Okay, please feel free to discuss anything today because there is just so much going on, it's hard to focus on just one subject. So what do you want to talk about today? The new Pope? The recent meeting between President Obama and some random Republicans - the first in two years? Local news or just random thoughts? Let's talk, muse, discuss, or just randomly riff on whatever topic you want. Or this... This week in New York Federal Court, a former New York City cop was convicted of the crime of conspiracy to kidnap, torture and commit cannibalism. Yes, cannibalism. Frightening and disturbing, but I am still trying to figure out what actually crime he committed. According to all reports that I have read, other than commiserating in great detail in writing with other like-minded cannibal wannabes on a cannibal chat site (yes, you can find just about anything you want on-line!), I am not exactly sure of what crime he actually committed. He was convicted of conspiring to kidnap, torture, and eat women without actually doing it or, from what I can tell, even getting close. But, please read this New York Times article and let's discuss.
Here's my question: When does or should a potential crime become a real convictable crime?
75 comments:
Bev, I can't think of the word, but legally speaking, a crime occurs the moment you commit and "actus reus." Basically, the moment you form the mindset to commit a crime and then you take any act in furtherance of carrying out that crime, you've committed the crime.
In terms of what you are talking about, I have a real problem with thought crimes. As near as I can tell, while his thoughts are reprehensible, he didn't actually possess anything illegal or take any action to actually do anything illegal. Thus, while he should be condemned, he should not be punished criminally.
Unfortunately, people do like to punish thought crimes. Therefore, they seek to make the expression of thoughts they don't like illegal. Hence, hate crimes and the such.
I think this is a dangerous trend.
Andrew,
First, I saw that you asked me about my post on yesterday's thread. I was busy at the time and couldn't respond. So, I decided to respond in this more current thread.
My feelings on Pope Francis? Well, like most people (Catholic and non), I'm also learning more about him. And from what I've read, he's sounding pretty good. He's a hard-liner on the dogma of the Church, but reportedly a very nice and humane man. (Seems to match the description of Blessed John Paul II.) For instance, I heard that while he's against same-sex marriage, he did go to a hospital to wash the feet of AIDS patients.
I think Bev covered most of the new Holy Father's biography. (By the way, great job, Bev!)
On the Jesuits, I have to confess I didn't learn too much about them in Catholic school, other than that they were a special order along the lines of the Franciscan and Benetictine monks. However, the info that T-rav supplied doesn't surprise me.
However, overall, I'm actually very hopeful about the new papacy. (I was most relieved when he smiled at end of his openign prayer. No pope following John Paul II will be able to win over the masses without a sense of humor.)
-Rustbelt
And since this is Lent, I guess I should make a confession. While Bev and NYC were pulling for Cardinal Dolan, I secretly had my fingers crossed for Archbishop Donald Cardinal Wuerl of Washington, D.C.
Why a native Pittsburgher like me would hope that another native Pittsburgher (and former head of the Pgh. Diocese) would be elected Pope, well, I have no idea. (Not that I've ever shilled for my hometown on this site before! -sarc)
Well, that's my two cents for now.
-Rustbelt
Rustbelt, Thanks! :)
I'm liking the choice so far.
And go ahead and shill for Pittsburgh whenever you want. It's actually a city with some very nice parts and some nice features. Good sushi too.
I just wanna know if the new Pope is going to send the Holy Hit Squads out after Dan Brown, and if it's going to be live on cable.
It has always amazed me that the left cannot abide the thought of someone loving the individual human being (gays in this case) and disagreeing with certain manifestations of their outlook (gay marriage). I think many Christians possess this trait and the left cannot fathom how this could possibly be so. Thus, Christians are left being called "haters" or "homophobic" or some of the most vile words out there, when in fact, they love fellow humans, just not the institutions or actions those fellow humans sometimes take. This has always driven me nuts.
Therefore, their heads will be exploding and they will come up with all sorts of creative, hateful, nasty things to say about this new Pope, and will never understand how someone can love a group but not some of the things that group fights for.
