If you believe that intercessory prayer can be effective...

[Heyo]

Let's assume that there's clear evidence.

For Person A, we have the recording and it's unquestionably them. For Person B, it was a pastor who prayed the prayer out loud in front of hundreds of parishoners and cameras that streamed it live.

And let's also assume that after some time, let's say half a year, person Y (who Person B wanted dead) gets hit by a lightning but survives. Just the method a god would use. Now we have the request for the attack and clear evidence of an attack.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ever see the movie where they try to prosecute people before they commit a crime? Very bad idea, even if you could read minds. Also you seem to assume that God is a puppet that is manipulated by prayer instead of the ruler of the universe who can decide whether to act or not.

This has a stench of "might makes right".

You're missing the point of the OP though.
Pretty much every objection you have raised so far would also work for the analogous example of leaving a message for a hit man.

In both cases, a third party which is its own moral agent with free will is asked to harm someone.
The OP is not about that third party. It's about the person who makes the request.

 

[Wildswanderer]

This has a stench of "might makes right".

You're missing the point of the OP though.
Pretty much every objection you have raised so far would also work for the analogous example of leaving a message for a hit man.

In both cases, a third party which is its own moral agent with free will is asked to harm someone.
The OP is not about that third party. It's about the person who makes the request.

It's still a weird question. And it smacks of censorship, big-time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's still a weird question. And it smacks of censorship, big-time.

How is it a weird question?
I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.

If it is a crime to ask a human to go and kill someone, why is it not a crime to ask a god to do the same?
What's the difference?

I don't understand the censorship comment either.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How is it a weird question?
I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.

If it is a crime to ask a human to go and kill someone, why is it not a crime to ask a god to do the same?
What's the difference?

I don't understand the censorship comment either.

First, most people aren't praying for others deaths. At least in Christianity.
Second you can't know a person's thoughts, so you can't regulate,"thought crimes".
Third, if a person does pray for someone to die, 99 percent of the time it's just because they are momentarily angry... doesn't mean they would actually kill that person. And God doesn't answer prayers that aren't in line with his will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just for starters; proving what people prayed for,

Why would that create more issues than any crime involving speech or writing?

We still manage to prosecute insider traders and mob bosses; those cases generally involve establishing that someone said something.

proving their sincerity,

Why would we need to prove their sincerity?

We don't need to do this to charge someone with, say, uttering threats. What matters is whether a reasonable person would take what they said as sincere, not whether they were actually sincere.

proving a connection between the prayers and the events, etcetera.

You don't need to prove that there was any real physical outcome to charge someone with things like attempted murder or conspiracy.

A hornet’s nest of hornets nests as I so well put it!!

You say that, but I'm not seeing any issues that don't come up regularly for other crimes.

 

[George-ananda]

Why would that create more issues than any crime involving speech or writing?

We still manage to prosecute insider traders and mob bosses; those cases generally involve establishing that someone said something.


Why would we need to prove their sincerity?

We don't need to do this to charge someone with, say, uttering threats. What matters is whether a reasonable person would take what they said as sincere, not whether they were actually sincere.


You don't need to prove that there was any real physical outcome to charge someone with things like attempted murder or conspiracy.


You say that, but I'm not seeing any issues that don't come up regularly for other crimes.

I don't think the criminal system should deal with supernatural threats to people. Witch hunts? I want the criminal system to be completely neutral on the question of even the very existence of supernatural forces. So, there is no prosecutable crime in invoking supernatural forces that are not known to exist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you are supposing God is real! Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either the law officially acknowledges God exists or it does not. In which case it is only a thought crime.

Perhaps we should make wishing someone were dead a crime as well. Who knows if wishing on a star actually works or not. Maybe it will work. Maybe if you wish hard enough someone will just keel over. Maybe if you throw a penny in a lucky fountain and make a wish you can have someone killed.

When does your thought crime policing end?

Is black magic going to be a crime? Should we go back to witch trials? I mean if someone uses magic to try to harm others then perhaps we need witch trials.

Of course because it shows intent to cause harm if possible. The person is still dangerous. If they tried once they may try again. The crime is not that they just wish someone dead; it's that they're trying to act on it. They need to be stopped because they pose a clear and present danger.

In the case of God it's different because God is in control of everything anyway. You can pray all you want but God's will is what will happen. Jesus said bless your enemies and curse not. So anyone cursing their enemy to die is committing a sin. The scripture also says the curse (that is) causeless will not come. This was old Testament by the way before Jesus said not to curse your enemies. So what that means is that if you did curse someone in the name of God; then if they didn't deserve it; the curse would not come to them. So even if God did listen to someone's imprecatory prayer. He would only do so after weighing the person's actions and seeing if they were worthy of his punishment or not. So prayer in that sense is not like black magic for example. In black magic you're putting a curse on someone that will happen if they deserve it or not. But God doesn't work that way. Praying a curse on someone is more of a wish than it is magic.

