Jesus fails to answer prayers, teen dies

[Mr Stabby]

simple, if someone advocated that modern medicine is a path to hell and the only viable alternative is to trust in god it's detrimental to someone's right to life

Saying that prayer, horoscopes or magic crystals work, or that medicine is a sin, isn't' forcing anyone to believe that or manipulating them either. It's only infringing on others if one person forces their opinion on another. Saying something stupid isn't the same as forcing a stupid idea on others.

you're twisting my words to suit your agenda ..i'm say (rightfully so) that government has the right to protect the rights of individuals and that no individual right should supercede the rights of another individual

And how does speech harm others?

so if I were to incite hate I'm infringing on the rights of others

No you aren't. The half wit that follows such instructions is liable for the crimes they commit, they are the ones responsible, for any attacks.

do you not have hate legislation in the UK?

Is UK legislation the source of correct moral objectivity? The UK has many nanny state laws, doesn't mean they are right.

 

[No Limit]

I can understand the point that the church bares responsibility for this also. But how in the world can you regulate that? It's a very slippery slope. The point is there really is no good solution to this.

Religion sucks, hopefully in another couple decades people will be smart enough not to be duped by this bullshit. Atheism continues to rise around the world as science evolves and it is my belief that it will continue to do so. But for the remainder of my life there will probably always be people that believe the earth is 4,000 years old or if you blow yourself up you'll get to bang 72 virgins. I think we'll just have to live with it. In this case I think the best thing that can be done is to make examples of these terrible parents that let their children die.

 

[CptStern]

Saying that prayer, horoscopes or magic crystals work, or that medicine is a sin, isn't' forcing anyone to believe that or manipulating them either.

it's a tenant of their religion, it's not a suggestion, it's part of their religious doctrine

And how does speech harm others?

what the first explanation wasnt good enough? so if I incite hate towards jews and it's acted upon would some of the responsibility fall on the person who incited the hate in the first place? it's still an accomplice to a crim. If I were at the pulpit saying religion demands that George Bush should be dead, for arguments sake, and if someone were to carry out my edict then I'm criminally responsible for inciting them to murder ..through my speech

No you aren't. The half wit that follows such instructions is liable for the crimes they commit, they are the ones responsible, for any attacks.

you're wrong, plenty of people have done time for simply inciting ..I could say "it would be nice if someone killed Vinnie the killer pimp" in a mob hit and if someone in the room carries it out I'm still crimnally responsible

Is UK legislation the source of correct moral objectivity? The UK has many nanny state laws, doesn't mean they are right.

what? I ask you for the weather and you give stock forecasts for 4th quarter 2008. What does that hae to do with my question?

I can understand the point that the church bares responsibility for this also. But how in the world can you regulate that? It's a very slippery slope. The point is there really is no good solution to this.

it's already enforced but just doesnt cover religion ..it's just a matter of prosecuting someone after the fact once you've written in to law

Religion sucks, hopefully in another couple decades people will be smart enough not to be duped by this bullshit. Atheism continues to rise around the world as science evolves and it is my belief that it will continue to do so. But for the remainder of my life there will probably always be people that believe the earth is 4,000 years old or if you blow yourself up you'll get to bang 72 virgins. I think we'll just have to live with it. In this case I think the best thing that can be done is to make examples of these terrible parents that let their children die.

in my experience I find that people are becoming more religious not less ..I dont think it'll happen in our lifetimes, so long as there is fear, so long as there is ignorance people will blindly turn to religion to solve their problems

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

You can't buy heroin in wal-mart because someone on heroin is a threat to others, and though in an intoxicated state will likely do a lot of damage. It is for this reason heroin is illegal. Because it will infringe on the rights of others. Similary, someone underage should be forced into medical care, as they are not old enough to drink, drive, etc. yet they are old enough to make life or death discisions?

What Stern is talking about, stopping adults from being dumbshits however, doesn't work. If a preacher tells a child he will go to hell for using medicine, he is a murderer. If a preacher tells an adult to refuse medical treatment, then fine; the adult is old enough to make a discision for himself.

And look on the bright side, fundies like these contribute nothing to society anyway. We will be better off without them.

 

[CptStern]

I could bitchslap a person on herion with a wet noodle ..people whacked on H are in a near vegetative state; they only pose a threat to themselves


what I'm saying is that religious groups should be held accountable for their teachings ..how can anyone not agree with this?