Hominem qui sit super humani generis
At a certain point, I am fine with 'thought crime'. If a guy says 'I've always wanted to blow up a school and yesterday I went to a classrom and saw the perfect place to put they dynammite' I want that guy in prison (dead would be better and cheaper, but prison is just as good). Seems like the cannibal cop did that exact thing.
If people have fantasies disconnected to anything finite then that is disturbing but something the system should ignore, but when they start hanging those fantasies on the world around them, then its time to take steps.
I don't understand why some (many?) people treat the internet the way they do, posting the most graphic, horrible stuff and assuming that only people who agree with them will find out about it.
If you're a random websurfer and you come to learn of a site where people talking about killing other people either for Al Queda or their own pleasure, its a safe bet law enforcement (including cops who don't share your mental disease) knows about that site too.
I think there is a middle tier missing from our justice system for the mentally ill, which this guy may or may not be, but currently there are few legal avenues to make that determination before a serious crime is committed. Certainly there is something amiss when, as a society, every proclivity is considered acceptable until it suddenly is not. So far as I can tell, this man should not be convicted of conspiracy to murder, but neither should he be let to roam the streets.
I don't have an answer for the cannibal cop. I hate thought crime legislation but if we find someone who is considering a heinous crime I think law enforcement is doing the public a disservice if they did nothing.
To convict him, I assume they must have had more than a few notes on the internet. If not, it will surely be appealed and overturned. There is definitely a difference between "I fantasize killing and eating a woman" and "I am going to kill and eat Jane Doe on Saturday." Many people have disturbing fantasies but it is the sociopath who acts on them.
Andrew and Anthony - Thanks for the clarification. I know there is some technicality that allowed Valle to be arrested and tried without actually committing a crime with th exception of accessing a law enforcement database to obtain information about a potential "victim". But by this standard, a bank robber could post on his FB page he is going to rob X bank, show up at the bank with a only a "finger gun" in his pocket, change his mind, and STILL be arrested for "conspiracy to commit bank robbery". That disturbs me. In addition, if this is true, why can't the police just arrest all the Bloods, Crips, Mafia capos et al. and be done with it. We know that they talk about, and plot and plan committing crimes all the time
Anthony - I understand what you are saying, BUT it makes me uneasy that we can be arrested for just putting our violent/weird desires in print. And I don't think they ARE assuming that only people who agree with their proclivities are the only ones with access. I think that they are casting a wide net to find like minded people. It's kind of like walking into a room of strangers and shouting "Hey, who likes to eat people??" Except in this case, it they can do it somewhat less embarrassingly.
I don't have much to comment on the new pope as I am not catholic. I would like to see the pope do away with vast security and the bullet proof pope mobile. Yes, an assassination is possible but to be open sends a message that the man who is pope is still a fallible human being. The office and church are bigger than one man. If he were to die the church would go on just like it has for centuries.
I feel the same about the explosion in security around the president. Talk about a place to cut costs; let's drop the presidential entourage by 90% and Michelle only gets to vacation at Camp David. Probably save $80 Billion right there.
So basically, we're one supercomputer away from Minority Report. That's the main takeaway here, right?
I think they should at least have waited for the guy to buy ligaments or chloroform before arresting him. I needed the money.
"If you're a random websurfer and you come to learn of a site where people talking about killing other people either for Al Queda or their own pleasure, its a safe bet law enforcement (including cops who don't share your mental disease) knows about that site too.
Anthony - Here is another related problem. The NYC Terrorist Task Force (part of the NYC Police Dept.) has come under fire by civil rights groups for searching the web and obtaining information about potential terrorist activity through Islamic-friendly websites all open to the public. The reason for them being criticized is that they are spying on and unnecessarily profiling these groups some of which are not within their jurisdiction. BTW, this is the task force that was responsible for the take down of bin Laden's son in law last week...
So we WANT them to find these guys who MAY commit potential lethal crimes, BUT we don't want them to do TOO much. It's a mixed and confusing message when we can be arrested for our potential crimes. Isn't this is what "Minority Report" was all about?
I would like to see the pope do away with vast security and the bullet proof pope mobile.
