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 09:28:54 · 14 answers · asked by mdfalco71 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Forgive me - got my laws mixed up. I mean under the British Terrorism Act 2000.
2007-12-16 09:33:53 · update #1
good question...as bad as that criteria is, it's not nearly as slippery slope as America's: "any group or individual who plans on coercing the opinions of the general public for their political or social goals" Homegrown terrorism prevention act of 2007...the thing about the British law is that anyone damaging property is susceptible to have their ideology in question, so it's basically up to the courts. But in America the state can designate any active political group terrorists regardless if their activity is violent or damaging...descent=terrorism
2007-12-16 09:34:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good observation. Very bloody good. If Jesus was around today I think the 2000 SOCPA would without a doubt impead upon beardy's way of life. But only if the act specifically endangered life. I've seen many a policeofficer walk past a rumble between a store holder and a customer, so the idea of JC being arrested may not stick in this day an age. But I hope to Science that he never returns, other wise my religion will be disproved
2007-12-16 19:49:14 · answer #2 · answered by skullpicker 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he was regarded as one by the Romans wasn't he; after all they did crucify the guy. Anyone who is truly radical will always be feared by the authorities and attempts to supress them will be made.
My point is this; as soon as you question the ideologies of those in charge you will be deemed undeirable in their eyes; laws such as the one defining terrorism that you describe have.
There will always be a fundamental conflict between the individual and the society; I think the present western governments have got it terribly wrong; once you place protection above freedom then you are on a very slippy slope and it can all go **** up.
How're you Falco? Hope you have a greta Christmas, man
2007-12-16 10:18:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bruce has it wrong, Jesus did not want to get rid of the Romans he actually even believed that the authorities were are kept in their position by God. Jesus was not a freedom fighter against the Romans he just wanted for people to believe in God and have faith and treat each other kindly. Now relating to the question yes he probably would've been held accountable for overturning the tables in front of the temple. Jesus didn't care if you were Roman, Greek, Semite, Arab, etc as long as you had faith its all that mattered to him. Sickens me how some people let use their bias against immigrants to taint the bible. Funny thing is that I'm not a Christian, but I just dislike it when people put spins on things to push their agenda on others.
But yeah interesting question.
2007-12-16 09:55:59 · answer #4 · answered by archy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
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.
2016-05-24 06:08:43 · answer #5 · answered by margaretta 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He was a threat to the Roman Empire at the time.
I see no great difference in the ego of rulers then and now.
Jesus may have wanted to get people to God, but the Roman empire saw it differently.
2007-12-16 10:09:27 · answer #6 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Excellent Question, Firstly, I would say Jesus would have been a Ter***ist, so too would 'The French resistance' and countless other groups of freedom fighters. Ter***ism is interpreted, it depends on what you are fighting against that determines whether you are a freedom fighter or a ter***ist. So lets just say that Britain and America will decide who is what.
2007-12-16 09:39:54 · answer #7 · answered by Grogsy34 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Heck anyone can be a terrorist under UK law if the Government deemed you to be a threat to them.
2007-12-16 20:32:38 · answer #8 · answered by tom_p1980 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, if he were wearing sandals, a robe and spouting all thae nonsense he was supposed to have been expousing, I think he would most likely be put in a mental institution.
2007-12-16 09:34:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bravo !
And since he was a carpenter he probally would be unemployeed right now with the market of home building collapse.
2007-12-16 09:38:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