| Psalm 109 Imprecatory Prayer Case to Go Forward in Texas

[gridlore]

| Psalm 109 Imprecatory Prayer Case to Go Forward in Texas

Fascinating case. Gordon Klingenshmitt is a well-known right wing loony who was thrown out of the Navy for failure to obey lawful orders. He keeps telling people it was because he "refused to stop praying in Jesus' name" even when confronted with the actual paperwork showing differently.

But does imprecatory prayer rise to the standard of incitement? If I stand in front of a group and shout "bring me the head of Tommy Lasorda, and burn Dodger Stadium to the ground!" I can (and should) be arrested for inciting the orange & black mob in front of me to commit felonies. However, if I happened to say "it would be so sweet if I could sit here with my feet up on Lasorda's severed head watching Dodger Stadium burn." have I done anything to encourage or suggest to my theoretical listeners that I want them to do these things?

Will no one rid of this troublesome priest? Henry II knew how to phrase things to avoid direct responsibility.

Do constant imprecatory prayers directed at a fairly public figure, broadcast to an audience that can be described as far more devout and fanatical than the average Christian in America rise to the level of a credible threat? Or are they protected free speech?

I have my opinion. What's yours?

Comments

[lysana.livejournal.com]

I see a gray zone. And when I can't clearly say "credible threat," I say "free speech." He's not telling humans to kill Obama. He's asking his god to do so. "Make so-and-so an instrument of Thy will, O Lord, in bringing about our prayers" would be incitement masked as prayer.

[kengr]

Yes, it's a gray zone. But at the same time, there's ample evidence that such speech *will* incite a significant number of people to commit illegal actions.

As such, I think the "reasonable person" standar would hold that such speech needs to be *very* carefully checked out.

In other words, it's not *quite* yelling fire. But it's uncomfortably close.

For that matter, given the teachings of the very person these people claim to accept as their Savior, such prayers are not the right thing to do (both as being public, rather than private prayer, and because they amount to "ill-wishing")

[robertprior.livejournal.com]

If these people truly believe that prayer works, then they are attempting to harm. What's the law about attempting to harm someone, say using a weapon you didn't know was unloaded? I know you can be convicted of selling drugs, even if what you are selling is (unknown to you) talcum powder instead of cocaine.

I have a minor daydream about getting one of them on trial and forcing them to choose between admitting they attempted to incite a presidential assassination* (with the appropriate penalty), or publicly admitting that they don't believe prayer works.

Not that this would ever happen, even if it had a legal basis.



*OK, they were attempting to incite the Great Sky Fairy, who isn't American. Would it be treason to ask a non-American to kill the president?

[caraig.livejournal.com]

I would agree. It's not yelling 'FIRE!' but it is saying, "*sniff*sniff* Hey, do you smell... SMOKE?!"

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

This is going to be a tough case to make constitutionally.

[allensh.livejournal.com]

I will say this...it's flat out wrong by any understanding of the Bible and jesus that I have ever had. The prayer is actually a prayer for vindication by someone who has been falsely accused. They take those two verses wholly out of context.

The final verse says "For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save them from those who would condemn them to death."

Doesn't axactly sound like current Republican/Tea Party policy does it? see, two can play that game...

[caraig.livejournal.com]

My gut feeling from what I know of the religious right in the United States, is that it is indeed 'trolling for assassins' and is seeking to actively inciting someone. The hard-right Dominionists are *not* waiting for Christ to return and establish the Kingdom of Heaven. They are actively working to make that Kingdom immanent here and now, and believe that their God works through them. Psalms 109:8-9 is a call to action for someone to take the opportunity to assassinate Obama.

At the same time, it is couched in such a way that they can say that they are asking God to kill Obama, which I suppose technically isn't a crime, any more than wishing really really hard for a mountain or a meteor to fall on your disliked person of choice is a crime. (Though on the gripping hand, they're kind of doing more than 'wishing really hard' when they pray to a deity, whom they presumably expect is listening, to kill someone.)

It's simply complicated, or complicatedly simple: Either they fully expected GOD to answer their prayers; or they expected that "God helps them who helps themselves" (in the typical Mammonist bullshyte that's permeated the American Protestant culture) and expected someone to do the Lord's work.

[meezergal.livejournal.com]

My feeling is akin to yours-- they're looking for the real fringe-of-the-fringe, the ones who murder women's health clinic workers and doctors "in the name of Jesus".

I'd sum it up-- they don't want to have the actual blood on their own hands, but they want SOMEONE who'll do it; yet they're phrasing it in this way so they can defend themselves by saying, "We didn't say anyone should actually go out and KILL Obama!"

FWIW, I'm Christian--Episcopalian, liberal as all get-out. I FIRMLY believe in separation of church and state. I don't want Fundies running the country, thankyouverymuch! Eh. I'm probably not making much sense. But I wanted to say, I'm frightened by people like this. And I think they're dangerous.

[lostwanderfound.livejournal.com]

I heard a nice line the other day, but I can't remember where: "if religion is the opiate of the people, then fundamentalism is the people's PCP".

[notthebuddha.livejournal.com]

It might count as conspiracy, so he's okay until someone takes an overt action to behead Lasorda or light up the Stadium. Then they both get put away.

[nsingman.livejournal.com]

My opinion? I am, and always have been, a free speech absolutist. Were I on the jury of someone who was accused of nothing more than uttering words (even if those words formed credible threats, incitement, shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, obscenity, defamation, slander, etc.) I would be voting "not guilty."