Koshcat - I believe your wish has been granted. Apparently, Pope Francis I isn't really into the trappings of the Papacy. Ad probably living under the Argentinian Junta who had a great proclivity for killing priests, he probably isn't much scared of being assassinated. He even went by bus to the hotel to retrieve his own luggage and pay his bill. Can you imagine what that desk clerk must have been thinking?
I think there is a middle tier missing from our justice system for the mentally ill...
Tryanmax - Bingo. There is a missing link in the chain. His wife upon discovery of his proclivities, could have and should have been able to have him temporarily and involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for evaluation and most probably a pharmaceutical intervention. But she couldn't because the law says he is an adult and has to agree to evaluation.
K - I think Dan Brown may be pretty safe, but weren't you just a little disappointed that there wasn't a huge chase scene/bomb blast attempt over the attemepted cover up by the Church over the existance of the Higgs boson or the "God particle" yesterday?
On a related note: Did anyone notice that at the same time the new Pope was on the balcony, there was an announcement that physicists have confirmed the existance of the Higgs Boson? I know Andrew thinks that I am charter member of the Conspiracy Theory of the Month club, but...hey! Wasn't that well timed?
Maybe Dan Brown isn't so safe after all...
I refuse to read the article because - ICK. But, doesn't conspiracy mean that you have thought up a crime and then you plan to commit the crime with someone else? Doesn't the planning move it from "thought" to "action"? So planning murder with someone doesn't make you guilty OF murder, just the conspiracy?
It has always amazed me that the left cannot abide the thought of someone loving the individual human being (gays in this case) and disagreeing with certain manifestations of their outlook (gay marriage).
Patriot - You would think they WOULD understand since they are the ones who believe "love the sinner/hate the sin" mentality. They just love to blame society for crime and not the actual criminal because if it weren't for [fill in the blank] because of [choose one: the govt, rich people, the Church etc.], the criminal would not have HAD to commit the crime. I think that liberals don't like religion because they just don't like anyone or anything that makes them feel guilty about their ill-spent lives
Bev, I would counter that they don't actually believe "love the sinner/hate the sin." What they really believe is that "the sinner was framed!" You spelled it out yourself: they believe the "sinner" was only reacting in the only way possible to the sins committed by the "real" villains, i.e. "two wrongs DO make a right."
Personally, I think Dan Brown has less to fear from Catholics than from those devoted to historical accuracy. There's historical fiction and then there's just making stuff up....
It is kinda cool about the Higgs boson being discovered. That's important, because....something.
K, the popes don't do that anymore. They haven't ordered anyone killed in at least three weeks. :P
Anthony, In your example of the school, that's not a thought crime. The guy visited the school and that's the overt act needed to make it a crime. It would only be a thought crime if you arrested the guy for having the thought but never did anything that could be considered in furtherance of making it happen.
As for people having messed up thoughts, I think that's a matter that needs to be handled differently. If it seems that the guy is actually trending in that direction (like shows evidence of obsession) then you need to be able to send them to counseling.
T-Rav - [I don't really understand what Higgs boson is, but it makes me seem smart beiputting it a comment like I know what I'm talkin' bout]
BTW, that was in brackets because it was a secret, private comment just between T-Rav and me, so no one else read it, okay?
BBTW, maybe I should have put that BEFORE I made my super secret private comment to T-Rav...whatevs.
Koshcat, What the Nordic countries do that apparently works is the cops visit people who appear to be trouble makers. So if you go online and talk about wanting to eat somebody or blow something up and it's not enough to be a crime, they will actually visit those people and let them know they are being watched. That apparently works in most cases to get the behavior to change. I think that's not a bad idea actually.
Bev, The finger gun guy would be convicted and that doesn't bother me at all. It makes sense that he would because convicted otherwise it's too easy to avoid crimes by just pretending you were kidding at the last second. For example, the perfect bank robbery then is a bluff with a fake gun. If you see the cops, you pretend, "Oh, I was just kidding" when he really wasn't. That would be too easy to hide real crimes behind lies.
Also, the law doesn't want people acting out crimes because you are endangering people. The moment you walk into that bank to pretend, you could very well set a series of events that could lead to people getting killed and the law doesn't tolerate that kind of behavior because of the dangers it poses.
