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.
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.
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.
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.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
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.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
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.
Leitner on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
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.
Elldren on
fuck gendered marketing
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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).
Henroid on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
(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.
Deebaser on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
(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.
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.
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.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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?
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.
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?
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.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
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.
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.
Deebaser on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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!
Deebaser on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
You guys are awesome internet detectives.
Henroid on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Posts
Apparently he summoned an element.
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.
Religions that require human sacrifice aren't allowed to perform them either.
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.
As for the law in question,
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.
Rigorous Scholarship
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.
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.
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.
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).
"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.
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.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
And why do you want to just ignore politics? This law makes no distinction between political and religious views.
Rigorous Scholarship
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 mean such as
(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?
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.
Rigorous Scholarship
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.
Not in the UK. They don't have a First Amendment. Because, they're there. Not here.
We have our own solution for this on our side of the pond.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
This statement is funny, because I could see using the law in question against you for calling me that in public.
Rigorous Scholarship
We don't have time for piddly little no name dread beasts around here.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Rigorous Scholarship
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.
(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!
tell it to the judge.
"Why are you so mental?"
Rigorous Scholarship
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.
:?
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.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+