![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh, that's just MARVELOUS!!!
Sep. 11th, 2007 11:32 amDefendant raises a truly enchanting 1st Amendment argument in her appeal of her attempted murder conviction. During her trial, apparently part of the evidence introduced against her were journal entries she made, some of which start with "Dear God" and appear to be communications with, well, God. Prayers, in other words.
Enchanting part thus follows: (1) the State has created an evidentiary privilege (the clergy-penitent privilege) protecting religious communications (e.g., seal of the confession). (2) As currently formulated, privilege discriminates between religions where such communications with deity are channeled through an intermediary such as clergy. (3) Such formulation discriminates against religions that encourage their followers to communicate with deity directly, without an intermediary. (4) To be fair, court should extend privilege to protect direct communications with God.
Elegant. Full of horseshit, but elegant. Would create an incredible can of worms, nearly instantly - how do you identify a true communication with deity? What if it doesn't say "Dear God?" What if you evince a belief in deity that allows you to communicate as if She were another incarnate being - just one of us? What COULDN'T be protected, if that were the case.
Still - very nicely laid out. Court struck it down, but seemed to evince (at least at first - haven't had time to really analyze the whole opinion) a certain grudging admiration. Nice try, in other words.
Enchanting part thus follows: (1) the State has created an evidentiary privilege (the clergy-penitent privilege) protecting religious communications (e.g., seal of the confession). (2) As currently formulated, privilege discriminates between religions where such communications with deity are channeled through an intermediary such as clergy. (3) Such formulation discriminates against religions that encourage their followers to communicate with deity directly, without an intermediary. (4) To be fair, court should extend privilege to protect direct communications with God.
Elegant. Full of horseshit, but elegant. Would create an incredible can of worms, nearly instantly - how do you identify a true communication with deity? What if it doesn't say "Dear God?" What if you evince a belief in deity that allows you to communicate as if She were another incarnate being - just one of us? What COULDN'T be protected, if that were the case.
Still - very nicely laid out. Court struck it down, but seemed to evince (at least at first - haven't had time to really analyze the whole opinion) a certain grudging admiration. Nice try, in other words.