Bev and Anthony, Let me add something about the net. While I do think a lot of what's out there is sick and I do think they should be prosecuting people who make threats, I think there is a huge different between posting death threats and posting disgusting fantasies (assuming they are just fantasies and haven't been acted upon -- like the kiddie porn guys do).
The thing about fantasies is that this is one time you really do get a slippery slope problem. Where do you draw the line? Should the author of Hannibal Lector be charged like this NYC cop or does he get away with it because he used a third person fantasy rather than a first person fantasy? Do you see the problem? Most of modern slasher/horror world would be classified as a third person version of what this cop is doing as well.
And why stop there? Do you remember the Turner Diaries or something like that? Those were survivalist porn that inspired Timothy McVeigh and a bunch of leftists wanted the author prosecuted for "advocating"/inspiring Oklahoma City. But again, how is that different than more reputable authors writing about revolutions to take over?
And don't forget, the religious right (and the hard-core feminist left) has been after "pornography" for years. But what is pornography?
The problem with thought crime is that it becomes a tool by the worst among us to control the rest of us under the guise of stopping a few sickos.
Bev: Did anyone notice that at the same time the new Pope was on the balcony, there was an announcement that physicists have confirmed the existance of the Higgs Boson?
Whoa. I missed that!
I propose we appoint Bev the official Commentarama conspiracy watcher. You can't be too careful these days.:)
Bev, There probably was a chase scene but the media covered it up. :D
There's nothing wrong with being a charter member of the Conspiracy Theory of the Month Club! LOL! Just don't get yourself obsessed with only one conspiracy when there are so many to choose from! :)
Andrew, what I am talking about is not actually entering the bank. Just maybe going to the door and having an epiphany and walking away. BUt because you post on your robbingbanks.blogspot.com blog that you are going to rob the Corner Bank at 12pm on Friday, but don't actually even walk through the door. Is that a crime. To me, once he enters the bank, it's a bank robbery or a conspiracy to commit, but at any time before he touches the door, it's not...quite.
I know I am splitting hairs, but I am trying to understand why.
The problem with thought crime is that it becomes a tool by the worst among us to control the rest of us under the guise of stopping a few sickos
Andrew - It's the whole slippery slope thing that bothers me. Where is the water's edge? Pornography is the perfect example. While what consenting adults do for fun and profit is not or should not be a crime, obviously child pornography completely different because children cannot consent and therefore, it is a crime even to view. The making of the photo/video is in itself a crime, so viewing it must be crime.
BTW, don't misunderstand me. I think that child pornography is the worst kind of sick. But it makes a good example because it has a very clear "water's edge".
Bev, The internet aspect makes the example rather strange and I suspect would lead to him being picked up as a loony the moment he shows up at the bank and being kept under observation for however long the law allows.
But assume he instead wrote it down and someone found his plan and turned it over to the cops...
If the guy made it to the bank, then the crime has begun. He could be grabbed by the cops at the moment and charged. They don't need to wait for him to go into the bank and possibly hurt someone. It would be a stronger case if they waited, but they don't need to wait.
BUT if he walks away before entering the bank, then he has a really strong argument that he never formed the mental element required to commit the crime (the mens reus). So there would be no crime.
(Crimes consist of two elements - a mental element and an affirmative act. Without both, you have no crime... unless you get into thought crimes.)
Bev, Pornography is a great example. The people most likely to try to ban pornography are people who will define almost anything involving sex as pornographic -- they see things like the Sports Illustrated calender as shocking and horrifying. Those are the last people on earth we should ever trust to regulate society. And the problem with letting something like "pornography" get regulated is that it will draw in these very people who get off on controlling others. So it really is a slippery slope problem because these people will use the very worst possible example as a wedge to get the power to then ban the entire slope -- a slope which includes a lot of things no rational mind would ever consider pornographic.