 

[No Limit]

it's already enforced but just doesnt cover religion ..it's just a matter of prosecuting someone after the fact once you've written in to law

But I would disagree with you that it's enforced. If the KKK spews hate they are not held accountable for every hate crime in this country. There is no way you can get the government to regulate what is ok to preach and what isn't. I am not aware of a case that someone got charged for such a thing, I could be wrong.

in my experience I find that people are becoming more religious not less ..I dont think it'll happen in our lifetimes, so long as there is fear, so long as there is ignorance people will blindly turn to religion to solve their problems

From what I've seen I disagree. But I am certainly not basing this on any actual research, just my own personal observations. I'd love to see some polls on this. But in the end if you have science that directly contradicts the bible people start thinking about religion a little deeper. And as long as they think about it eventually many come to the conclusion that it's bullshit. I think there is a lot of hope for the next generation in this regard.

 

[CptStern]

But I would disagree with you that it's enforced. If the KKK spews hate they are not held accountable for every hate crime in this country. There is no way you can get the government to regulate what is ok to preach and what isn't. I am not aware of a case that someone got charged for such a thing, I could be wrong.

In the United States, government is broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. Jurists generally understand this to mean that the government cannot regulate the content of speech, but that it can address the harmful effects of speech through laws such as those against defamation or incitement to riot.

in canada it's much more overt in that we have hate crimes that are specific to infringements on our Charter or Rights (canadian bill of rights)

From what I've seen I disagree. But I am certainly not basing this on any actual research, just my own personal observations. I'd love to see some polls on this. But in the end if you have science that directly contradicts the bible people start thinking about religion a little deeper. And as long as they think about it eventually many come to the conclusion that it's bullshit. I think there is a lot of hope for the next generation in this regard.

it may be that the numbers are the same/more or less but I think it's that people have become much more polarised so that a former morderate could now be a reform or more strict when it comes to their religiousoisty

 

[Mr Stabby]

it's a tenant of their religion, it's not a suggestion, it's part of their religious doctrine

It's still a person's choice to follow a religious belief, how hard is that to understand? I know catholics who don't agree with their churches stance on abortion, they are not forced to follow the word of the religion.

what the first explanation wasnt good enough? so if I incite hate towards jews and it's acted upon would some of the responsibility fall on the person who incited the hate in the first place? it's still an accomplice to a crim. If I were at the pulpit saying religion demands that George Bush should be dead, for arguments sake, and if someone were to carry out my edict then I'm criminally responsible for inciting them to murder ..through my speech

So If I say, "George Bush should be killed" I should go to jail? If you call for jews to be killed you would certainly be a dick, but why should a person go to jail for it? How can you be absolutely certain that it was ever directly responsible for any direct harm to jews, or should the very thought be illegal?

you're wrong, plenty of people have done time for simply inciting ..I could say "it would be nice if someone killed Vinnie the killer pimp" in a mob hit and if someone in the room carries it out I'm still crimnally responsible

In Saudi Arabia, people have done time for dissing Islam, what's your point? Your using current laws to suggest that you view is correct. In the cases of the Mafia it is different if the person saying it is the head of the mafia, then they are ordering their organization to do it

what? I ask you for the weather and you give stock forecasts for 4th quarter 2008. What does that hae to do with my question?

It's fairly simple, you asked does the UK have hate speech laws, and I explained why it's irrelevant.

 

[CptStern]

It's still a person's choice to follow a religious belief, how hard is that to understand? I know catholics who don't agree with their churches stance on abortion, they are not forced to follow the word of the religion.

tell that to the victems of jim jones, the branch davidians, the members of heaven's gate, and the victems of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God cult etc etc etc

So If I say, "George Bush should be killed" I should go to jail?

where the hell did I say that? if I'm at the pulpit inciting people with hate saying that george bush should be killed then i'm an accomplice to murder should he be killed

If you call for jews to be killed you would certainly be a dick, but why should a person go to jail for it?

you're ignoring the entirity of my posts ..calling for the death of jews is enough to get arrested for a hate crime IN CANADA ..however if I called for the death of jews in the US, that's protected by free speech, HOWEVER if I called for the death of jews and my audience then went out and killed jews I would be arrested for inciting, hate speech, and accomplice to a murder



it's already law in several countries

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=542061
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...sts-are-incitement-to-murder,-say-Tories.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/05/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Cartoon-Protest.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4996460.stm

