyone about it? Went to the priest and made threatening demon-summoning gestures? How did the church even find out?
    Someone has been eating the communion wafers and sleeping in that demon-sized bed made out of choir gowns in the apse.

Sign In or Register to comment.