re priests and the constitution

[historian]

Suppose a cop (for example) is told he has to torture someone for important information but he is reluctant to do so because he is a christian and knows that would be wrong, but if he refuses that could jeopardize his career etc... So he consulted with his priest who says if torturing will reveal plans on killing innocent civilians then its all right. Now supposing he is caught torturing someone and goes to trial will his defense that spiritual priority as well as confirmation by a priest relieve him of guilt?

[YDogg]

1. sounds a bit like bush's rational

[dflprincess]

2. It shouldn't in the eyes of the law

Maybe the cop will sleep better at night but using it as a defense sounds a little like "I was only following orders" to me. (My priest said it was okay? I wouldn't buy it if I was on the jury.)

[historian]

3. i was looking for the legal aspect to this

would you know anything about that?

[ManiacJoe]

5. You probably need to be a bit clearer

on what it is you are looking for.

[eyesroll]

4. "My religion said it's OK" is generally not a defense to a crime.

An insane religious delusion--"god appeared on a taco shell and told me to kill"--may fit in with an insanity defense. But that's about it.

(Not a lawyer yet, but I remember this from criminal law.)

[happyslug]

6. The Present Supreme Court holds religion is NOT an exception to a General Law

The Peyote Case decided that issue i.e. the use of Peyote by Native Americans in religious ceremonies is NOT a protected right under the First Amendment if the law is aimed at a General ban NOT religious ban of the use of that drug. i.e. if Congress would outlaw Peyote in a religious ceremonies that is unconstitutional (violates the First Amendment freedom of Religion) but if Congress outlaws Peyote as a general law, with no attempt to address any religious use, then that ban is effective even if the Peyote is used in a Religious Ceremony and had been for centuries.

The same rule applies in your case, is the use of Torture forbidden under a general law? Then the fact that your religion permits you to torture can NOT be used to overrule the general law forbidding torture. For more see:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n11_v42/ai_9082087
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

Copy of Actual Supreme Court Case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=494&invol=872

The rule is simple:
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a "valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes) (Quoted in the above decision)