I would have let him rot.

[realtall]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

I think what he is trying to say is that both are considered crimes. You may think one deserves punishment and not the other, but according to the countries where the crime occurs, both deserve punishment.

The church's position, evidently, is to get people out before the heavy hand of "justice" can swoop down on the missionaries. Would you consider that to be elitism too?

Why is it elitism if the government bails someone out but not if the church does?

That is why I thought it was a good analogy.

Carry on.

To answer your question; no I would not consider a church missionary getting into a car accident and being protected from years of prison by the church, elitism. Of course not. The missionary was not being protected because of his riches or his fame and it would not have mattered to the church if he had either one.

I suppose we could keep discussing punishments for car accidents applied to foreign nationals in other countries. Or we can revisit what the article(remember the article?) was about. The rich american getting busted for beinging cocaine into an arab country and escaping because of his connections. Do you feel that a rich pop star being saved by a United States Senator from punishment for a crime(which is a crime even in the US) which he clearly commited, is elitism? Do you feel that he would have gotten off if he had not been a rich pop star?