So prayer is useless then. God's just going to do what he wants to do anyway.
Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think the criminal system should deal with supernatural threats to people. Witch hunts? I want the criminal system to be completely neutral on the question of even the very existence of supernatural forces. So, there is no prosecutable crime in invoking supernatural forces that are not known to exist.

The current law isn't neutral on supernatural forces. Not only does it assume that supernatural forces do not exist, it assumes that no reasonable person would treat them as if they do exist.

Out of curiosity, though: if you think the supernatural exists and can be demonstrated to exist, why wouldn't you want the law to recognize this?

I mean, if the supernatural is real, this amounts to letting criminals get away with their crimes.

If we really could, say, get the spirit a murder victim to testify in the trial of their own murderer, this could revolutionize the justice system for the better... if it actually worked.

Now, I don't think we should try to do this because I don't think it could actually work. I think that any "medium" purporting to channel a dead person is either a charlatan or mentally ill, and I wouldn't want such a person anywhere near a witness stand.

I have no idea why you wouldn't be behind the idea, though.

 

[George-ananda]

The current law isn't neutral on supernatural forces. Not only does it assume that supernatural forces do not exist, it assumes that no reasonable person would treat them as if they do exist.

It does not assume supernatural things do not exist but considers such things outside its jurisdiction. The legal system does not involve itself with the question. That is different than assuming they don't exist. But the effect in this discussion is the same.

Out of curiosity, though: if you think the supernatural exists and can be demonstrated to exist, why wouldn't you want the law to recognize this?

Because it is impossible to determine what/if effect the supernatural had on a case.

I mean, if the supernatural is real, this amounts to letting criminals get away with their crimes.

If we really could, say, get the spirit a murder victim to testify in the trial of their own murderer, this could revolutionize the justice system for the better... if it actually worked.

Now, I don't think we should try to do this because I don't think it could actually work. I think that any "medium" purporting to channel a dead person is either a charlatan or mentally ill, and I wouldn't want such a person anywhere near a witness stand.

I have no idea why you wouldn't be behind the idea, though.

I think mediums are real but not certain enough in their information for it to be admissible in a court case.

One area I think that can be useful is for mediums to provide clues for regular investigation.

 

[Ponder This]

... how should this be reflected in our laws?

An example:

Person A calls someone they believe to be a hit man. They leave a voice mail message asking for a person to be killed and offering payment.

Person B prays to God asking for a petson to be struck down and offering eternal gratitude and a life of devotion to God in exchange.

Person A has committed a crime; Person B hasn't. What's the difference in their actions?

- neither one is guaranteed to succeed in killing the person.

- in both cases, the desired result requires the actions of another thinking agent who has their own will.

As far as I can tell, the only difference is that the law assumes that no reasonable person expects prayer to be effective, so Person B hasn't done anything that can be reasonably considered trying to kill someone.

... but if prayer is effective - or even has a reasonable chance of being effective - we should set aside this assumption.

So does this mean we should treat imprecatory prayer the same way we would treat other examples of people trying to arrange harm for others?

I think the history of witch-hunting indicates that laws to find and punish people who pray for evil things to happen is the greater danger to society. If people are going to try and use prayers to do evil to others, then why would they balk at using laws to do evil to others.

Why is it different? I'm not sure, but perhaps part of the problem is enforceability. Prayers are between the supplicant and the deity, which operates outside of human laws, but the communications between a person and a hitman are, potentially, within the scope of human laws, assuming the communications are not protected.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First, most people aren't praying for others deaths. At least in Christianity.

Irrelevant since the OP is about those that do.

Second you can't know a person's thoughts, so you can't regulate,"thought crimes".

Nobody is talking about private talks.
The OP is about those people of which it is known what they are praying for.

Third, if a person does pray for someone to die, 99 percent of the time it's just because they are momentarily angry... doesn't mean they would actually kill that person.

You could say the same thing about those who ask a hitman to kill someone.
So again irrelevant to the OP.

And God doesn't answer prayers that aren't in line with his will.

The same goes for a hitman. If he doesn't want to do the hit, he won't.
So once again irrelevant.
Also, as I already pointed out, the OP is not about the hitman or the god. It is about the one who's making the request. So what the hitman / god wants or doesn't want, does not matter at all.


You seem to be doing your very best to dodge what the OP is actually asking about.