[Dragon]

It is however very hard as a strong minded Atheist with a great awareness of the human condition to market that wonderful and hoped for goal, when things like this;
http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=689560&vId=2875426&cId=World
Happen.
It does tend to charge you emotionally to see people, literally, dying of ignorance.
Not even a religious war or some similar insanity, but just actual out-and-out ignorance.
I mean honestly, if a scientist were to be faith healed they would at least get a test to see if it worked rather than just going 'hooray, I'm cured!' and never bothering to check.
I mean, really?

Indeed.
IMHO, this should count as murder and this priest should be thrown into jail for lifetime (I don't think death penalty is still used in Britain, but I wouldn't be against using it in such case), just like every other person who murdered 6 people.
Yet, it seems that he got off scot-free. And you wonder why people get angry about religion and churches.

[karajorma]

It's not murder because ultimately it was the victim who was stupid enough to believe the priest. I can see a fraud prosecution succeeding though if they have ever attempted to solicit donations. In fact fraud prosecutions might be a way to deal with any religion that claims to be able to successfully resolve real world problems through prayer etc.

[Dragon]

Still, 6 people are dead because of what a priest said to them, therefore he indirectly caused their deaths. This is could be considered (at least) manslaughter (3rd degree murder, in other words), at least IIRC.

[QuantumDelta]

Wouldn't abusing a position of authority and trust also apply to make it more significant a charge than simple manslaughter?

[Bobboau]

It's not murder because ultimately it was the victim who was stupid enough to believe the priest.

Caveat Emptor.

I am surprised to see you taking a position opposing consumer protection.

[Mikes]

It's not murder because ultimately it was the victim who was stupid enough to believe the priest. I can see a fraud prosecution succeeding though if they have ever attempted to solicit donations. In fact fraud prosecutions might be a way to deal with any religion that claims to be able to successfully resolve real world problems through prayer etc.

Helping someone commit suicide is also a major crime, so?

And now this... this isn't even helping, as these people do not want to die (lol) but are literally defrauded into suicide so WTF!?!

Worse... they are actually not just telling them they are healed... they are actually (according to the article) encouraging them to start a family...  meaning that this priest deliberately encourages people with HIV to infect other people.

The ironic part is that - at least in the US - you could propably - at least in some states - find a jury that acquits the priest of all charges because clearly, if only the victim had believed more strongly in god he would certainly have been cured.

Anyways, hope he at least gets hit with a lawsuit from hell

[karajorma]

For those of you who replied, you'd have to prove intent in order to secure that kind of conviction. There aren't that many juries that would convict. It would be a waste of money.

Fraud would have a better chance of success, while it is hard to argue that the priest showed depraved indifference to those he helped die it's much easier to prove that he defrauded them by claiming that he knew the will of God. Hell, you could probably get several religious experts to testify for the prosecution that claiming to know the mind of God amounts to fraud. So yeah, you could possibly succeed with a fraud conviction.

[Bobboau]

I think the bigger issue here, and the reason I do consider religion the source of every evil in the universe is that religion trains you to reject reality, and live in a world of "faith". So in this case you have faith that god cured you of your cancer, and then you die from it. the problem is it is quite probable that the priest who told you you were cured actually believed it, because he too is living in a world of faith. that is why I place the blame squarely upon the religion, not the people practicing it, now some individuals may attract some specific ire from me, but in general I blame religion. when you live in a world of faith you can believe anything, it doesn't have to have any bearing on reality (in fact usually that is encouraged), and when you can believe anything, you don't even have to justify anything. if you think that some country is nothing more than a great temptation away from the grace of god, you can gleefuly kill thousands knowing that they will get the justice they deserve in the next life.

and the best part because your worldview is not based on reality, there is nothing to justify, this was the will of god. based off of what you 'know' this was totally the right thing to do.

[karajorma]

I think when it comes down to it, we're all capable of rejecting reality whether religious or not. Many people erroneously blame atheism for several atrocities during human history but I doubt you can blame religion for them either. Would the world be better off without religion? I happen to think it would. Would it cure all the ideological problems in the world? Absolutely not.   

[QuantumDelta]

Get rid of borders, religion, and **** with everyone's skin pigmentation so they're all the same colour, then allow people to get jobs based on their aptitude and not background.
Yes? No? Maybe?

Or we could just wait a few thousand years.
Q.Q

[Bobboau]

keep in mind I almost always insert at least some amount of hyperbole into what I say.

while there may well be many other things that could cause one to do bad things, religion is pretty unique in it's ability to easily lube the gears. we might all be capable of rejecting reality, but religion is the act of practicing, venerating, and promoting such a behavior.