How can you be absolutely certain that it was ever directly responsible for any direct harm to jews, or should the very thought be illegal?

that's for the courts to decide, innocent till proven guilty and all that

It's fairly simple, you asked does the UK have hate speech laws, and I explained why it's irrelevant.

how is that irrelevent if we were discussing inciting hate? look you're arguing in circles in this particular instance a simple yes or no would have sufficed

 

[Mr Stabby]

tell that to the victems of jim jones, the branch davidians, the members of heaven's gate, and the victems of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God cult etc etc etc

If they drink the poison or shoot themselves, it's their fault they are dead. If these people were mentally unstable and therefore vulnerable that may be different, if however they are responsible adults it's their own fault. You can't take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

where the hell did I say that? if I'm at the pulpit inciting people with hate saying that george bush should be killed then i'm an accomplice to murder should he be killed

Where you said calling for someone's death should be illegal. Why are you responsible for his death because you expressed a sentiment someone agreed with then carried out? If you didn't carry out he crime, why are you responsible for it? Unless you specifically instruct someone under your influence to carry out a murder, why should it be illegal?

you're ignoring the entirity of my posts ..calling for the death of jews is enough to get arrested for a hate crime IN CANADA ..however if I called for the death of jews in the US, that's protected by free speech, HOWEVER if I called for the death of jews and my audience then went out and killed jews I would be arrested for inciting, hate speech, and accomplice to a murder

And your missing the point entirely, whether it's legal in a country or not doesn't change whether it should be illegal.

it's already law in several countries

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=542061
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...sts-are-incitement-to-murder,-say-Tories.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/05/europe/EU-GEN-Britain-Cartoon-Protest.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4996460.stm

Homosexuality is illegal is several countries, what's your point? Since some countries agree with your stance, your stance is correct?

that's for the courts to decide, innocent till proven guilty and all that

I was more interested in your answer to the second question. Should thinking not nice things about people be illegal? Should expressing a not nice opinion be illegal?

how is that irrelevent if we were discussing inciting hate? look you're arguing in circles in this particular instance a simple yes or no would have sufficed

What relevance is it? Whether something is legal or not in the UK, doesn't determine whether it's right or wrong.

 

[CptStern]

If they drink the poison or shoot themselves, it's their fault they are dead. If these people were mentally unstable and therefore vulnerable that may be different, if however they are responsible adults it's their own fault. You can't take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

it's the exact same thing as tinciting the deaths of jews except they kill themsleves instead of jews ..it's still incitement. it doesnt matter in the least if you dont agree with it whatsoever as it's already in place

Where you said calling for someone's death should be illegal. Why are you responsible for his death because you expressed a sentiment someone agreed with then carried out? If you didn't carry out he crime, why are you responsible for it? Unless you specifically instruct someone under your influence to carry out a murder, why should it be illegal?

And your missing the point entirely, whether it's legal in a country or not doesn't change whether it should be illegal

wtf are we arguing here? who said I made a judgement as to whether it's right



Homosexuality is illegal is several countries, what's your point? Since some countries agree with your stance, your stance is correct?



I was more interested in your answer to the second question. Should thinking not nice things about people be illegal? Should expressing a not nice opinion be illegal?



What relevance is it? Whether something is legal or not in the UK, doesn't determine whether it's right or wrong.

this is like beating my head against the rock, you havent listened to anything I've said you havent read a word of any of the links I've posted. THE "WHY"'S ARE UNIMPORTANT, IT'S ALREADY JUSTIFABLE IN COURT IN MOST WESTERN JURISDICTION INCLUDING YOURS ..that's the freakin point, I'm not trying to establish whether it's right or wrong but rather that the law that COULD prohit religious leaders from INCITING people to do stupid things is ALREADY IN PLACE. So prosecuting those that incite is a simple matter BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY LAWS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH THIS ..it was you who turned this into another ****ing free speech debate when that's not what was being discussed

no offense but debating you is a chore as you water down the discussion by steering the conversation towards a single insignificant point where all else is lost and by the end no one knows what any one is debating anymore ..you do this every single time

 

[Mr Stabby]

it's the exact same thing as tinciting the deaths of jews except they kill themsleves instead of jews ..it's still incitement. it doesnt matter in the least if you dont agree with it whatsoever as it's already in place

You still don't seem to grasp the concept that a person decided themselves to carry out the act.

