Fake Canadian Lawyer Charged With "Witchcraft"

[DontSayBanana]

Last time I checked rabbis couldn't care less about "soul after death" - they do it not to offend God, who would surely smite you down in this life. That's pretty "here-and-now". And a lot of "work" done by priests is about here and now as well - praying for the sick, "praying the gay away", blessing events and people, etc. That's no different than what "witches" do.

And "proper credentials"? What does it even me, when it comes to metaphysics and supernatural? Should they have a diploma from Hogwart? 

Idiot.

There are seminaries out there.  Whether or not they put out shysters, people believe seminary graduates are more qualified to officiate religious services.  If a pastor's kid made a ton of money pretending to be a graduate of, say, Westminster Seminary, odds are that he could be prosecuted for fraud.  I take it Polish lawyers don't recognize the concept of detrimental reliance?

[Martinus]

Last time I checked rabbis couldn't care less about "soul after death" - they do it not to offend God, who would surely smite you down in this life. That's pretty "here-and-now". And a lot of "work" done by priests is about here and now as well - praying for the sick, "praying the gay away", blessing events and people, etc. That's no different than what "witches" do.

And "proper credentials"? What does it even me, when it comes to metaphysics and supernatural? Should they have a diploma from Hogwart? 

Idiot.

There are seminaries out there.  Whether or not they put out shysters, people believe seminary graduates are more qualified to officiate religious services.  If a pastor's kid made a ton of money pretending to be a graduate of, say, Westminster Seminary, odds are that he could be prosecuted for fraud.  I take it Polish lawyers don't recognize the concept of detrimental reliance?

You missed my point. There are no "seminaries" for witches and warlocks. And last time I checked, you and the rest were talking about intent - "credentials" should then be completely irrelevant. If a priest graduated from the right seminary, but did not believe in what he is doing to be true, he should be prosecuted for fraud, right?

[Martinus]

Well, I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.

You missed the word "fraud" in all of that which requires intent.  Again.  Astounding.

What's astounding is people like you believing in some fairytale about a slutty Jewish whore and her son performing "miracles" 2000 years after their deaths. I guess if you are stupid enough, you could avoid fraud charges by claiming insanity/mental retardation.

[Admiral Yi]

A seminary is where you study before you become a priest or pastor.  A seminar is a small class where you suck up to the teacher in hopes of getting a good recommendation.

[DontSayBanana]

Last time I checked rabbis couldn't care less about "soul after death" - they do it not to offend God, who would surely smite you down in this life. That's pretty "here-and-now". And a lot of "work" done by priests is about here and now as well - praying for the sick, "praying the gay away", blessing events and people, etc. That's no different than what "witches" do.

And "proper credentials"? What does it even me, when it comes to metaphysics and supernatural? Should they have a diploma from Hogwart? 

Idiot.

There are seminaries out there.  Whether or not they put out shysters, people believe seminary graduates are more qualified to officiate religious services.  If a pastor's kid made a ton of money pretending to be a graduate of, say, Westminster Seminary, odds are that he could be prosecuted for fraud.  I take it Polish lawyers don't recognize the concept of detrimental reliance?

You missed my point. There are no "seminars" for witches and warlocks. And last time I checked, you and the rest were talking about intent - "credentials" should then be completely irrelevant. If a priest graduated from the right seminar, but did not believe in what he is doing to be true, he should be prosecuted for fraud, right?

First, "seminar" is just a lesson.  "Seminary" is a theological college.  Second, no; the law's only going to get involved if his intent was to deliberately mislead someone for material gain- most modern legal systems in the west take a dim view of legislating morality, and aren't going to prosecute someone for a crisis of faith, although most religions have some kind of rules in place for either stepping aside during the crisis or being removed if one is acting in bad faith.

EDIT: Yi ninja'd me because I had to resubmit the post.

[Berkut]

A lot of the work they do is praying the gay away???

Really?

I had no idea.

[Martinus]

Most priests take money for holding a mass in some intention, at least in the catholic church. If he does not believe in God but does that, how is he different from a "fraud" tarot reader taking money for a reading that she does not believe in?

