The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Strangler Lewis]

If during a church service the preacher called the family up to the pulpit, listened to the tale of misbehavior, handed the parents a rod and encouraged a deadly beating that immediately happened, he certainly could be prosecuted. On the facts from the article, he probably only gets prosecuted on Law and Order.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Charles Manson.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If there were a pediatrician who advised all of his patients to whip their children...

If there were a lawyer that advised all his clients to kill anyone who might testify against them...

I would have no problem saying those people should be arrested. Why should religious leaders get a pass when advocating, encouraging, teaching felonious behavior?

[scaeagles]

The pediatrician would lose his license to practice medicine. The lawyer would be disbarred (and their might be a conspiracy to commit murder charge in there, but I would suspect that it would be difficult to make stick). So you are suggesting that any authority figure, whether that person has real or perceived power over the decision making process of the individual, should be prosecuted if their teachings or suggestions lead to felonious behavior.

[flippyshark]

It would take a far more knowledgeable person than I to figure out what the law says, or ought to say, about the border between free speech and criminal misuse of authority. I certainly place a greater share of the blame on the idiots who receive such "wisdom" and put it into merciless practice. It is also alarming to learn that this couple had plenty of supporters at their hearing, people who, on hearing about this tragic event, jumped to the defense of the abusers, all the while citing a bronze-age text that they have been told they must believe on pain of eternal torment.

Whenever faith-based behavior takes the lives of young children, it's time to loudly and publicly decry irrationality, and pointedly question the value of adhering to ancient texts, no matter how venerable and dearly loved. (I'm glad that many religious people cherry pick the nice parts out of their religious texts, but I hope they will start to see the value of bravely decrying the horrible parts in equal measure.)

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So you are suggesting that any authority figure, whether that person has real or perceived power over the decision making process of the individual, should be prosecuted if their teachings or suggestions lead to felonious behavior.

In terms as black and white as that? No. But I do suggest that there is a line, ill-defined as it may be, and in my view creating a ministry focusing specifically on advocating felonious behavior (even if there were no death involved, the things advocated by these monsters are criminal) crosses that line.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

We would have to arrest and prosecute Islamic leaders who have taught the concept of honor killings that have led to a recent story in Phoenix where a man ran over his daughter and killed her because she was too westernized.

To tie it closely to this example:

What would you say about an Islamic leader who created books and websites that said, "You should kill enemies of Islam. Here are specific techniques to do so most effectively. Here are the materials you need to carry out the killing as I've described, and here's the best places to buy those materials at the best prices. And you should do it. Do it or Allah will punish you. Do it or you are an evil person."?

That is what we're dealing with here. A couple that has created a step-by-step blueprint for child abuse, have created a platform to sell this blueprint, and say in no uncertain terms, "Do it. Whip your child. Hit your child with hard rubber tubing. Do it you're an evil person. Do it or they will be evil people. Do it or God will punish you. Do it." This is leaps and bounds beyond "suggesting" and "advocating". It leaps and bounds, in my opinion, straight to "incitement".

[Strangler Lewis]

Of course, you don't have to be at the murder to be guilty of murder. Manson was guilty of murder as a conspirator in the specific killings that he ordered. Convicting him of murder for uttering vehement, violent generalities would have been a much tougher sell.

I would agree, though, that depending on the level of control involved, a religious leader could be viewed as ordering a hit on some little kid. Why the hell not?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

Of course, you don't have to be at the murder to be guilty of murder. Manson was guilty of murder as a conspirator in the specific killings that he ordered. Convicting him of murder for uttering vehement, violent generalities would have been a much tougher sell.

If we were talking about generalities I'd agree. But I make no exaggeration when I say that Michael and Debi Pearl literally detail what materials to purchase, where to purchase them, and how to use them, and who to use them on (your children). Their book, their website, their preaching is chock full of specifics.

Would I advocate the arrest of the author of Anarchist's Cookbook? No. However, if it, along with instructions on how to build explosives, also contained instructions on the best way to use those explosives to murder politicians, and the author were to regularly speak to people saying, "Use the techniques in my book against any politician that voted to invade Iraq. They are evil and should die!" yes I most certainly would advocate his arrest.

[scaeagles]

Hmmm.....I suppose I have to think about this more. Valid points, it is just difficult to determine where lines should be drawn.