the biggest legal loophole?

ok i started thinking about this with the whole norway masacre thing.. and how the shooter says he was doing it for god...
how can our legal system say that he is wrong?
shouldnt it be everyones right to do whatever they want because its what they believe or god has told them to

its a funny thing because people claim to have connections with god without evidence so how could you ever prove or disprove it?

i think that if someone is found guilty for a crime they were told to do by god then theists shouldnt have the right to believe in god

its your right to believe what you want
so why cant it be a legal right?

if its not a loophole it is extreme contradiciton

No. That defense does not work. You can believe whatever you want, but when your actions break any of our laws, even if its your religion, you get the consequences.

reply to post by UniverSoul


In line with the ideology of your OP, wasn't one of God's commandments "thou shalt not kill"? I understand the point you're trying to make but you can't have it both ways and if a legal defense is that it was "God's will" then the defendant is either full of # or psychotic. I don't see any loophole here.

Originally posted by timidgal
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

In line with the ideology of your OP, wasn't one of God's commandments "thou shalt not kill"? I understand the point you're trying to make but you can't have it both ways and if a legal defense is that it was "God's will" then the defendant is either full of # or psychotic. I don't see any loophole here.

So does that mean Christianity as we know it is wrong?

Link

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by timidgal
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

In line with the ideology of your OP, wasn't one of God's commandments "thou shalt not kill"? I understand the point you're trying to make but you can't have it both ways and if a legal defense is that it was "God's will" then the defendant is either full of # or psychotic. I don't see any loophole here.

So does that mean Christianity as we know it is wrong?

Link

Quite honestly, this is not Christianity as I know it. Just because something is labeled as having a "religious" validation does not mean that such a claim is universally accepted as being correct.

EDIT: Just wanted to point out that the descriptions of the religious wars cited in the link prove my point entirely - the perpetrators were either full of # and used the excuse for their own selfish benefit or were psychotic.

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by timidgal
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

In line with the ideology of your OP, wasn't one of God's commandments "thou shalt not kill"? I understand the point you're trying to make but you can't have it both ways and if a legal defense is that it was "God's will" then the defendant is either full of # or psychotic. I don't see any loophole here.

So does that mean Christianity as we know it is wrong?

Link

pretty much hey

but think about the stories in the bible, people killing eachother and countless other crime..its now illegal to do what your god says?

i still think that if the whole idea of religion is accepted then actions as a result cannot be a crime

Ro 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Ro 13:2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Ro 13:3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

Here is your answer.

reply to post by timidgal


...as were the Pope's that sanctioned it?

I always learned that my freedom of speech etc...stopped at the bridge of your nose.

Originally posted by UniverSoul
ok i started thinking about this with the whole norway masacre thing.. and how the shooter says he was doing it for god...
how can our legal system say that he is wrong?

...i live in the usofa - not familiar with norway's civil rights codes or their criminal law statutes - so i can only comment on how it would work here...

...here, criminals often blame their crimes on a god... usually its a bs defense scam but sometimes they really do believe it... andrea yates believed her god told her to murder her children... she was totally psychotic and (its documented) had been for years... that did not keep her from initially facing the death penalty... she got life in prison with parole possible in 40yrs but that was later over-turned...

en.wikipedia.org...

On July 26, 2006, a Texas jury found that Yates was not guilty by reason of insanity. She was consequently committed by the court to the North Texas State Hospital, Vernon Campus, a high-security mental health facility in Vernon, Texas, where she received medical treatment and was a roommate of Dena Schlosser, another woman who committed filicide by killing her infant daughter. In January 2007, Yates was moved to a low security state mental hospital in Kerrville, Texas.

Originally posted by UniverSoul
shouldnt it be everyones right to do whatever they want because its what they believe or god has told them to

...no...

...however, that mindset has historically been used to justify atrocities committed by invaders and, of course, they're never penalized - but - if someone pulls that same stunt on them, that person will not be allowed to use the same excuse...

Originally posted by UniverSoul
its a funny thing because people claim to have connections with god without evidence so how could you ever prove or disprove it?

...you dont have to prove that their god told them anything... all you have to do is prove they committed the crime...

Originally posted by UniverSoul
i think that if someone is found guilty for a crime they were told to do by god then theists shouldnt have the right to believe in god

...i think you didnt think about that very long - because - that mindset makes you just as bad as theists who committed genocide against people who believed in a different god or different way of being...

Originally posted by UniverSoul
its your right to believe what you want
so why cant it be a legal right?

...laws govern actions, not thoughts (yet)... as far as i know, there are no constitutions or codes of civil rights that says you have a right to believe / think whatever you want... could be wrong but i suspect that such falls under the "no-brainer" category since, as of yet, there are no governmental entities that can control or percieve our thoughts...

Originally posted by UniverSoul
if its not a loophole it is extreme contradiciton

...there cant be a loophole in or a contradiction of a law or code that doesnt exist...

reply to post by superman2012


In my opinion, absolutely yes. Let's not forget that "The Pope" is merely a man elected by church officials... Just because he sanctioned something does not mean that it represented what some would consider God's will.