this is like beating my head against the rock, you havent listened to anything I've said you havent read a word of any of the links I've posted. THE "WHY"'S ARE UNIMPORTANT, IT'S ALREADY JUSTIFABLE IN COURT IN MOST WESTERN JURISDICTION INCLUDING YOURS ..that's the freakin point, I'm not trying to establish whether it's right or wrong but rather that the law that COULD prohit religious leaders from INCITING people to do stupid things is ALREADY IN PLACE. So prosecuting those that incite is a simple matter BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY LAWS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH THIS ..it was you who turned this into another ****ing free speech debate when that's not what was being discussed

Well, if we go back to the original issue, how are they relevant, to a preacher denouncing modern medicine. a preacher cannot incite people not to use medicine unless that person agrees that modern medicine is wrong, and that spooky crystal are the way forward. Do you honestly think, that If the Pope were to say modern medicine is wrong, most catholic will, say ' well he knows best', there will of course be a few nut jobs who agree with such a sentiment but that's there own fault no one else's.

Obviously the current legal framework isn't able to do that, as you'll find that people are dying from stupidly following mystics today, and the mystics aren't held to account, so your definitely wrong there. So the law would need to be changed and doing so is wrong IMO. Also if you think speech can be limited then it's not free speech anymore. Seems to me like this is just another one of your Christianity bashing topics,.

no offense but debating you is a chore as you water down the discussion by steering the conversation towards a single insignificant point where all else is lost and by the end no one knows what any one is debating anymore ..you do this every single time

Pot meet the kettle. I don't think you appreciate the irony of that statement.

 

[CptStern]

You still don't seem to grasp the concept that a person decided themselves to carry out the act.

sigh ..it doesnt ****ing matter, there are still laws against inciting hate/riots/murder ..we're not debating free speech, you are

Well, if we go back to the original issue, how are they relevant, to a preacher denouncing modern medicine. a preacher cannot incite people not to use medicine unless that person agrees that modern medicine is wrong, and that spooky crystal are the way forward. Do you honestly think, that If the Pope were to say modern medicine is wrong, most catholic will, say ' well he knows best', there will of course be a few nut jobs who agree with such a sentiment but that's there own fault no one else's.

again if I manipulate or coerce people into believing they'll be punished if they seek medical attention it's incitement

Obviously the current legal framework isn't able to do that, as you'll find that people are dying from stupidly following mystics today, and the mystics aren't held to account, so your definitely wrong there.

what mystics? provide specifics

So the law would need to be changed and doing so is wrong IMO.

your opinion is meaningless, it's not changing the law

Also if you think speech can be limited then it's not free speech anymore.

even freespeech in the US is limited, there is no such thing as unlimited freedom of speech in law

Seems to me like this is just another one of your Christianity bashing topics,.

you see what you want to see irregardless if it's true or not

Pot meet the kettle. I don't think you appreciate the irony of that statement.

you're basically saying "I know what you are but what am I"

 

[Mr Stabby]

sigh ..it doesnt ****ing matter, there are still laws against inciting hate/riots/murder ..we're not debating free speech, you are

You were as well, then you stopped. Free Speech is part of the wider issue, of the governments role in regulation of peoples actions.

again if I manipulate or coerce people into believing they'll be punished if they seek medical attention it's incitement

Teaching that God heals people isn't coercions, it's stupid but you have yet to show how preaching nonsense is coercion, which it certainly is not.

And since your so into legal definitions
'In English criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory common law offence and is the act of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime.'

what mystics? provide specifics

What specifics, you don't think mystic or religious healers exist? Type mystic healer into google, you'll find many of them

your opinion is meaningless, it's not changing the law

Well this is an internet forum, not the legislative branch of any countries government. Your opinion is meaningless too.

even freespeech in the US is limited, there is no such thing as unlimited freedom of speech in law

America used to have unlimited free speech. Again trying to use current laws to justify your argument.

you see what you want to see irregardless if it's true or not

It's fairly obvious

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/search.php?searchid=1029985

Almost every topic you make is Anti-Bush or Anti-Christian.

you're basically saying "I know what you are but what am I"

Generally every debate you have results in endless quote wars, yet I only have these when debating you.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I could bitchslap a person on herion with a wet noodle ..people whacked on H are in a near vegetative state; they only pose a threat to themselves

Right, because thats why heroin addicts run around stealing and killing.