Could the Christian Church be sued for False Advertising?

[Mr Bean]

And Religion in general

Discuss

[Stravo]

How can you sue someone who's key component for membership is faith? If you got it you're happy with the church (sort of) if you don't have faith you could care less what the church has to say.

[Mr Bean]

And thus my Diabolical Point Stravo
If you hold somthing to be true(Lost 20 Pounds in ten Days! exc..) and you have to provide proof and if you can't you say its faith, normaly it would stop there

HOWEVER
What if somone where to come to harm for praticing your religion? If you try and spread a diet around that will cause malntirition you will be held liable for it. The religion in quest holds that believers shall not be harmed by various dangrious things and its allso quite clear on what is and is not a beliver, What then to say somone sueing the Church for being bited by a snake they claim thier product will protect them from?


Another point, If I got on National TV and said everyone should follow my Example and Kill as many Homo-sexuals as possible I could be tossed in jail

However if I go on National TV and ask for people to follow the Teachings of the Koran and Bible well....

A thin line of glossimar logic tied on a endless mobius, drifting in a sea of lavander madness
~A description by a former Arts Collage Proffesor of Mr Bean's Logic

[Rhadamanthus]

Well...this is the US, people file lawsuits for not being warned that hot coffee is....hot. And for restaurants providing food that makes them fat So it'e entirely possible.

[Imperial Federation]

But with their kind of money and power, who would dare?
You'd probably have to be richer than Bill Gates to successfully sue them.

[Zoink]

I think their defense could be: "But the government said God exists"

[Mr Bean]

I think their defense could be: "But the government said God exists"

Ahh then you could sue them under bibing a puplic offical because A State Religion is illegle

Ok now could we have some intellgent disscusion here?

[Lusankya]

The problem is, how many people actually would sue their religion?

Perhaps some of the crazy cults that seem to exist these days could be sued, but the more established religions??? Hell! The Catholic church managed to get away with supporting the Nazis in WWII!

[Mr Bean]

Come now Lusankya in a world of what we live in today you don't think there is somone-somewhere will and able to sue a major religion for false advertising?

Who knows?
Maybe best case we get warning lables slaped on all religious text and teachers (just kidding)

[Peregrin Toker]

The religious organizations would just pull out their armies of lawyers....

[Mr Bean]

An Army of Lawyers is insignifint next to the power of one good law-suit

A 1000 Lawyers can not bend the truth and witness OJ's Trial they are more likley to just !%@%@ things up

[ArthurDent]

When someone can come up with absolute proof that there is no heaven, no consequences to face for actions taken during life, and that there is no God, then a lawsuit might stand a chance.

[Mr Bean]

Sorry Aurther I see you don't understand how the Advertising Statues Work

Here the thing

If you are trying to sell somthing say Diet Pills loose Fifty Pounds a hour! and slap that up on Bill-boards, If somone accuse you of False Advetising who is the Burden of Proof on?

The Defendant to prove that his product works

There-for if you where to sue the Church for False Advetising the Burden of proof Falls on THEM to prove that they are not or cease and desist all public actions, this inculdes, comericals, distribing of material(The Bible in Hotels for one) and must incude if they countiue to try and sell it a disclamer that their product is not proven

Thus my point Mr Dent, you make this out to be much harder than it is

[Howedar]

No way in hell.

[Imperial Federation]

If it were that easy, would not someone have done it by now?

[ArthurDent]

What is it you would have the church prove then?

[Mr Bean]

If it were that easy, would not someone have done it by now?

Because they never have tried no one has ever thought of this particular angle before, mostly because no one is as insane/brillant as I

What is it you would have the church prove then?

That thier clames are true, Bascily that the entire thing is true, if they can't then they have to stop saying its true(just like diet pills)

Of course the problem is finding an non-christian judge or a not very christian judge that would not throw it out at first sight

[Darth Yoshi]

Sure thing. As soon as someone appoints me, I'll reveal my heathen colors and you can pitch the case before me.

[ArthurDent]

Well Bean, good luck with that.

[Raziel]

It's so stupid it could just work.

I track your reasoning, but I have a hard time believing that any fundie judge in the American legal system wouldn't throw it out immediately.

