|
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2002 : 18:13:00
|
Looks like we've hooked a live one over at Skeptic News http://www.skepticnews.com/article.pl?sid=02/05/12/1218234&mode=thread
after I posted the story about the Japanese exorcist who got the death sentence. This one claims that killing people during religious rituals is, in fact, protected by the 1st Amendment. So far, I've asked if ritualized bank robbery and car theft are also permitted.
I have to go to work now, so go over and join the fun if you have the time.
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
-Robert Lindner
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2002 : 18:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Looks like we've hooked a live one over at Skeptic News http://www.skepticnews.com/article.pl?sid=02/05/12/1218234&mode=thread
after I posted the story about the Japanese exorcist who got the death sentence. This one claims that killing people during religious rituals is, in fact, protected by the 1st Amendment. So far, I've asked if ritualized bank robbery and car theft are also permitted.
I have to go to work now, so go over and join the fun if you have the time.
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
-Robert Lindner
I think you are overreacting. There is no indication that the anonymous poster on SkepticNews was actually serious about this. He might have been sarcastic for all we know. Considering that he posted as Anoymous Coward/Mysterious Stranger he might even be a passing troll.
The case in question, had by the way only very little to do with religion. It were very worldly killings. And the religion of that woman was less of a reigion then scientology.
|
 |
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2002 : 01:25:46 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps it was a false alarm, but the same person did respond twice. The context was whether the US Constitution protects ritual killing, not the Japanese case, per se. The legitimacy of the religion involved is not relevant in American cases like this, just the defendant's claim of religious protection.
A frequent example mentioned in this context is the fundamentalist snake-handling cult of the Appalachian mountains. The reasoning is that this "deadly" practice is allowed to continue because it is protected under the First Amendment. The truth is that safe snake handling techniques are widely understood. Secular herpetologists have little trouble handling poisonous snakes because they know what they are doing. So do the cultists whether they admit it or not. As a result, deaths among snake handlers have been very rare in recent years, rare enough that no surviving person could reasonably be charged as an accessory.
It would be like trying to ban communion because someone chokes to death on the wafer.
Authority has every reason to fear the skeptic, for authority can rarely survive in the face of doubt.
-Robert Lindner
Edited by - Piltdown on 05/22/2002 01:29:08 |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2002 : 05:21:10 [Permalink]
|
While I think we will all agree that the 'Exercise Clause' of the 1st Amendment is no liscense for lawlessness, why not let the Fundies play with venomous snakes, as long as they don't hurt the snakes, (or the kids).
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
