Srictly speaking, rape does imply lack of consent, however, some people play sado-masochistic games in which they pretend to be raped (or raping).  So what appears to be rape sometimes isn't.  And by your standard we would require some specific evidence that any apparent rape we are observing is actually rape.

You see nothing in the video which approaches child abuse, so if you personally were a 16 year old child you would have no objection to being subjected to an exorcism of that sort, right?  Or perhaps this is just something that you don't object to as long as it is done to other people than yourself.  

While the exorcism doesn't approach murder, the concept is similar.  Since these pious parishioners object to the adolescent's homosexuality, they will do what they see fit to change him.  If exorcism doesn't work, murder certainly will.  There are no gay corpses.

Since these pious parishioners object to the adolescent's homosexuality, they will do what they see fit to change him.  If exorcism doesn't work, murder certainly will.

That doesn't follow.  They probably object to the kid using swear words or drinking beer.  Yet I doubt they would murder him for such activities, even if he continues to do them.  Saying that they would is just the flip side of religious people saying that atheists would murder since they have no reason to be good.  In both cases the underlying fallacy is to assume that because you don't understand someone's motivations, they are obviously willing to do anything at all.

This would be a reasonable objction to my comment except for the fact that a great many people HAVE been killed for the supposed crime of homosexuality, and religious fanatics are the most frequent murderers of homosexuals.  The most powerful Muslim cleric, Ali al-Sistani, has ordered the execution of all homosexuals, and many people are loyally carrying out his orders.  There is nothing far-fetched about the idea that if exorcism fails, murder will be next.

Even aside from that, I had a certain point that I was trying to make about the previous assertion that there is no reason to be concerned about this exorcism because there is no evidence that the child in question had not given his consent.  If this is an abusive process (which it is) then we should object to it whether the child had consented or not, particularly since parents exert tremendous influence on their children and often can get them to consent to things that are not good for them.  As an extrapolation of this novel legal concept, that no crime has been committed unless we have evidence that the victim had not given his consent, I wanted to see if it was equally applicable to crimes other than this violnt exorcism, such as murder.  Conveniently enough, it would seldom be possible to obtain evidence that a murdered person had not actually consented to be murdered, which would make it an assisted suicide rather than a murder.

This would be a reasonable objction to my comment except for the fact that a great many people HAVE been killed for the supposed crime of homosexuality, and religious fanatics are the most frequent murderers of homosexuals.  The most powerful Muslim cleric, Ali al-Sistani, has ordered the execution of all homosexuals, and many people are loyally carrying out his orders.  There is nothing far-fetched about the idea that if exorcism fails, murder will be next.

These people aren't Muslims, and extremist Muslims have tended to be farther out than extremist Christians anyway.  There are Muslims who chop the hands off of thieves; will you conclude that these people obviously must want to do that too?  Do you think they want to execute women for being raped?  Or for driving a car?  Perhaps engage in suicide bombing?

And if I were to say any of that about actual Muslims I would be rightfully accused of prejudice.  But here you're not even saying "other people of their religion are killers, so obviously they're killers too" as someone prejudiced against Muslims might say.  Instead you're saying "other people who have a religion are killers, so obviously they're killers too".  That's even worse, because it's an even broader generalization.

And your ultimate argument is still "since they'll do one thing, they'll do anything".  This is not true as a general rule.  It really is like a religious believer arguing that since atheists don't believe in God, and they can't imagine why someone who doesn't believe in God would think murder is wrong, then atheists must be willing to commit murder.  Going from exorcism to murder is not a natural step, and you seem to justify it by saying "exorcism is irrational and freaky, so they must not make a distinction between that and anything else which is irrational and freaky".

You say this is if homosexuals have never been killed by fanatical Christians.  I thought that the example of the Muslim persecution of homosexuals was interesting, as an example religious fantaticism.  There are certainly Christian examples as well.  Many people are not aware of the derivation of the derogatory term "faggot" which orinally meant a bundle of twigs that would be used in building a fire; the term came to be applied to homosexuals in medieval Europe because they too were used in building fires, since the punishment for homosexuality was burning at the stake, the same as for witchcraft.

Ah, but it is no longer the middle ages, you will tell me, just as you told me that the church in question is not Muslim.  However, exorcism is itself a medieval practice which has anachronistically survived into modern times.  Just because it is no longer the middle ages is no reason to expect that all Christians have caught up with the advances in human culture which have taken place over the past several centuries; some apparently haven't.

Anyway, you are still ignoring my actual point.  I did not make the comparison of exorcism to murder in order to predict that the child in question will be murdered.  I was examining the implications of the earler claim in this discussion that this incident of violent exorcism is of no concern to us because we have no proof that the child did not consent.  I already explained this to you in my previous comment.  Remember?  So if that is the necessary standard, that it's not a crime unless we have proof that the child didn't consent, what else could we do to that child that would not be considered a crime unless we had proof that he didn't consent?  If you still do not understand what I am saying, I am not going to keep explaining it to you.  May you have good luck with your weekend exorcisms.  I am returning to hell now, to figure out ways to increase the spread of the H1N1 virus, my latest creation.

Ah, but it is no longer the middle ages, you will tell me, just as you told me that the church in question is not Muslim.  However, exorcism is itself a medieval practice which has anachronistically survived into modern times.

That's just a slight variation.  Instead of saying "they did one weird thing, so they are obviously willing to do every weird thing in existence", you're saying "they carried over one medieval practice, so they're obviously willing to carry over every medieval practice".  Believing in God is a medieval practice too; would you then claim that everyone who believes in God might also murder?

I did not make the comparison of exorcism to murder in order to predict that the child in question will be murdered.