Good luck; I'll be watching the news

[Martin Blank]

The major problem with all of this is that in the plaintiff's initial filing, there would have to be some very strong arguments that the target religion is causing significant harm through its beliefs to overcome the First Amendment protections offered to religions (at least in the United States). Take a simple example: Jim Jones. His followers believed he was the reincarnation of Christ. Anything wrong with that (Darth Wong's views notwithstanding)? No, of course not. I can believe the possum the lives in the tree outside my apartment is the second incarnation of Moses, and if I talk others into it, so much the better.

Now, once actual harm starts entering the picture, then things get trickier. Jones was accused of adulterous behavior. Enough to sue for? Maybe... unless everyone was a willing participant, in which case there isn't, other than perhaps divorce. Once other allegations came up, like child molestation, rape, and murder, things got considerably harder to deal with. Jones and his 900 or so followers decided to look to a more compassionate judge. Maybe they got Him.

Try the same thing with, say, the Baptist Church, or the Presbyterians, or the Jews, or Muslims. Aside from a few isolated instances of improprieties and the occasional outright crime by individual clergy, the religions, by and large, are harmless (again, Darth Wong's extremism set aside). There are some bad apples, and the Catholic Church is feeling the punishment of the decisions to cover up, as an organization, the molestations of the last half century. These are, by far, the exception, and one would be hard-pressed to find an atheist judge who would allow this case to get very far.

[Darth Wong]

The major problem with all of this is that in the plaintiff's initial filing, there would have to be some very strong arguments that the target religion is causing significant harm through its beliefs to overcome the First Amendment protections offered to religions (at least in the United States).

The first amendment does not enter into this. It grants freedom from criminal prosecution for free expression, but not immunity to civil lawsuits. If I gave mechanical engineering advice to you in my professional capacity but I've sudddenly gone insane and decided to base it on the Biblical teaching that pi is 3.0, I am immune from criminal prosecution but you could still sue my ass off.

Moreover, you severely underestimate the harm done by Christian fraud. If it can indeed be shown that there is fraudulent misrepresention, then all of the money collected by a church constitutes harm. In fact, that is potentially just scratching the surface of the harm done to society (consider "deliberate suppression of information to reduce the spread of certain diseases", "deliberate attempts to retard the advancement of all forms of science including medical research, particularly in the area of cloning and genetic research", "divorces caused by religious segregationist policies being actively and deliberately promoted by the church", etc as an initial list of charges). However, societal "harm" is irrelevant. A tort lawsuit is not concerned with damage to society; only money. Look at the subject line.

Try the same thing with, say, the Baptist Church, or the Presbyterians, or the Jews, or Muslims. Aside from a few isolated instances of improprieties and the occasional outright crime by individual clergy, the religions, by and large, are harmless (again, Darth Wong's extremism set aside).

The fact that something is perceived as extreme does not necessarily make it wrong, Blankie. Look up "Golden Mean fallacy".

The objective harm done to society by many organized religions can be easily demonstrated (for starters, the enormous amount of money removed from the economy and funneled into their tax-exempted upkeep and self-glorification activities; see thread about $100 million churches). Much of the blame for the 17 million dying in Africa of AIDS can be laid at the doorstep on the Catholic church. The amount of scientific effort consumed fighting religion-induced anti-scientific crusades such as creationism is a drain on the scientific community and wastes both time and effort. Millions of boys have been sexually mutilated (circumcised) in North America. You say there has been no significant harm? Bullshit. You'll have to do better than simply shrugging and dismissing criticism as "extremism".

There are some bad apples, and the Catholic Church is feeling the punishment of the decisions to cover up, as an organization, the molestations of the last half century. These are, by far, the exception, and one would be hard-pressed to find an atheist judge who would allow this case to get very far.

The "exception?" That is bullshit as well. Many religious policies cause serious harm to society worldwide. The fundamental Christian doctrine of worthlessness requiring salvation has been vilified by psychologists for decades, and with good reason. The Islamic concept of jihad isn't exactly benign either. However, in this case, we are talking about tort, not criminal charges.

[Martin Blank]

The first amendment does not enter into this. It grants freedom from criminal prosecution for free expression, but not immunity to civil lawsuits. If I gave mechanical engineering advice to you in my professional capacity but I've sudddenly gone insane and decided to base it on the Biblical teaching that pi is 3.0, I am immune from criminal prosecution but you could still sue my ass off.

There's a difference here, in that such advice could be reasonably demonstrated as incorrect based on universally accepted principles of engineering. In addition, if your advice caused criminal harm, you would be criminally liable, no matter what your interpretation says. If you stone your wife to death because she strayed, you'd still be tried for murder, no matter what Leviticus says.