[Berkut]

Most priests take money for holding a mass in some intention, at least in the catholic church. If he does not believe in God but does that, how is he different from a "fraud" tarot reader taking money for a reading that she does not believe in?

The better question is why would someone assume that witchcraft is fraud anyway - a witch can certainly believe that they are really doing witchcraft, and that this really is going to work (within the confines of how witchcraft presumably works, anyway).

So why the special rule making witchcraft illegal?

[Martinus]

A lot of the work they do is praying the gay away???

Really?

I had no idea.

Are you a fucking retard? I said a lot of their work is about stuff like "A, B, C etc." That does not mean the same as saying "a lot of their work is B".

[DontSayBanana]

Psychics over here always disclaimer that their services are "for entertainment purposes" except for a few crazies who actually buy into what they're doing.  The "for entertainment purposes" part keeps them off the hook, because they're promising no material comfort, and the rest are acting in good faith because they actually believe it.

[Malthus]

The law does not say anything about money. I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.

The "fraud" part modifies the witchcraft, sourcery, etc.

The intent I believe was to capture the use of such means as a method of committing fraud. The section in which it appears deals with various sorts of "false pretenses" used in committing common kinds of fraud.

I agree that there ought to be no difference between Religious evangelists and the like cheating people with faith-healing and similar frauds, and alleged witches doing the same.

I do not agree that a church is per se fraudulent, for the simple reason that many if not most people running the thing actually believes in it. I find it very hard to believe a chick who scams an elderly dude out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by spirit possession and tarot cards really believes in it. Chances are better it's a deliberate scam. Though I'd say many actual scams are run under the rubric of religion - look at televangelists.     

[Martinus]

Psychics over here always disclaimer that their services are "for entertainment purposes" except for a few crazies who actually buy into what they're doing.  The "for entertainment purposes" part keeps them off the hook, because they're promising no material comfort, and the rest are acting in good faith because they actually believe it.

Again, unless priests who do not actually believe in God are also saying they hold mass "for entertainment purposes", this is double standard.

[Martinus]

The law does not say anything about money. I hope they use it to charge all the priests and rabbis whenever their prayers do not work, as well.

The "fraud" part modifies the witchcraft, sourcery, etc.

The intent I believe was to capture the use of such means as a method of committing fraud. The section in which it appears deals with various sorts of "false pretenses" used in committing common kinds of fraud.

I agree that there ought to be no difference between Religious evangelists and the like cheating people with faith-healing and similar frauds, and alleged witches doing the same.

I do not agree that a church is per se fraudulent, for the simple reason that many if not most people running the thing actually believes in it. I find it very hard to believe a chick who scams an elderly dude out of hundreds of thousands of dollars by spirit possession and tarot cards really believes in it. Chances are better it's a deliberate scam. Though I'd say many actual scams are run under the rubric of religion - look at televangelists.   

I think it is just silly to hold this as a separate crime - unless the penalty for "witchcraft fraud" is smaller than the penalty for ordinary fraud (which I doubt).

[grumbler]

Are you a fucking retard? I said a lot of their work is about stuff like "A, B, C etc." That does not mean the same as saying "a lot of their work is B".

All class, as always. 

[Malthus]

Most priests take money for holding a mass in some intention, at least in the catholic church. If he does not believe in God but does that, how is he different from a "fraud" tarot reader taking money for a reading that she does not believe in?

The better question is why would someone assume that witchcraft is fraud anyway - a witch can certainly believe that they are really doing witchcraft, and that this really is going to work (within the confines of how witchcraft presumably works, anyway).

So why the special rule making witchcraft illegal?

If it's not a fraud the section doesn't apply.

The real issue is why make special mention of witchcraft etc. In my opinion, the likely answer is historical. Witchcraft and conjuration etc. was long associated with various riff-raff - carnies and gypsies and the like - who made a living ripping people off.

The intent wasn't to persecute Alester Crowley or new age Wiccans, but rather to have a handy section to bust seedy carnies and the like.

It seems to me that the section could be improved by adding all sorts of faith healers and the like, regardless of religion; but there is no real impetus to change it because it is, as the article says, a section very seldom used.