What makes for a valid religion?

[Hotfoot]

As far as I know, the legal battle surrounding Scientology is still dragging on. Cults still exist, and so on. When does a religion become valid enough to be protected by the state? What are the requirements, and has the system been abused by people out to make a quick buck?

What if a religion promoted less than legal (or less than moral) activities, under the pretense of religious rites? Would (or should) the perpetrators of these acts be allowed to continue unopposed, or should they be brought to justice, just as anyone else would be?

What of religions whose beliefs cause young children to needlessly come to harm, such as Christian Scientists? Do we first respect the freedom of religion of the parents, or do we hold the welfare of the child above religious tolerance?

[Darth Wong]

As far as I know, the legal battle surrounding Scientology is still dragging on. Cults still exist, and so on. When does a religion become valid enough to be protected by the state? What are the requirements, and has the system been abused by people out to make a quick buck?

All religions are valid enough to be protected by the state. Nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else does it say that you have freedom to practice only those religions which are deemed acceptable by the state. It says you have the freedom to practice religion period.

What if a religion promoted less than legal (or less than moral) activities, under the pretense of religious rites? Would (or should) the perpetrators of these acts be allowed to continue unopposed, or should they be brought to justice, just as anyone else would be?

The Old Testament promotes less than legal and less than moral activities. But if you go ahead and kill a gay person because of its recommendations, you will go to jail. That's the theory: let religions do or say whatever they want unless they break the same laws that apply to everyone else. But in practice, however, many governments have been known to make exceptions for religion. This is quite frankly infuriating; religion is a personal choice, but it should not be a license to break the law.

What of religions whose beliefs cause young children to needlessly come to harm, such as Christian Scientists? Do we first respect the freedom of religion of the parents, or do we hold the welfare of the child above religious tolerance?

Take the child away from the parents, force medical treatment, and then charge the parents with child abuse.

A religion is a reasonably benign thing until it causes someone to commit some act which causes objective harm. At that point, a civilized society must be responsible enough to put its foot down and say "that's enough; we don't give a shit if you believe this, we're not going to let you do it".

[Lagmonster]

All religions are valid enough to be protected by the state. Nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else does it say that you have freedom to practice only those religions which are deemed acceptable by the state. It says you have the freedom to practice religion period.

I don't think the constitution would make a difference. People all over the world have the uncanny ability to practice religion even in states where their religion is prohibited, an activity which has resulted in more than one mass-deportation in history, more than one civil war, and more than one massacre.

What boggles my mind is that people will practice religions regardless of objective harm, to themselves, to others, it doesn't matter. Abject religious pacifists will practice their religion until someone shoots them for it, so even religionists who are completely nonviolent can be filled with enough stubborn faith to get them or their loved ones tortured or killed.

[Hotfoot]

All religions are valid enough to be protected by the state. Nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else does it say that you have freedom to practice only those religions which are deemed acceptable by the state. It says you have the freedom to practice religion period.

Yes, but what makes something a valid religion in the first place?

The Old Testament promotes less than legal and less than moral activities. But if you go ahead and kill a gay person because of its recommendations, you will go to jail. That's the theory: let religions do or say whatever they want unless they break the same laws that apply to everyone else. But in practice, however, many governments have been known to make exceptions for religion. This is quite frankly infuriating; religion is a personal choice, but it should not be a license to break the law.

Ah, so it's just the natural predisposition of people to "look the other way", as it were, when it comes to religions, or things which could be religious.

Take the child away from the parents, force medical treatment, and then charge the parents with child abuse.

Sadly, that is apparently either illegal in the US or very strongly discouraged. From what I understand, if a child is in a life-threatening situation and the parents are around, they can refuse medical aid for the child.

A religion is a reasonably benign thing until it causes someone to commit some act which causes objective harm. At that point, a civilized society must be responsible enough to put its foot down and say "that's enough; we don't give a shit if you believe this, we're not going to let you do it".

Now here's where things get sticky from my frame of reference. When a "psychic" or "clairvoyant" decieves people, often for money, should that not be considered fraud? When a service is offered which claims to be relevant to the real world, but isn't, shouldn't it be subject to laws concerning services, rather than religion? For example: a child is missing, going for several years now. The parents, at the end of their rope, go see someone who claims to be a remote seer (or clairvoyant/psychic). They tell the parents that the child is alive, and will be reunited. The parents have some glimmering of hope, and pay the psychic money. Two months later, the police find the body of their child, who has been dead for at least the past year. Alternatively, the psychic might tell the parents that the child is dead, but in a better place, giving the parents some closure on the matter. Again, the parents pay, but this time, two months later, the police discover the child alive and well.

