Real life druid arrested for wearing sword in public.

[msd]

...but in general I don't think religious mandates should allow people to ignore laws and regulations...

Generally, I tend to agree with you, but in certain countries such as the U.S., its rarely this simple. There is an inherent tension between the authority of the local and state officials' ability to set regulations, policies, and generally to govern in a way that insures the security of the jurisdiction (typically referred to as the "police power" of the state) and the rights guaranteed to each and every citizen by the Bill of Rights (the rights guaranteed in the 1st Amendment in this particular instance). Constitutional jurisprudence is all about discerning the line that governs the point of demarcation between those opposing forces...(IMO)

HYPO:
Assume the law says something to the effect that "possession of dangerous object A in public is a violation of Chapter X, Section Y of the state code". Religious observer B of religion C is sitting in Central Park meditating about the tenets of C while in possession of A, an object of religious significance in the tenets of C. No one is within 1500 feet of him as he has chosen a secluded portion of the park. Mounted police ride by, notice him in possession of A and arrest him...has he violated the law? Is the law unconstitutional as applied to someone in his circumstances (someone who poses no visible threat and ostensibly doesn't trigger the policy concern motivating the original passage of the law - the protection of the public from A), or will the court simply decide that a park doesn't come within the meaning of "in public" as the phrase is used in this law?

Short answer...who the heck knows? Maybe its a bad hypo, but it surely demonstrates the point that the theoretical balance between the need to protect the public and the need to preserve individual liberties is almost never clear given an actual set of specific facts. Talking in generalities always erases the complexities...

Just an opinion...its worth what you paid for it

-matt

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Who is Noam Chomsky?

Well, being a student of computer sciences, I know that he developed the term of languages and language classes in computer sciences. But in the past, he seems to have concentrated more on politics, but actually, I don`t know that much about it, and I missed his visit at the university in Oldenburg (And, as a moderator already said, the politicals aspects would be inappropriate for this forum).

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[KenM]

Update: charges droped.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040803/ap_on_fe_st/britain_druid_1

 

[Desdichado]

Most definitly. Far too few of those who claim to follow olde gods and olde ways give the proper sacrifices. The neo-druids rarely give the proper offerings in thier wicker men {is it really that hard to get a criminal to roast?}. But that really is the modern squeamishness that taints all religeons.

Considering that nobody really knows how the druids practiced their religion, thanks to the massacreing of a large percentage of the druids nearly 2000 years ago by the Romans, that's hardly surprising that they don't practice the "olde tyme religion."

 

[johnsemlak]

Who is Noam Chomsky?

Aside from being known for political rants, Noam Chomsky is THE name is modern linguistics, and I believe he is the most frequently quoted (in academic journals) scientific writer alive.

Chomsky challenged a previously held view that children learn langauges primarily by repeating what others say. Chomsky observed children often create sentences they never heard before. This lead to his theory that all humans have an innate ability to take a finite set of grammar rules and vocabulary and create an infinite amount of combinations. Or something like that.

 

[Mystery Man]

Update: charges droped.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040803/ap_on_fe_st/britain_druid_1

I can see how people could get freaked out, but I somehow think they did the right thing by dropping it. As to the appropriatness of walking into a place of business with a deadly weapon there is no question that he could have exercised better judgment IMHO.

 

[Ranger REG]

As to the appropriatness of walking into a place of business with a deadly weapon there is no question that he could have exercised better judgment IMHO.

But he's a druid. Man's law is beneath him.

 

[Cheerful Coffin]

I'd say it was the right thing to do to arrest the man, It's obvious his intentions were not hostile, as a sword would hardly be as useful as say a gun or a bomb in this post-modern age. However, we live in a society that values two things, morals and common sense.

His oneness with nature may make him a moraly upbeat person, but it's done nothing for his brain.

Ohwell, a lesson learned. Keep your weapons that could harm or maim others where they belong..

At home..

 

[Cheerful Coffin]

*Ignore post*

 

[reanjr]

And such laws MAY be simply unconstitutional. Although it's highly unlikely that anyone willing to wear a sword around will have the finances to press the issue all the way to a Court that can render that decision. (In NY, for example, the town justice can't delcare a law uncostitutional, and that's the guy you'd see for a ticket for carrying a sword. You'd have to go to the county-wide Supreme Court judge for that...)

Hmm... I need to get back to collge, and see if SCOTUS has ever decided if a sword is an "arm." Hmm.... nope. No easy rulings on Findaw or google. Although Google did turn up an amusing conspiracy theory about the 13th amendment.

The United States Constitution's second amendment (that's "Right to Bear Arms" for you foreigners and ignorant Americans) only protects you from federal government taking away your arms. States and municipalities can restrict this as they see fit. You have to check each individual's State Constituion to see if this is a violation of your rights. Most states (maybe all, with the possible exception of Louisiana) have consitutions based on the United States' Constitution, though.