Your original claim:

Since these pious parishioners object to the adolescent's homosexuality, they will do what they see fit to change him.  If exorcism doesn't work, murder certainly will.  There are no gay corpses.

That seems to contain thew prediction that you now deny.

No, you misinterpret me.  Murder certainly will cure homosexuality because it is impossible for dead people to have any sexuality.  That does not mean that the religious fanatics in question will certainly commit murder.  I did claim that "they will do what they see fit to change him" but there is no guarantee about exactly what they will see fit to do.  Murder is a possibility, but there are other possibilities.

You ask if I think that everyone who believes in God might also murder.  I am sure that there are pious theists who would never murder anybody, and some are very excellent people.  It remains true that murder has often been motivated by religion.  On the whole, I would say that people who believe in God are more likely to commit murder than those who don't, in spite of the commandment (one of the famous ten) which specifically forbids murder; this commandment has many exceptions, it seems.

And similarly, while I do not believe that people who engage in one medieval practice will therefore engage in every medieval practice, it is not unreasonable to think that those who are engaged in some medieval practices are more likely to engage in other medieval practices, in comparison to those who do not engage in any medieval practices.

Is there any particular reason why you have chosen to engage me in debate on this topic under a more normal name than your usual zyxwvutsr?  I see that your style of debating hasn't changed.

I did claim that "they will do what they see fit to change him" but there is no guarantee about exactly what they will see fit to do.  Murder is a possibility, but there are other possibilities.

That is not how your statement would be interpreted as ordinary English, even if you didn't literally say "and they will then murder".

And similarly, while I do not believe that people who engage in one medieval practice will therefore engage in every medieval practice, it is not unreasonable to think that those who are engaged in some medieval practices are more likely to engage in other medieval practices, in comparison to those who do not engage in any medieval practices.

Being Pope is a medieval practice; is the Pope more likely to murder?  Believing in God is itself a medieval practice.  Would you accuse all believers in God of being likely to murder?

And I am not zxywvustr.

OK,I don't know who you are, but you do a terrific impression of zyxwvutsr.  It's very convincing.
My statements mean exactly what I explained their meaning to be.  I think I expressed myself with reasonable clarity.  If you still don't believe me, I do not give a shit.  This is not exactly a useful discussion anyway.
Many previous Popes have launched religious wars, although the current Roman Catholic Church has become less aggressive.  But I do have my doubts about His Holiness Benedict XVI, a former member of the Hitler Youth, and a continuing persecutor of homosexuals.  Would he commit murder?  I wouldn't put it past him.
And I already told you in a previous comment that yes, I do think that people who believe in God are more likely to commit murder than those who don't.  Murder is often religiously motivated.  Suicide bombers almost always are religiously motivated.  There are many wars currently in progress which have a substantial religious element to them.  Religion often makes people crazy, although not always, and as I also mentioned previously, there are some very good and non-violent religious people as well.

If none of the above makes any sense to you, and you would now like to reiterate all the misunderstandings of your preceding comments, I am not going to reply.  You are wasting my time.

OK,I don't know who you are, but you do a terrific impression of zyxwvutsr.

He's Ken (not the other Ken)! I've known him (sorta) for 15+ years, via rec.arts.anime, GRIT, and other newsgroup-related stuff. He probably knows me more by "Kenji", though. Back when I was more apt to talk about cartoons and help kick-started a usenet meme that apparently still persists.

- derumi (del-me)
"It is the farewell kiss, you dog!" - Muntadhar al-Zaidi

Thanks for the information.  I do think it is very deceptive for two people to both be named Ken and to both engage me in essentially the same sort of pointless arguments.  But life does have these strange coincidences.

Would've been even funnier 10+ years ago when I was more conservative and went by my nickname of Ken more often. ;)

- derumi (del-me)
"It is the farewell kiss, you dog!" - Muntadhar al-Zaidi

Yes, three conservative Kens could have formed a critical mass.

Faggot meaning homosexual is 20th century American slang, and burning witches was a Renaissance pastime.

Even though the etymology that I gave for "faggot" is described as an urban legend, the same link also tells that homosexuals were indeed sometimes burned in Christian Europe for their supposed sin, even though that is not where the term "faggot" comes from, so the basic point that I was trying to make remains valid - but I should make it more precisely, so thank you for pointing that out.

So you're suggesting that if someone posts a video that may or may not be true, of harming someone, we should ignore it?  Because... Carrie Perjean was criticized for her viewpoints of homosexuality?  Come again?

So you're suggesting that if someone posts a video that may or may not be true, of harming someone, we should ignore it?

I'm suggesting that anyone who views this video as evidence of child abuse has neither a very clear idea of what constitutes evidence nor child abuse.

Correct.  The proper way of dealing with drugs is treatment.  The proper way of dealing with people who think they can cast out demons from a child by hitting him is treatment too.  But sweeping it under the rug, claiming a lack of interest, and asserting that it might be acting and therefore should be ignored is stupid. Especially given that participants who have spoken of it indicate it is a true video.

T.

Here at our local church of the Holy Lunatic, we have been told that the planet earth is made of marshmallow, and will soon be eaten by some kind of gigantic glutton named Herbert.  We are now engaged in serious efforts to determine whether this warning is accurate.  Back to you, zyxwvutsr!

We are now engaged in serious efforts...

This was not journalism; this was filler.

If you watched the embedded video report in the main link it would show a reporter who went to the church and tried to interview Prophetress McKinney.  She was essentially told to go away as she (and by extension, the public) could never understand what happened on the video.

Tending to final details.

She was essentially told to go away...

Yeah, just like Judge Crater's disappearance and crop circles and who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop, somethings just remain a mystery.  Oh, but you claimed no serious efforts were ever made at finding out, didn't you?

Tending to final details.

That's right.