Child porn is a fundamentally different issue, however. The creation of sexual images involving children is itself a crime because that's pedophilia. Thus, the possession of such images is a crime because possession of those images basically makes you an accessory after the fact to pedophilia. In other words, the possession of kiddie porn isn't illegal because it's pornographic, it's illegal because its the possession of something which itself was a crime to create. It's the same thing like receiving stolen merchandise.
That said, there is one area where there is an open question. What about stories that don't involve images? I'm not sure if those are illegal or not. I think they aren't, but I'm not sure.
I am not an expert on kiddie porn, but I believe the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago that possessing fantasy pedophilia: fakes, cartoons, etc. was NOT illegal probably as you stated that producing these did not require an illegal act. I would think stories would fall under the same unless you could prove the "story" was true.
I wondered about the idea of possessing something would be illegal if the act was illegal. What if you took a picture of a man shooting another man? Would that be illegal or only if you shot the man to take the picture?
Koshcat, I think that's right about the Supreme Court, but I haven't followed the issue so I can't say for sure. But I'm pretty sure that having fake/simulated pedophilia stuff is not illegal because there is no underlying crime because there is no child being exploited. That said, I know that the FBI will visit people who post stories like that online.
In terms of the picture example, it would depend on why the picture was taken. If it was a journalist who happened to take the picture as it happened, then the answer is that no it would not be illegal because the journalist wasn't participating in the illegal act. But if it was someone who conspired with the shooter to take the picture and then sell it, then it would be illegal -- that's the reason "snuff films" are illegal... if there are any genuine ones.
A tougher question would be a journalist who knew the crime was coming and tagged along but didn't do anything to stop it and then tried to sell the photos. I don't have an answer there, but I suspect they would get the journalist as an accessory of some sort.
From a practical standpoint, I don't think anyone in a position to do so is even interested in going after kiddie stories, cartoons, etc. There's enough of the real thing to fill prosecutors' caseloads for the time being.
tryanmax, That's true, but I have heard of some people who write those things being visited by the FBI. So my guess is that they are monitored.
I'd rather talk about the new Pope. From what I've heard so far, he sounds like he could be really good. He was apparently a reformer among the Jesuits and is actually opposed to liberation theology which, apparently, many Jesuits favor. (*I'm no expert) I happen to think his overt austerity could go some distance toward making people in general accept the idea in these times where it is widely needed. Time will tell on that one.
I also heard a very astute caller on Rush today. (Anymore, the callers are the best part.) He asserted that people look to politics for what religion provides and they look to religion for what politics provide. This was in response to the number of critics insisting that the Catholic Church needs to "reform" (i.e. "liberalize"). I think the observation was quite apropos.
Tryanmax - Yeah, I am not sure exactly how fast anyone thinks the Church is going to "reform" anyway. It took them over 500 years to finally admit that Galileo was right and the Earth DOES revolves around the Sun after all...
Wait a minute, what? The Earth does what? Around the sun, you say? Does that mean the Earth isn't flat?
tryanmax, I think his display of austerity will help the church with its image, especially at a time when so many other religions are telling people that God wants them to own SUVs.
No, Andrew, it does not mean the Earth isn't flat. Of course it's flat! It just means that the Pope finally accepts that the Earth is a giant wheel and the Sun is like in the center of the wheel...duh!
Bev, I'm glad to hear it. I was getting worried. After all, if the world isn't flat, then wouldn't we all fall off? :P
As an aside, did you know that ancient people (the ones visited by aliens) actually knew the Earth was round? Do you know how they knew? Because they saw the Earth cast a round shadow on the moon.
Andrew - Didn't the aliens land in South America...possibly Argentina? And isn't the new Pope from...Argentina? Uh, oh, I feel another conspiracy theory bubbling up....
A new Pope is crowned on 3/13/13 at the sAMe time the God particle is FOUND. This Pope personally killed liberal priests in Argentina to cover up their knowledge of aliens landing in Argentina in ancient times! NO ONE DENIES THIS!!
I'm not saying this means anything, but I'm thinking it VERY LOUDLY!
What? You're saying that the ancients actually knew stuff and weren't all superstitious and backward? Heresy, I say! Heresy!
