Does the law assume that religious beliefs are unreasonable?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Think about it: if I try to arrange for someone to be murdered, I would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. This could still be the case if the person I was trying to convince to be the murderer flat-out refused. OTOH, if someone prays for God to strike their enemy down, they wouldn’t have broken any law.

As an engineer, I’m subject to the laws on negligent misstatement: the presumption is that I ought to know that - on engineering matters - my opinion will be relied on by others, including people who aren’t my client or employer, unless I take steps to explicitly tell them not to rely on my opinion. The same applies to other professions like doctors and lawyers (at least in this country). I have a legal and ethical duty to ensure that if I publicly give an opinion on an engineering matter, that it’s well-founded. OTOH, priests, ministers and evangelists aren’t subject to negligent misstatement rules: if people rely on what they say and it turns out they just made it up, too bad for those people.

There’s a similar attitude in other quasi-legal areas: if you’re writing an exam and phone your friend to ask him to give you the answer to a question, you’ll get penalized for cheating. If you get caught quietly praying to God to give you the answer, nothing happens.

It seems to me that the laws and rules of our society are built around the assumption that everyone ought to know that praying is ineffective and religious ministers are unreliable. Do you agree?

Those of you who think that prayer can be effective and religious ministers’ opinions can or should be relied upon to be well-founded: should we change the law to reflect this? Should we penalize praying during an exam as at least attempted cheating and praying for which stock to pick as at least attempted insider trading?

 

[Tumah]

Couldn't you also say it the other way: the law is agreeable with any matter that G-d is willing to do upon another's request?

 

[pearl]

Should we penalize praying during an exam as at least attempted cheating and praying for which stock to pick as at least attempted insider trading?

Petitions are not the reason for prayer. One might expect to acquire strength and or courage from knowing you're not alone, that God is present to and with you. To ask that He give you answers on a test is no different from asking Him to make it stop raining because you're planning a picnic.

 

[Nakosis]

Think about it: if I try to arrange for someone to be murdered, I would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. This could still be the case if the person I was trying to convince to be the murderer flat-out refused. OTOH, if someone prays for God to strike their enemy down, they wouldn’t have broken any law.

As an engineer, I’m subject to the laws on negligent misstatement: the presumption is that I ought to know that - on engineering matters - my opinion will be relied on by others, including people who aren’t my client or employer, unless I take steps to explicitly tell them not to rely on my opinion. The same applies to other professions like doctors and lawyers (at least in this country). I have a legal and ethical duty to ensure that if I publicly give an opinion on an engineering matter, that it’s well-founded. OTOH, priests, ministers and evangelists aren’t subject to negligent misstatement rules: if people rely on what they say and it turns out they just made it up, too bad for those people.

There’s a similar attitude in other quasi-legal areas: if you’re writing an exam and phone your friend to ask him to give you the answer to a question, you’ll get penalized for cheating. If you get caught quietly praying to God to give you the answer, nothing happens.

It seems to me that the laws and rules of our society are built around the assumption that everyone ought to know that praying is ineffective and religious ministers are unreliable. Do you agree?

Those of you who think that prayer can be effective and religious ministers’ opinions can or should be relied upon to be well-founded: should we change the law to reflect this? Should we penalize praying during an exam as at least attempted cheating and praying for which stock to pick as at least attempted insider trading?

I suspect it's ok if God helps you.

If you pray to God to have someone struck by lightning, I doubt anyone's going to see you in the wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Couldn't you also say it the other way: the law is agreeable with any matter that G-d is willing to do upon another's request?

Except God's will seems to be irrelevant:

- trying to cheat on an exam by communicating with a human who refuses to help you: punishable.
- trying to cheat on an exam by communicating with a god who refuses to help you: not punishable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Petitions are not the reason for prayer.

That depends on the prayer and the person doing the praying. It's common enough, even if you find it distasteful.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(must be a slow day)

 

[Tumah]

Except God's will seems to be irrelevant:

- trying to cheat on an exam by communicating with a human who refuses to help you: punishable.
- trying to cheat on an exam by communicating with a god who refuses to help you: not punishable.

Yeah but maybe cheating with a human is only punishable because if he helps you, that's illegal. But if it's not illegal for G-d to help you cheat, then it the communication itself shouldn't be illegal either.

 

[Stevicus]

Except God's will seems to be irrelevant:

- trying to cheat on an exam by communicating with a human who refuses to help you: punishable.
- trying to cheat on an exam by communicating with a god who refuses to help you: not punishable.

What if you ask the teacher during the exam what the answer is? The teacher won't tell you, of course, but would it be a punishable offense just for asking?

 

[pearl]

That depends on the prayer and the person doing the praying. It's common enough, even if you find it distasteful.

I agree its common, but I don't find it 'distasteful', but simplistic, limited in a concept of God. Often we see athletes kneeling or making the sign of the cross before a play, as if God chose teams.

 

[Nous]

Think about it: if I try to arrange for someone to be murdered, I would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. This could still be the case if the person I was trying to convince to be the murderer flat-out refused. OTOH, if someone prays for God to strike their enemy down, they wouldn’t have broken any law.

