If having a prayer answered was illegal...

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Lets say you lived under a government which made the following law:

"If you have a prayer which is answered, you will be sentenced to 5 years in jail."


Lets say someone is "accused" of having a prayer answered. How would a court of law determine whether the prayer was answered or not under our current standards of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Could anyone ever be shown to be guilty using legal standards?

 

[Kylie]

No, because there is no way to show that a prayer has been answered.

Any prayer can be "answered" with "yes," "No," or "Later." This is true whether you prayer to God or anything else. So to claim that a prayer has been answered is completely meaningless.

 

[Josie Adams]

Well first of all, you would have to determine the elements of the offence;

1. Identify the person who prayed.
2. Prove that they did in fact pray.
3. What exactly it was that they prayed for.
4. That what they prayed for happened.

With the offence as you defined it in the original post, it doesn't mention any possible exceptions or defences, for example that the event prayed for may have happened regardless of the prayer.

Points 1, 2 and 3 could be proven through witnesses to the prayer, or from the confession of the person praying as admissible testimony evidence.

The fact of the event they prayed for happening would have to be proved by evidence, but could also be proved in court by the testimony of witnesses. Added to this may be expert and medical evidence in the case of healings.

A simple example could be a prayer that it rained, and then it rained. This could be proved in a court of law with witnesses and some evidence from a weather forecaster. This is where it would be handy to have a defence provision regarding causation, because it could have rained regardless of the prayer.

Without any excuse provisions to the offence, I think the offence could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That's my professional opinion as an ex-prosecutor. I say that with the caviet that if you were required to also prove causation then you would never be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, the rain being an example of this.

 

[ValleyGal]

There is no way you can prove what I've prayed for.... so no.

 

[juvenissun]

Lets say you lived under a government which made the following law:

"If you have a prayer which is answered, you will be sentenced to 5 years in jail."


Lets say someone is "accused" of having a prayer answered. How would a court of law determine whether the prayer was answered or not under our current standards of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Could anyone ever be shown to be guilty using legal standards?

You think too much.

If you pray that I become sick and I am sick the next day, then you are guilty.

Black and white, very simple.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Would the prosecution not need to show that prayer was a necessary condition of the event, ie if not-Prayer then not-Event (otherwise we could say it would have happened anyway, and the prosecution was commiting the post hopc fallacy)

...

but individually insuffieient for the Event?


And that God was a "culpable" partner? But how could Gods will be known without a direct testimony?

 

[Kylie]

You think too much.

If you pray that I become sick and I am sick the next day, then you are guilty.

Black and white, very simple.

And how could you prove that the alleged "answer" to the prayer was caused by God? How do you know that, in this case, it was God that made you ill instead of, say, having that sick guy coughing all over you the other day?

 

[parsley]

In the stories of Daniel, his answered prayers got him out of a lion's den and a hot furnace. The way that God worked had such an impact on people that rules were overridden. God was above the law, by changing hearts and minds.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

There is no way you can prove what I've prayed for.... so no.

If you prayed aloud and there were witnesses, then yes I could. For example, a pastor praying before a congregation would certainly have legal proof of a prayer made. Hundreds of witnesses.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

That's my professional opinion as an ex-prosecutor. I say that with the caviet that if you were required to also prove causation then you would never be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt, the rain being an example of this.

Doesn't the legal system always require causation with any case?

For example, if an attacker stabs someone, then isn't it implicit that he is only guilty of murder if the stab wound caused the person to die? If it could be shown that the person died of some other medical condition causally unrelated to the stab wound, then the attacker would only be guilty of assault with a weapon but not death, right?

Why would prayer have a "get out of cause free" card while any other case wouldn't?

Would the prosecution not need to show that prayer was a necessary condition of the event, ie if not-Prayer then not-Event (otherwise we could say it would have happened anyway, and the prosecution was commiting the post hopc fallacy)

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Tree of Life]

Lets say you lived under a government which made the following law:

"If you have a prayer which is answered, you will be sentenced to 5 years in jail."


Lets say someone is "accused" of having a prayer answered. How would a court of law determine whether the prayer was answered or not under our current standards of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Could anyone ever be shown to be guilty using legal standards?

Yes. But the court would have to assume God's existence.

But if the court refuses to acknowledge God's existence then this would be impossible to prove. Patently, no amount of evidence could be given to persuade the court that a prayer has, in fact, been answered - even if it has!

 

[dazed]

In the stories of Daniel, his answered prayers got him out of a lion's den and a hot furnace. The way that God worked had such an impact on people that rules were overridden. God was above the law, by changing hearts and minds.

Did this occurred before or after the Flood? I thought all animals, including lions, were vegetarians before Noah's time?

 

[juvenissun]

And how could you prove that the alleged "answer" to the prayer was caused by God? How do you know that, in this case, it was God that made you ill instead of, say, having that sick guy coughing all over you the other day?

No reason is needed. Just see the fact.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes. But the court would have to assume God's existence.

But if the court refuses to acknowledge God's existence then this would be impossible to prove. Patently, no amount of evidence could be given to persuade the court that a prayer has, in fact, been answered - even if it has!

No they wouldn't. They would only have to assume that some entity or mechanism exists whereby "thinking" or "praying" for something to happen causes it to happen. Not necessarily God. It could be simply that the person has some connection with some "energy" in the universe which they can channel by thinking or praying about it. Or perhaps they pray to Zeus or Poseidon or fairies or trolls. God does not have to be assumed.

Similarly, the agent which causes the event to happen (God, Zeus, etc) is not the one who is culpable. The law only punishes those that do the praying not the one who is answering the prayer.

 

[bhsmte]

Lets say you lived under a government which made the following law:

"If you have a prayer which is answered, you will be sentenced to 5 years in jail."


Lets say someone is "accused" of having a prayer answered. How would a court of law determine whether the prayer was answered or not under our current standards of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Could anyone ever be shown to be guilty using legal standards?

Well, you would have a pretty strong burden to prove here.

First, you would have to prove the person actually prayed. If you could accomplish that, you would have to substantiate that the person who prayed God existed. If you accomplished this, you would then have to show that the actions following the specific prayer, were tied back to that specific God the person was praying to.

Good luck.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So all believers are guilty then.

 

[Kylie]

No reason is needed. Just see the fact.

A fact that you can't verify, but just assume is true. Brilliant.

 

[juvenissun]

A fact that you can't verify, but just assume is true. Brilliant.

No need to verify. If one admitted he prayed, he prayed. If he say no, then he did not.