By the way, interesting story about Galileo and the Church--it wasn't that no one in the Church believed him about the solar system being heliocentric. Leading bishops, the head of the Jesuit order, even the pope all agreed that he had a persuasive argument (though not an iron-clad one). What they wanted was time to decide how to incorporate these new ideas into existing theology. Galileo went along for a while, but then got impatient and aired his views in public; only he spent less time talking about the science and more time calling the pope and the Church theologians idiots. And that crap just didn't fly in the 17th century.
Just some food for thought, about how everything we've heard about "way back when" needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.
So, you all just thought I was some silly conspiracy theorist just makin' stuff up and causing trouble...well, what do you say now?? See, there are probably others just like Crazed Loner who agree with me!
Oh, wait...8-\
Bev, It's good to have friends, even if they are just crazy loners! :D
T-Rav, Very true about taking everything "way back when" with a grain of salt. There is a tendency to jumble it all together and to accept the most obnoxious example of idiocy or the greatest moments of brilliance as commonplace.
BTW - March 13th is the "Ides of March". Okay, it moved to March 15th when they started using the Gregorian calendar, but let's review...
So let's review -
New Pope Francis I is installed on 3/13/13 (the Ides of March that Shakespeare warned us to "beware"!) and he's a Jesuit (a/k/a "black priests") from the land of alien invasions and evil Juntas (or maybe evil alien Juntas) - Argentina. He is installed at the exactly the same time that physicists announce they have found the "God Particle". Did I miss anything?
I'm thinking Dan Brown is going to have a field day with THIS one...
Bev, Don't forget that he a one-lunged Pope. That must mean something too. In fact, didn't Nostradmus say:
With a Kenyan in a white house and a one-lunged Pope wheezing wise, the dead of brain shall be called upon to create a health care plan and some idiot mayor will ban 16 oz. colas.
Oops, yeah, but doesn't "junta" mean "one-lunged"?
It is amazing that Nostradamus, writing 700 years ago, could be so accurate! Did they even HAVE ounces way back then?
Bev, They did, but they were smaller. Just like their 7/11s were called "Ye Olde 23/6 Shoppes".
Yeah, and I hear that those "Ye Olde 23/6 Shoppes" served the popular Super Big Meade...and there was a sheriff named Sir Michael of Bloomberg who tried to shut them down.
Bev, And don't forget the leg of mutton that's constantly turning under the heat lamp. Yummeth.
I wonder if Bloomberg realized that in the story of Robin Hood, he's not the good guy?
From what I have read, Sir Michael never knew. The Earl of Sandwich sent him on a Crusade to destroy all of the salt mines in Atlantis. It is said that he never found them and his spirit still wanders the Earth searching...searching...searching.
So you're suggesting that the Holy Grail was a 32 oz. cup? :D
I would so totally eat gas station mutton if it were available.
The Holy Big Gulp?
Uh, yeah, me too. You know it would be pretty awesome. :)
Apparently, that's what the Crusade was really about... finding the Lost Holy Big Gulp.
LOL!!! Holy Big Gulp...nice! But I am no longer going to stand near you just in case there is an unexpected lightening storm...;-)
Bev, God doesn't kill people that way anymore. Instead, he sends his agents to destroy our health care system.
It's a little-known fact that all the food from a gas station is awesome. Especially the fried chicken. None of the stuff I've thrown up has been from a gas station. At least I don't think it has.
You know what I want? One of those hot dog rollers for home use!
Also, I'm pretty sure the Holy Grail was a Big Gulp. Jesus shared it with twelve other dudes and there was plenty to go around.
Hey, how cool would it be to "digitally enhance" the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to include a 7/11 product placement?
"The cup of a Gallilean carpenter."
Okay, it's been awhile, so I just had to: LINK
Feel free to add your own captions, LOL!
Tryanmax - you know you could probably get on of those hot dog rollers at Walmart!
And, THAT would make a GREAT 7/11 ad with the tag line "What would Jesus drink?" Okay, we are officially going to Hell now. I just heard a clap of thunder...
Nice. Do you have any idea of the outrage if Spielberg had included a Big Gulp cup in that scene? LOL! It would almost be worth it to see the explosion.
