Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 19, 2007 18:41:04 GMT -4
Yes it is, but I don't know anyone who professes to be an actual Jedi. I do know people who take Star Trek fandom a little too far.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 19, 2007 19:22:37 GMT -4
I have a Master level Jedi in Star Wars Galaxies, does that count?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 19, 2007 22:51:02 GMT -4
It certainly boosts your geek quotient with me.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 20, 2007 15:54:07 GMT -4
If someone started Jedi as a religion on earth and claimed that Lucas had unknowing got his idea for the movie from transmission from space, and if that Jedi decided it was important to bring the world to The Force by any means possible, would that be legal? If that included kidnapping and murder of anyone who spoke out against the Jedi religion, would that be legal?
Instead of the insanity defense, why don't people use the religion defense?
We have seperation of church and state. The state cannot influnce the religion and the religion cannot impact the state. Murder is a crime of the state. If it was done to protect the religion, wouldn't that be a legal thing to do?
The Catholics did it years ago and they are still around. If Scientology does it today, what is the difference?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 20, 2007 17:06:12 GMT -4
This is your "sense of humour" getting another outing, isn't it?
There are a limited number of specified motivations by which a charge of murder may be converted into a verdict of justifiable homicide. Protection of religion is not one of them.
"Successfully" pleading insanity does not result in the insane killer walking free from court but in confinement in a secure mental health facility; often for longer than a convicted murderer would spend behind bars.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2007 17:16:01 GMT -4
I personally like the idea (I forget where I first heard it) that people who successfully use the insanity defense should be proclaimd "guilty by reason of insanity" rather than "innocent".
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 20, 2007 17:31:56 GMT -4
This is your "sense of humour" getting another outing, isn't it? Seriously, no it is not. Scientology effectively sites freedom of religion as their reasoning to do many things. I have posted the links to what I am talking about. And, now that I think of it, I wonder about this from both sides. If we have seperation of church and state, does the state have the right to interfere? There are other sects that believe prayer can cure anything. Don't they have that right? If you read all about the case, it seems suspicious about the Lisa McPherson case. She told friends she had to go home and she had something to say about Scientology but did not feel comfortable saying on the phone. I am not joking at all. The Catholics had the Inquisition and the Crusades. Didn't they have the right to defend themselves? Doesn't the Church of Scientology have the right to defend themseleves in the same manner with those who seem against them? Look about this "sense of humor" comment of yours: It was the people HERE who do not seem alarmed at what I am saying and take the approach that Scientology is nothing to be alarmed about and have even said that they compare it to a Trekki or a Jedi believer. Soooo, I was reevaluating all this. I thought that maybe I am on the wrong track somehow. Maybe legally they have their rights afterall. There are a limited number of specified motivations by which a charge of murder may be converted into a verdict of justifiable homicide. Protection of religion is not one of them. "Successfully" pleading insanity does not result in the insane killer walking free from court but in confinement in a secure mental health facility; often for longer than a convicted murderer would spend behind bars. The UK, Greece and Germany seem to have pretty much determined that Scientology is not as deserving as people in the USA have decided. Maybe the laws are different here. I sure seems they have gotten away with a lot here. I wonder why.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 20, 2007 17:36:17 GMT -4
Most of the nations in Europe have also made "Hollocaust Denial" a crime.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jul 20, 2007 18:06:24 GMT -4
The Catholics had the Inquisition and the Crusades. Didn't they have the right to defend themselves? Doesn't the Church of Scientology have the right to defend themseleves in the same manner with those who seem against them? Bluntly, no. If they feel they have been defamed they can seek the same legal recompense as anyone else. Of course that has the disadvantage that the truth or "fair comment" are legitimate defences against a charge of defamation.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 20, 2007 23:20:30 GMT -4
The Catholics had the Inquisition and the Crusades. Didn't they have the right to defend themselves? Doesn't the Church of Scientology have the right to defend themseleves in the same manner with those who seem against them? Bluntly, no. If they feel they have been defamed they can seek the same legal recompense as anyone else. Of course that has the disadvantage that the truth or "fair comment" are legitimate defences against a charge of defamation. It would be nice if Scientology took that path but according to the policies of their faith, that is not the path they will take. Of course, they use the legal system but only to bully people. Watch how Scientology used the legal system to go after C.A.N on the 60 minutes show on YouTubeBut the subject of this thread is Diskeeper. If Earthlink is a Scientology front organization: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC5C5U6_Sww -- would you trust Diskeeper to manage your computer. Watch how this guy described the practices of Earthlink. There is also the fact that Scientology likes to provide software that does "more" than what the person expects it to do. Read about Tory Christman's experience: www.xenutv.com/interviews/tory.htm
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 20, 2007 23:36:40 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 21, 2007 2:25:25 GMT -4
If we have seperation of church and state, does the state have the right to interfere? Interfere in what? The right to believe? Certainly they do. What of it? Defend themselves against what?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Jul 21, 2007 2:42:11 GMT -4
If we have seperation of church and state, does the state have the right to interfere? Interfere in what? Well, if you read what I wrote you would see. But basically, deos the state have the right to interfere if a church decides to kill someone who is going to speak out against them? The Church of Scientology sure got away with it with Lisa McPherson. #1. the new judge in Clearwater used the Scientology term "wanting it to go away" when talking about the case #2. An accidental death? Aw come on?! Where did all her bruses and bug bites come from and why did she go withoug food and water for at least 5 days. Give me a break. People are so blind and easily mislead. OK, then if that kills a child because the parents wanted to pray for her to get better instead of bring the child to a hospital, then you think that is OK. That is what I am talking about. I will take that as a yes. Thanks for answering. Well, during the Inquisition the Catholics slaughtered hundreds of thousands of non catholics for the crime of being non catholic. google "the Inquisition" and google "the crusades" Maybe you thought you were in another forum when you posted this message and posted it here by mistake. Why are you asking me this?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 22, 2007 2:11:30 GMT -4
deos the state have the right to interfere if a church decides to kill someone who is going to speak out against them? Yes. That's not what I said. You asked if people have the right to believe prayer can cure anything. They do. Imposing that belief on those incapable of choosing for themselves is something else entirely. That is not defense, because there was no offense. One cannot defend oneself unless attacked. And, contrary to linguistic convention, much of what is commonly referred to as "self defense" is, in fact, preemptive offense.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 27, 2007 3:19:58 GMT -4
Well, the silver lining is that I got a free IQ test out of my interview. I am greatful for that. Maybe I should look on the bright side.
|
|