While I don't fully agree with any religion of which I'm aware, it would be rather difficult, in our current stage of knowledge and consciousness, to refute the possibility of, say, a supreme being or life after death. We do not know, at this point, what came before the universe was created (if the term "before" has any meaning there), and therefore such things are impossible to prove right now.

Try the same thing with, say, the Baptist Church, or the Presbyterians, or the Jews, or Muslims. Aside from a few isolated instances of improprieties and the occasional outright crime by individual clergy, the religions, by and large, are harmless (again, Darth Wong's extremism set aside).

The fact that something is perceived as extreme does not necessarily make it wrong, Blankie. Look up "Golden Mean fallacy".

So easy to yank your chain sometimes.

I have some extreme viewpoints of my own, and I recognize them as such. I also see room for compromise with others, and see where viewpoints opposite my own have actually benefited some people. I don't follow Christian teachings, though I have encouraged some people on the edge of oblivion to get involved in a local church because I have seen the good it can do. I work with them along the way to make sure they can keep an open mind, but I've seen many a life turned around. By what I've read of your views, most religions have done little good, whereas I have seen much good in them. Perhaps it's simply different experiences.

The objective harm done to society by many organized religions can be easily demonstrated (for starters, the enormous amount of money removed from the economy and funneled into their tax-exempted upkeep and self-glorification activities; see thread about $100 million churches).

I don't argue this, either. I have a major problem with the Los Angeles Archidiocese spending $200M and counting for the new cathedral, when St. Vibiana's could have been repaired and retrofitted for $20M or so. Even being generous on the refit and doubling it, the extra monies going to the new site could have provided some 15,000 families with rent for a year, something that would have been a far better use of the funds. The spread of AIDS in Africa is an issue, and there have been countless atrocities over the millenia.

However, you ignore now (as you have done in the past) the good that has been done. Water has been brought to poor villages, agriculture improved, and schools have been built. While the schools usually have some sort of religious session, the students still learn how to read, write, and do arithmetic, and sometimes geography and the sciences are taught, too. Sure, it's tilted in the direction of the church, but isn't some knowledge better than none?

Many religious policies cause serious harm to society worldwide. The fundamental Christian doctrine of worthlessness requiring salvation has been vilified by psychologists for decades, and with good reason. The Islamic concept of jihad isn't exactly benign either. However, in this case, we are talking about tort, not criminal charges.

Maybe it's just been my experiences with exploring various churches over my life, but I have yet to be told by any member of the clergy that I'm "worthless" unless I believe in God. Most with which I've come in contact have seen me as a good person who could use a friend for those times when trouble arises. Maybe it's regional; I'm not sure where you are, but in Southern California the churches are very accepting. I know of some churches in the Midwest that still preach fire and brimstone, and I do think they're a bit twisted in their teachings, but it's still their belief.

Furthermore, the jihad bit is kind of overblown by the media, which gets much of its information from Muslim media, which is state-controlled in many places, meaning that the radical clergy control it. There are a billion Muslims in the world today; if they all wanted to go through with jihad, we'd have a bigger mess on our hands than we could handle.

But back to the tort issue, as you requested. The First Amendment provides protections in many civil cases as well. If the church nextdoor had a tree that fell on your property and did damage, then you could certainly sue them for the damages, as it's not a religious issue, and the same logic follows for the recent Catholic priest scandals. But to be able to sue them for their beliefs is pointless, dangerous, and unconstitutional, as the mere beliefs do little damage, and almost certainly nothing that would be upheld by the courts.

If you want to sue them for recklessness that causes the deaths of others, such as AIDS spreading in Africa, that's a different story. Telling people they'll go to hell for using condoms in a culture with historically high promiscuity is a bad idea at best. Then again, if many of those same people had followed the church teachings, they wouldn't have had sex until they were married and wouldn't be visiting prostitutes, resulting in AIDS babies that if they survive will spread the disease to other innocents. I don't hold religion responsible for the entire mess, and I don't hold the people completely responsible, either.

It's a dual responsibility, as it always is in such matters, and since it involves a voluntary choice, I can't see how the Church could realistically be held responsible. Maybe in Africa, or some poor sections of Asia, religion could be made to take the blame, but not in the United States or Europe. Freedom of religion applies to the civil courts, too, or else a wave of frivolous lawsuits could be filed by every greedy nutcase out there that their Church upbringing caused them grievous harm.