As an engineer, I’m subject to the laws on negligent misstatement: the presumption is that I ought to know that - on engineering matters - my opinion will be relied on by others, including people who aren’t my client or employer, unless I take steps to explicitly tell them not to rely on my opinion. The same applies to other professions like doctors and lawyers (at least in this country). I have a legal and ethical duty to ensure that if I publicly give an opinion on an engineering matter, that it’s well-founded. OTOH, priests, ministers and evangelists aren’t subject to negligent misstatement rules: if people rely on what they say and it turns out they just made it up, too bad for those people.

There’s a similar attitude in other quasi-legal areas: if you’re writing an exam and phone your friend to ask him to give you the answer to a question, you’ll get penalized for cheating. If you get caught quietly praying to God to give you the answer, nothing happens.

It seems to me that the laws and rules of our society are built around the assumption that everyone ought to know that praying is ineffective and religious ministers are unreliable. Do you agree?

Those of you who think that prayer can be effective and religious ministers’ opinions can or should be relied upon to be well-founded: should we change the law to reflect this? Should we penalize praying during an exam as at least attempted cheating and praying for which stock to pick as at least attempted insider trading?

No, "the law" makes no such assumption as that religious beliefs are unreasonable.

In the first place, US law does not define "reasonable" or "unreasonable" in any exacting or consistent manner. "Unreasonable searches and seizures" by government actors are forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, but in that context the adjective just means searches and seizures where no warrant has been issued "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," and, further, the Fourth Amendment "reasonableness standard" has come to include one or more of the 7 circumstances where a warrant is not required (e.g., after a lawful arrest; when an officer has "a reasonable and articulable suspicion" that a driver has violated a traffic law).

The "reasonable person" standard is often alluded to in analyzing negligence in tort law.

In a criminal self-defense claim, an individual must have had a "reasonable belief" that the acts of the other person(s) posed the threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death.

Insofar as "religious beliefs," one can obviously argue that the wrongness of stealing is a "religious belief" ("Thou shalt not steal'). Certainly nothing in any law assumes that the belief of the wrongness of stealing is unreasonable.

 

[David T]

Think about it: if I try to arrange for someone to be murdered, I would be guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. This could still be the case if the person I was trying to convince to be the murderer flat-out refused. OTOH, if someone prays for God to strike their enemy down, they wouldn’t have broken any law.

As an engineer, I’m subject to the laws on negligent misstatement: the presumption is that I ought to know that - on engineering matters - my opinion will be relied on by others, including people who aren’t my client or employer, unless I take steps to explicitly tell them not to rely on my opinion. The same applies to other professions like doctors and lawyers (at least in this country). I have a legal and ethical duty to ensure that if I publicly give an opinion on an engineering matter, that it’s well-founded. OTOH, priests, ministers and evangelists aren’t subject to negligent misstatement rules: if people rely on what they say and it turns out they just made it up, too bad for those people.

There’s a similar attitude in other quasi-legal areas: if you’re writing an exam and phone your friend to ask him to give you the answer to a question, you’ll get penalized for cheating. If you get caught quietly praying to God to give you the answer, nothing happens.

It seems to me that the laws and rules of our society are built around the assumption that everyone ought to know that praying is ineffective and religious ministers are unreliable. Do you agree?

Those of you who think that prayer can be effective and religious ministers’ opinions can or should be relied upon to be well-founded: should we change the law to reflect this? Should we penalize praying during an exam as at least attempted cheating and praying for which stock to pick as at least attempted insider trading?

A topic can be both true and not understood. So do you understand the topic? How do you understand the topic? Is how you you understand the topic reliable?

A bit like "be careful in casting stones because you might be throwing rocks at yourself without realising it"'
Since religion is "normal"' should we set up laws to outlaw normalcy? In regards to laws the comment "Does the law assume" To be very curious.
Assume

1. 1.
   suppose to be the case, without proof.
   "you're afraid of what people are going to assume about me"
   synonyms: presume, suppose, take it (as given), take for granted, take as read, conjecture, surmise, conclude, deduce, infer, reckon, reason, think, fancy, believe, understand, gather, figure
   "I assumed he wanted me to keep the book"
2. 2.
   take or begin to have (power or responsibility).
   "he assumed full responsibility for all organizational work"
   synonyms: accept, shoulder, bear, undertake, take on/up, manage, handle, deal with
   "they are to assume more responsibility"

I see no reality in the statement "does the law assume" at all. Turning laws into a person is the invert of turning a person into laws. "Laws of physics" is the invert statement, "God determines". . An invert of nonsense is nonsense the last I checked. Being agnostic to which invert is valid, is nonsense as well. Both statements in modern drag is called transhumanism and virtualism. Transhumanism is about body trancendentalism, virtualism is we live in a virtual reality. Both are dysfunctions of the self labelled "higher functioning" region of the brain. I see no evidence to all of it especially "higher functioning".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What if you ask the teacher during the exam what the answer is? The teacher won't tell you, of course, but would it be a punishable offense just for asking?

If you asked it seriously? Absolutely.

 

[Stevicus]

If you asked it seriously? Absolutely.

It could also be a case where someone is not actually trying to cheat, but just to remember something they may have forgotten. It may be a case where someone had studied something but just couldn't remember it at the time of the exam. So, they may not be asking God to give them the answer as much as just to help them remember the answer.

But this subject kind of reminded me of one of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes strips: