Hear me out, this isn't as barmy as it sounds - nor is it asked to annoy or offend anyone.
Under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (in the UK), the definition of terrorism has been expanded to include anyone who "damages property for religious, political or idealistic reasons".
If he was alive today, would that make his overturning of the moneylenders' stalls an act of terrorism? Remember he was peeved because of the insult they caused to his Father's house...
IF we can see the logic of a terrorism charge for the beardy sandal-wearing one, then what about the clause that forbids the "glorification of terrorism" in British law? Does that mean that if the law were to make any sense at all, sales of the New Testament should be outlawed by the State?
Thanks to Mark Thomas for pointing that one out...
2007-12-16
09:25:36
·
30 answers
·
asked by
mdfalco71
6
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
Forgive me - got my laws mixed up. I mean under the British Terrorism Act 2000.
2007-12-16
09:34:46 ·
update #1
If your definition is right, then yes, I guess under British law he would be labeled a terrorist. I think that's being awfully loose with the term, however, and if we start labeling every hothead religious person that starts a small scuffle as a "terrorist" we'll stop taking the terrorist threat so seriously.
2007-12-16 09:31:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Nightwind 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Technically, if your description of the law is correct, Jesus' overturning of the moneylenders' stalls would be terrorism. The modern equivalents of Pontius Pilate and Herod would have good reason to throw Jesus in prison, but probably not to execute Him.
It seems to me that the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act makes no sense according to your description. Of course, I am an American, so I am not familiar with this law.
2007-12-16 17:33:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Katheryn G 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The money lenders and the sacrifice sellers were in the temple illegally. As Jesus used to teach in the temple he had every right to heave them out. Only the recipients of his wrath and the sellers were annoyed and possibly some of the priests who were no doubt taking a kick back.
The question shows just how much the terrorism law can be at least misinterpreted and at worst twisted.
Today he could have possibly been charged with common assault if he injured anyone.
2007-12-16 17:33:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Jesus is great,but on pretences alone the state would hate him, example ; if he really did do all those things he did , the walking on water,water to wine,the fish bread bit, the Federal Governent would lock him in a cage and disect him,assuming those acts were not metaphores.Lets not forget all the healing.To much power for one man on this earth as we are now ,and it's too bad.History as the new Testament ,outlawed never!
2007-12-16 17:46:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus had many enemies when he first appeared as the Christ at the time of his anointing. On several occasions there were those who accused him and also tried to mob and seize him but it was not his time to be constrained from fulfilling his ministry. He exposed the religious Jewish leaders teachings by saying they were watering down and changing the word of God. If God had decided to postpone prophetic fulfillment of Christ's first coming until our 21st century he would be given the same protection until the allowed time for him to be arrested and put to death which would again be under false charges. The only ones he "terrorized" were those religious hypocrites by passing judgment upon them.
2007-12-16 17:59:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Marina 1 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
All systems of government derive from terror, disorder and revolution.
All countries are the banding together of criminals with a common understanding...and saints are the result of having previously been the exponents of sin.
Mother Theresa might well have happily put a bullet through Bush's skull given the right circumstances. Funny old world...'ain't it!
Oh look...a prick with a thumb!
2007-12-16 17:33:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Probably not. Laws are only considered valid during the period after their creation and while they are still enforced.
For example I would not say that every skeleton of a cave man found to have eaten swan should be posthumously hung for treason.
2007-12-17 02:30:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by monkeymanelvis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tossing over someone's cart isn't really an act of terrorism, more like petty destruction of property. He'd probably be sent downtown and charged. He'd have to pay restitution and probably do some community service.
2007-12-16 17:29:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Joe M 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Man can twist and contort the law to make anything a crime. Remember that Jesus is God, and knowing this, do you really think the people in government want to mess around with God's wrath? I think NOT.
2007-12-16 17:29:49
·
answer #9
·
answered by WC 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think you make a very good point.
If the bible is true, then eventually, all of Christ's followers will be hunted down as criminals, and probably what the society of that day would consider terrorists.
2007-12-16 17:35:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by Linda J 7
·
0⤊
0⤋