Now, you could chalk this up to the idea that nobody is perfect, but in reality none of these people can be shown to have any real-world value whatsoever. In business, if I sell you a product which does not work, or does not do what I claim it can do, you can bring me up on charges. By the same token, if I promise a service or a product, but then fail to provide it, I'm in danger of legal action. But when so-called "psychics" or homeopaths do it, it's considered to be protected under freedom of religion. So is this just a part of looking the other way, is it just due to the hazy legality of it all, or is it really protected?

[Soulman]

Now, you could chalk this up to the idea that nobody is perfect, but in reality none of these people can be shown to have any real-world value whatsoever. In business, if I sell you a product which does not work, or does not do what I claim it can do, you can bring me up on charges. By the same token, if I promise a service or a product, but then fail to provide it, I'm in danger of legal action. But when so-called "psychics" or homeopaths do it, it's considered to be protected under freedom of religion. So is this just a part of looking the other way, is it just due to the hazy legality of it all, or is it really protected?

I think that all these new age cures and suchlike should be subject to the same laws as conventional (aka real) medicine. I have heard of cases where they have actually harmed people.

If I sell you a car saying that it has a 2-litre engine whereas it has one stolen out of a lawnmower (which has a tendancy to explode) or maybe magic beans that give x-ray vision or something I sure as hell would get prosectuted.

[Lagmonster]

Yes, but what makes something a valid religion in the first place?

I can't think of any specific qualifier. I could invent a religion, replete with practices and holidays and the like, in a few minutes. Whether it would be accepted by anyone else or recognized by the state is another matter. 'Jedi' is on the census list, after all (although not recognized as a religion). A 'valid' religion would seem, then, to be anything which meets the definition; A collection of rituals or dogmas that advocate or follow the teachings of some form of spiritual faith. A 'recognized' religion, on the other hand, is most likely determined by the number and organization level (read: wealth) of its adherents.

Now here's where things get sticky from my frame of reference. When a "psychic" or "clairvoyant" decieves people, often for money, should that not be considered fraud?

In a number of cases, it is. People are suing Miss Cleo for fraud, after all. The way they usually get around this is the 'For entertainment purposes only' label you see on Psychic Hotline ads. This should tell you something: When the Catholics ask for cash, no one blinks. When a tarot card reader does, they have to remind their clients ever so subtly that it's a load of shit before they can take one penny.

The psychic game is an ancient con-artistry expose - just one more way for people of faith to profit from it. Although, as you can tell by the relative popularity levels of both, the Christian church's methods are light years ahead of the occultist's, even though the 'future reading' spiritualist faiths are MUCH older than Christianity. I suppose, at the heart of it, that psychics as the New Ager or occultist knows them, is a practice not itemized in any one modern religion (although I could name several religions from antiquity that have incorporate future-reading).

[Hotfoot]

Reply moved from the thread in Off-Topic.

And what's a church service, then? Do you know how many churches expect you to "tithe", ie- give a fixed percentage of your income to them in exchange for their religious services? Why aren't we banning this?

Church services are held in properly zoned areas and the tithe is completely voluntary. I could walk into just about any church, synagouge, or temple in America and recieve a completely free sermon or other religious service. Most fortune-tellers expect cash up front before giving anything. That, and fortune-tellers claim to have knowledge concerning the real world, specifically the future in this case. I don't see that at all in any religious service that I have ever been to.

Caveat emptor. People know what they're paying for. If they happen to believe in it, there's no problem.

Problem is that people don't always know what they are paying for. By your reasoning just now, the Nigerian 419 scams are just fine. The people happen to believe that they'll get that ridiculous sum of money, but end up just getting fleeced. Now, you might say that if they're stupid enough to buy that load of garbage, then they deserve what they got. That doesn't change the fact that the perpetrators of those various 419 scams are fraudulant and breaking several laws.

[Darth Wong]

Reply moved from the thread in Off-Topic.

And what's a church service, then? Do you know how many churches expect you to "tithe", ie- give a fixed percentage of your income to them in exchange for their religious services? Why aren't we banning this?

Church services are held in properly zoned areas and the tithe is completely voluntary. I could walk into just about any church, synagouge, or temple in America and recieve a completely free sermon or other religious service. Most fortune-tellers expect cash up front before giving anything.

So? What difference does that make? No one's forcing you to pay for tarot card readings. The church, on the other hand, gets a tax-exempt status from the government, effectively forcing everyone to subsidize their business through tax breaks. When a company evades tax, we call it corporate welfare.

