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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... 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?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

Person B has committed attempted murder, however without a witness it is difficult to prove. Also since the mode of the murder and the weapon cannot be brought to court they probably cannot be convicted. They can, however, be sued.

It is evil to say out loud "I wish you were dead" or "I hope you are killed". Why wouldn't it be evil to say "May God strike you dead?" Of course it is evil and worthy of a civil suit.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

They can, however, be sued.

That's more complicated as anyone can be sued for any reason, the question is whether they will win.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Person B has committed attempted murder, however without a witness it is difficult tor prove.

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.

Also since the mode of the murder and the weapon cannot be brought to court they probably cannot be convicted.

We don't necessarily have a mode of murder or a weapon for Person A either.

They can, however, be sued.

They can?

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's more complicated as anyone can be sued for any reason, the question is whether they will win.

First test for the case to be taken seriously is that the defendant must demonstrate potential harm, such as emotional harm. Another possibility is to argue that it constitutes a threat or a potential danger. So at minimum I think you could get a restraining order out of it if not money, but I am not a lawyer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First test for the case to be taken seriously is that the defendant must demonstrate potential harm, such as emotional harm. Another possibility is to argue that it constitutes a threat or a potential danger. So at minimum I think you could get a restraining order out of it if not money, but I am not a lawyer.

Generally, to win a tort case, you'd need to prove:

- a duty of care
- a breach of that duty
- resulting damages

I'm not sure how these could be established for the case of someone praying to God for another person's death. Do we have a legal duty not to wish ill on others?

 

[Brickjectivity]

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.

We don't necessarily have a mode of murder or a weapon for Person A either.

If its a hit man, then that counts as a mode for murder. Its payment for murder and a conspiracy to commit murder. You've already got several felony charges there. The difficulty with God is proving that there is a conspiracy to commit the crime. Rather you have an attempted conspiracy, unless the government is willing to insist that God would be willing to honor the prayer, making God a willing participant. The hit man already has shown willingness to honor the deal, but God has not. Now....if on the other hand you have scriptures showing God is willing to do what is being prayed for then perhaps you could convict on conspiracy to commit murder. You'd have to prove in court that God was willing, not merely that the defendant believed God was willing.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Generally, to win a tort case, you'd need to prove:

- a duty of care
- a breach of that duty
- resulting damages

I'm not sure how these could be established for the case of someone praying to God for another person's death. Do we have a legal duty not to wish ill on others?

No, but we have an ethical duty not to wish ill upon others. Also if a death actually occurs the court considers hatred to be evidence of murder. It is intent. Its not always enough by itself to convict, but it is important. A wish or prayer for someone to die is evidence of intent. It is evidence of criminal or at illegal unethical intent. So you have this breach of ethical duty which might be considered a legal duty, and you have possible emotional damages. Also the person threatened or prayed against may believe that the threat is credible, and the court could consider that damage. Love is considered fungible in court, so why wouldn't a death prayer be considered harm to those who believe it to be credible? But like I said I don't know the details. To me it seems like lawsuit material and grounds to receive monetary compensation. People can be sued merely for saying **** (the f-word) you. Why couldn't they be sued for saying "May God strike you dead?" I think they could, and I bet that someone already has.

 

[Windwalker]

... 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?

No, this can't be reflected in our laws because we believe in the separation of church and state. Were that not true however, it possibly could be. Imagine life in the U.S. once Christian Nationalism takes over and burns the Constitution in the name of God. Of course then, prayer to God to kill their enemies would be considered patriotism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, this can't be reflected in our laws because we believe in the separation of church and state.

Wouldn't exempting attempted murder from punishment as long as it's done in a religious way be the violation of church and state?

Do you think that freedom of religion should include the freedom to commit attempted murder?

 

[Wildswanderer]

... 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?

Oh, good grief! What are you drinking?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Oh, good grief! What are you drinking?

Is this your way of saying that the law should continue to assume that no reasonable person would expect prayer to be effective?

 

[Windwalker]

Wouldn't exempting attempted murder from punishment as long as it's done in a religious way be the violation of church and state?

No. Because in the eyes of the law God is considered a religious belief, or a symbol, not another human being. It's considered supernatural, not natural like some human assassin.

Do you think that freedom of religion should include the freedom to commit attempted murder?

Of course not. Though I'm sure some lawmakers in Texas will try to claim it does. Now that they have a Supreme Court to do their bidding, no telling what dystopian nightmare of a future awaits us. Evil in the name of God, is the name of the game.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Because in the eyes of the law God is considered a religious belief, or a symbol, not another human being. It's considered supernatural, not natural like some human assassin.

Unless "supernatural" is meant to mean "unbelievable," how is any of this relevant?

Of course not.

So what do you think would make praying for God to kill someone not attempted murder?

 

[Windwalker]

Unless "supernatural" is meant to mean "unbelievable," how is any of this relevant?

Because God is not something the state recognizes legally in matters of the law. The separation of church and state, means just that. The content and intents of prayers to God are matters of the church, not the state.

So what do you think would make praying for God to kill someone not attempted murder?

One's personal views of course are not the same as the eyes of the law under the separation of church and state. But on that note, my personal views of wishing someone dead, of which praying for God to kill them would be an expression of that, is in fact murdering them in your heart. It's feeding violence of the heart, hatred, murder, etc.

In fact Jesus himself expressly taught this.

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

~Mt. 5:21-22

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Etc.
​

These are spiritual principles, not actual legal definitions.

But this is of course not a matter of law under the Constitution of the United States, because Christianity is not a State religion, and the separation of church and state exists for a reason. We are a secular democracy, not a theocracy. Though the Christian Right, most absolutely wishes for the latter, where they can enact the equivalent of Sharia law upon the citizens of this country.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is this your way of saying that the law should continue to assume that no reasonable person would expect prayer to be effective?

No, it's my way of saying that the law doesn't regulate our prayer life and it would be impossible. How do you persecute someone for talking to God in their mind?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because God is not something the state recognizes legally in matters of the law.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. It's about the intent of the person calling the hit/making the prayer.

In the case of Person A, even if it turned out that Person A was mistaken and the hitman didn't even exist, Person A would still have committed a crime.

The separation of church and state, means just that. The content and intents of prayers to God are matters of the church, not the state.

But that's not true.

If, say, a doctor or lawyer violated confidentiality rules in a public prayer (e.g. praying in front of their prayer circle for the welfare of their patient/client, going into more detail than allowed), they'd be liable for that.

 

[stvdv]

... 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?

If you believe that intercessory prayer can be effective

Intercession (see definition in quote) is very safe. Another (heavenly being) does the prayer for you. And this person is a Saint or deity, who made it already into Heaven, so he acts Dharmic only. Hence no foul play at all. Big difference compared to a hitman. Of course no crime committed

Intercession or intercessory prayer is the act of asking or requesting to a deity or to a saint in heaven to pray on behalf of oneself or others.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So what do you think would make praying for God to kill someone not attempted murder?

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.

 

[74x12]

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.

God would only listen to such an imprecatory prayer if such a punishment was well earned. Otherwise the person who prays that prayer is actually committing a sin themselves. People do this all the time and don't realize they're sinning or they don't care. But you can't just pray for someone's death. Jesus said whoever hates his brother has committed murder already. God's not a murderer or a hired killer.

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?

So this would be assuming you know God is real I guess.

The answer is no; because you'd ultimately be putting God on trial and good luck with that. That's hubris.