[Dragon]

For those of you who replied, you'd have to prove intent in order to secure that kind of conviction. There aren't that many juries that would convict. It would be a waste of money.

Still, I think that by telling people to stop taking their medicines and start a family, the priest showed at least criminal negligence. From what we know, he did not made any tests nor even had formal education in medicine. Yet, he told at least 6 people that they're safe, and even when one of them came to complain, he reassured him that it's nothing. 6 people are dead as a result. This was either complete idiocy, completely blind, irrational faith (which I find hard to believe) or actual criminal intent. If this isn't enough to charge him at least with manslaughter, than the law should be changed to account for such things. Abusing position of authority should also be taken into account. These people were always told to thrust priests, and he knew that. He also should have known how deadly HIV is and that it shouldn't be taken lightly. And despite all this, he acted like he did.
Of course, I'd also charge him with fraud, while we're at it. But while most churches rip money off us, not all of them actually kill people (well, not anymore, at least).

[karajorma]

Like I said, I doubt you'd get a conviction even with a change of the law (assuming one is even needed). A civil suit on the other hand would probably be very successful. You could probably sue this church into oblivion.

keep in mind I almost always insert at least some amount of hyperbole into what I say.

while there may well be many other things that could cause one to do bad things, religion is pretty unique in it's ability to easily lube the gears. we might all be capable of rejecting reality, but religion is the act of practicing, venerating, and promoting such a behavior.

Maybe but as this thread has made clear, the hyperbole has become annoying enough that it has lead to the closure of several interesting threads. That's the point at which it has to be curbed.

[Bobboau]

anyone who doesn't pickup any hint of dramatic overstatement from the phrase "the source of every evil in the universe" deserves to live a life of never ending mystery.

please tell me you did not take "deserves to live a life of never ending mystery" literally... :|

[karajorma]

I don't mean on this topic. I mean in general. The constant complaining about ending religion is causing needless problems. Next time it drags an interesting topic into the ground there will be repercussions.

[Bobboau]

Well, if some people cannot understand that 'religion should be banned' is code for 'religion is the source of a lot of problems', I think THAT is the problem that should be addressed. Clearly these people need to be rounded up and put into some sort of camp where they can be used for manual labor.

I'm helping here, right?

[Bobboau]

I still think you should use the sewer method for these sorts of threads, have a forum where anyone can say anything they want (short of posting clearly illegal material) and as soon as a conversation falls below a threshold of civility, flush it into the sewer. locking a thread/banning people only serves to piss people off. next time the topic comes up they will still be blue balled from the last time.

[karajorma]

Well, if some people cannot understand that 'religion should be banned' is code for 'religion is the source of a lot of problems', I think THAT is the problem that should be addressed. Clearly these people need to be rounded up and put into some sort of camp where they can be used for manual labor.

Nope, cause the people posting that sort of crap aren't even involved in anything that has any business being in the discussion anyway. A proper discussion should have a scope. Such posts are usually way beyond the scope of the discussion as as such pointless to it. While I'm willing to accept a certain level of signal to noise if that noise is causing echoes that drown out the signal, it has to go.

I still think you should use the sewer method for these sorts of threads, have a forum where anyone can say anything they want (short of posting clearly illegal material) and as soon as a conversation falls below a threshold of civility, flush it into the sewer. locking a thread/banning people only serves to piss people off. next time the topic comes up they will still be blue balled from the last time.

I see no point in having a sewer, it would just cause more ill feeling than locking the thread or banning someone. Not to mention that certain trollish members could easily decide that every single interesting conversation ends up there. Banning/locking forces people to raise their game and at least attempt to stay civil and on topic. Do you really think HLP discussions should pander to the lowest common denominator? Imagine what will happen to Gen Disc the second someone like High Max turns up. I'd rather have that sort of person blue-balled than have to deal with them feeling free to spunk all over the entire forum, safe in the knowledge that they expect the admin staff to be their jizz-moppers.

[NGTM-1R]

For those of you who replied, you'd have to prove intent in order to secure that kind of conviction.

It's probably true you could get manslaughter or murder charges filed, but it would depend on the jurisdiction. A number of US states have reckless disregard clauses this could fall under, but I don't think British law does.

keep in mind I almost always insert at least some amount of hyperbole into what I say.

The reason this thread exists is to tell you to stop. We have arrived at this lamentable state of discussion because of hyperbole. Interpretation or lack thereof is no longer relevant; it is a part of the problem.

[karajorma]

It's probably true you could get manslaughter or murder charges filed, but it would depend on the jurisdiction. A number of US states have reckless disregard clauses this could fall under, but I don't think British law does.

We do have that definition AFAIK. I'm pretty sure you could file charges. What I doubt is that the CPS would bother or that even if they did, if you'd get a conviction.