Originally posted by UniverSoul
ok i started thinking about this with the whole norway masacre thing.. and how the shooter says he was doing it for god...
how can our legal system say that he is wrong?
shouldnt it be everyones right to do whatever they want because its what they believe or god has told them to

its a funny thing because people claim to have connections with god without evidence so how could you ever prove or disprove it?

i think that if someone is found guilty for a crime they were told to do by god then theists shouldnt have the right to believe in god

its your right to believe what you want
so why cant it be a legal right?

if its not a loophole it is extreme contradiciton

You really, really, really need to actually read the First Amendment. For your convenience, I'll include the text here.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And a nice link for verification.

Let's compare the Amendment to your post.

I started thinking about this with the whole Norway massacre thing.. and how the shooter says he was doing it for God... how can our legal system say that he is wrong? shouldn't it be everyone's right to do whatever they want because it's what they believe or God has told them to?

Not an *exact* quote...I felt an obligation to correct the spelling / punctuation in the name of clarity. Everyone does have the right to believe whatever they please. Note that the First Amendment contains the guarantee that Congress will not respect (give preferential treatment to) an establishment of religion. There's also the guaranteed right to free speech, and the right to peaceably assemble. I can believe anything I please, from the strictest hyper-Calvinist Christian theology to pure atheism, or anything in between, and there's not a thing in the world that the court system can do to stop me.

The problem comes in with the "do whatever they want" part of your statement. Whether God told me to drive at 90mph on the freeway or not, the State of Arizona told me to drive 65...and the judge is more than likely going to rule with the State, not the Seraphic Host. Flippant example aside, note that the First Amendment doesn't provide an unconditional guarantee of the right to 'practice what you preach', only the right to "peaceably assemble". In practical terms, Reverend Jedediah Clumphopper down in rural Mississippi is perfectly free to preach to his congregation about the inferiority of the 'people of color'. The minute he starts stirring up race riots, or showing prejudice in hiring / treatment of employees, he's crossed the legal line, and his "God told me" defense goes away. Think of it as the religious version of the "Don't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater" restriction on free speech, if you like.

In the specific case of murder in the name of religious belief, you should look up
Employment Division v. Smith and
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ay v. City of Hialeah

for the Supreme Court's rulings on limits to the Establishment Clause (the first case), and on slaughter as part of a religious practice (the second case).

Short form: (I know, it's far too late to be short!) "God told me to do it" is perfectly acceptable, until and unless God tells you to break established law of the land. At that point, you can at least take comfort in the idea that persecution for your faith and/or martyrdom is supposedly good for the soul, I suppose.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks

...here, criminals often blame their crimes on a god... usually its a bs defense scam but sometimes they really do believe it... andrea yates believed her god told her to murder her children... she was totally psychotic and (its documented) had been for years... that did not keep her from initially facing the death penalty... she got life in prison with parole possible in 40yrs but that was later over-turned...

Exactly what I was saying and grateful for the specific examples.


:

reply to post by UniverSoul


ok i understand what youse are saying
and i think i didnt word this thread right
so ill try again from a different perspective

how can a nation claim that god is real if they cannot accept that people can communicate with said god and therefore be told to do something similar to stuff in the bible
how are they to know that god really did tell that person to do that
so if you convict that person arent you saying that god has no power over man in a sense

its like the whole mircale and will thing
people will praise god when someone does something good in his word
but send him to jail if its bad

gods judgement is ment to be bigger then mans so how can a system that swears on its bible say that god is wrong

reply to post by UniverSoul

Now that is a bit of a better argument and I'll admit, you have some valid points but I still think it depends on what the majority of the people believe to be right and wrong.

Not everyone believes in God as a supreme being; some believe in God as a form of collective consciousness and others don't believe in a "God" at all. Whose to really say who is right or who is wrong? Taking that into consideration, those individual aren't going to give what's written in the Bible much credence, let alone accept it as a blueprint for what's morally right and wrong. On the other hand, our government has always professed be guided by the morals of God (i.e. In God we Trust, One Nation Under God, etc.) and I think what you're saying is how can that same government, who professes to have unconditional trust in God, dismiss those individuals who claim to be acting within God's plan.

Whereas I can give this argument more credit than I did initially, I still think that in order for a society to flourish, certain laws and expected universal norms of behavior need to be established and enforced and I think that murder, under any circumstances other than those of pure self defense would be one of those pre-determined norms. I will give you credit for making an interesting revised argument though.

Timidgal

Originally posted by UniverSoul
reply to post by UniverSoul

 

ok i understand what youse are saying
and i think i didnt word this thread right
so ill try again from a different perspective

how can a nation claim that god is real if they cannot accept that people can communicate with said god and therefore be told to do something similar to stuff in the bible
how are they to know that god really did tell that person to do that
so if you convict that person arent you saying that god has no power over man in a sense

its like the whole mircale and will thing
people will praise god when someone does something good in his word
but send him to jail if its bad

gods judgement is ment to be bigger then mans so how can a system that swears on its bible say that god is wrong

Reminds me of something I read once. When and if Jesus comes back again, what do you think will happen? The answer is, he will be killed. He was the first time for claiming to be Jesus, why would people believe him again?!?

Originally posted by UniverSoul
how are they to know that god really did tell that person to do that
so if you convict that person arent you saying that god has no power over man in a sense

If God did tell him to do that, then God will need to show up as a material witness and testify on the defendant's behalf.

reply to post by Pauligirl


right, so religion has no real weight
its just hype and when it becomes serious, people deny it