Bev, If Jesus was anything like modern carpenters, then he did indeed drink a Big Gulp and he carried a nail gun. :)
And yeah, try Walmart. They sell everything!
Bev, don't worry about it. A class last week on the Reformation got sidetracked onto medieval relics, and the professor explained that since Jesus was resurrected and ascended into Heaven, there are no relics from His body....except one. That would be, well, the product of his circumcision. Yeah. The professor went on to add that he had tried to add up all the places claiming to have a scrap of....that particular body part, and apparently, if Jesus weren't the Son of God, He could have made it big as a porn star. I was just waiting for the lightning to strike, but nope. So I don't think there's any danger of us here getting struck.
(For the record, you guys have NO idea how uncomfortable I felt relating all that.)
T-Rav, That's really funny. LOL!
As for feeling uncomfortable, I have to say that in everything I've read about the things Jesus said and how he behaved, he seemed to be much more good-natured than a lot of Christians want to believe and I suspect he would have a pretty good sense of humor.
T-Rav,
I know have the image of a well-endowed Jesus winking at a camera in my brain. You've ruined Christianity for me, thanks. ;)
And these little ditties form South Park have popped into my head: LINK
(Note: You may not realize this, but that is a sadly accurate depiction of some Christian rock)
-----------------------
"I have to say that in everything I've read about the things Jesus said and how he behaved, he seemed to be much more good-natured than a lot of Christians want to believe and I suspect he would have a pretty good sense of humor."
Not that I disagree w/ you, but which things about him would you point to?
Kit, episodes like this make me wonder whether or not purgatory is really a thing. If it is, I'm just making my sentence there longer and longer. ;-)
Andrew, I have no doubt Jesus was and is a very pleasant guy in person.
Kit, You're asking a lot for me to dig into my theological vault. The thing is, there are several ways to see this.
First, let me point something out about law because this relates. Some of the hardest claims to respond to are claims that are retardedly stupid. This is because no judge has ever bothered to state the obvious. So when someone argues that the obvious isn't true, it's really hard to find proof to disprove their claim because no one has ever bothered to state what everyone already knows. It's the same thing here. Jesus doesn't address humor because there's no reason for him to do so... everyone knows that humor is a good thing.
Indeed, it's impossible to genuinely define human happiness without including humor because that's part of our natures. Happiness and humor are very nearly synonyms in the human body (though not quite). Jesus talks about happiness being a reward (just like the Greeks described happiness as a benefit of doing good things). He just doesn't spell out, "Oh, and you can laugh and tell jokes" because only an idiot would think you couldn't.
To supplement this point, consider that Jesus clearly tells you what is right and what is wrong. Nowhere in the wrongs does he list humor or jokes or laughing or having fun. So why are we supposed to infer that something he does not forbid and which is part of the human nature which he describes as the reward you will get in Heaven is forbid to us?
Moreover, keep in mind that his philosophy is premised on acting upon our better natures and humor is clearly within our better natures. Not to mention that the things he tells you to avoid (things like greed, sloth, coveting, hoarding, selfishness, etc.) are all anti-good-natured things.
Also, keep in mind that the Jesus we know has been filtered through some very uptight losers from the Middle Ages who were using Jesus as a means of controlling the population. So they squelched anything that showed independence or disrespect for authority. And more than one modern scholar has noted that a lot of what Jesus says was probably meant to be witty/funny at the time. In particular the exaggerated nature of much of what he says apparently would have been seen as both clever and quite funny at the time. We don't get that though because we don't understand the context.
But to fall back on a generality, I just can’t conceive that a man with the humane philosophy of Jesus would want people to suppress the best parts of their nature.
Why would anyone think that Jesus would NOT have a sense of humor OR was not married (btw)? He HAD to have a sense of humor...he was JEWISH! It's what we do! And he must have been married because he was purported 35 years old and he would have been surrounded by Jewish Mothers with Jewish daughters who needed to get married to a nice Jewish boy!
Bev, I hate to say this, but I have met some humorless Jews. Of course, they were British, so maybe that was the real problem.
Post a Comment