That, and fortune-tellers claim to have knowledge concerning the real world, specifically the future in this case. I don't see that at all in any religious service that I have ever been to.

Most religious services claim to have knowledge concerning the real world. Ridiculous claims regarding evolution and geology, for example (not to mention that whole "judgement day" thing and their incessant harping about prophecy).

Caveat emptor. People know what they're paying for. If they happen to believe in it, there's no problem.

Problem is that people don't always know what they are paying for. By your reasoning just now, the Nigerian 419 scams are just fine.

No they're not. The people hawking the scam LIE. This can be shown objectively; they make a claim which they have no intent of keeping. This is not true for tarot card readers; you can't prove that they don't believe what they're selling.

The people happen to believe that they'll get that ridiculous sum of money, but end up just getting fleeced. Now, you might say that if they're stupid enough to buy that load of garbage, then they deserve what they got. That doesn't change the fact that the perpetrators of those various 419 scams are fraudulant and breaking several laws.

In order to commit fraud, you must knowingly be committing a public falsehood. Saying something which is not scientifically defensible is not necessarily fraud, otherwise we'd have to send every religionist to prison.

Yes, but what makes something a valid religion in the first place?

All religions are equally invalid.

[Darth Wong]

Now, you could chalk this up to the idea that nobody is perfect, but in reality none of these people can be shown to have any real-world value whatsoever. In business, if I sell you a product which does not work, or does not do what I claim it can do, you can bring me up on charges. By the same token, if I promise a service or a product, but then fail to provide it, I'm in danger of legal action. But when so-called "psychics" or homeopaths do it, it's considered to be protected under freedom of religion. So is this just a part of looking the other way, is it just due to the hazy legality of it all, or is it really protected?

I think that all these new age cures and suchlike should be subject to the same laws as conventional (aka real) medicine. I have heard of cases where they have actually harmed people.

And more than 70% of acute liver failure cases in the United States are caused by tylenol. Why is that still sold over the counter?

The problem with alternative health remedies is that you can't differentiate the scams from the decent stuff (and some of it IS valid; you DO realize that many drugs are simply extracted and purified or synthesized ingredients from natural food sources, right?) because the necessary clinical tests are ridiculously expensive and no one has an incentive to do them unless they can patent the results (which won't be the case for, say, a Chinese herbal tea which has been used for 4000 years).

If I sell you a car saying that it has a 2-litre engine whereas it has one stolen out of a lawnmower (which has a tendancy to explode) or maybe magic beans that give x-ray vision or something I sure as hell would get prosectuted.

If you sell a car knowingly with false information, you would get prosecuted. But if you sell a Bible and tell people that everything in it is the absolute truth, would you get prosecuted? Like it or not, we make allowances for religious beliefs, and that's one of them.

[Stormbringer]

When does a religion become valid enough to be protected by the state?

Two standards: When it's proved to be real. Or you have to protect any religion that doesn't endanger it's members.

[Durandal]

Last I checked, churches don't usually have signs saying "$10 per sermon, $15 for baptism, $30 per confirmation." The donations are completely voluntary, and not required.

Most churches expect you to donate a sizable portion of your income. Furthermore, they do charge for religious services, like marriage and baptism. Aside from that, no one is forcing you to pay the Tarot reader, either. If you don't want to pay, then you don't get your reading.

Do you know that many churches will harass you if you don't give them money? They'll send letters saying that you're a bad Christian and that you're doing a bad job raising your child by not giving them money every week. When I went to Catholic school, they charged me more tuition because my family had stopped going to church and had stopped giving the parish money, even when my dad was out of a job and I was writing the tuition checks out of my own pocket. Churches are just as much a corporation as anything else.

How about Scientology? Should that be protected as a religion?

Why shouldn't it be?

Besides, Einhander already said that these people just do this for the additional income, no mention is made to any religion. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that most of the people doing the tarot readings are Christians. I still fail to see how it is "religious" to charge money to shuffle a deck of cards and read a response from a commercially published book of interpretations as to their meaning.

You said yourself that there are people who actually believe in Tarot readings, which are nothing more than superstitious nonsense. That makes it religious. Whether or not the purveyors actually believe in it doesn't really matter. The government is not allowed to administer tests of religious faith.

When they do it in Vegas, it's called "poker" or "blackjack".

Those are games of chance. There's a difference between playing the odds and trying to divine the future from cards.

[Hotfoot]

So? What difference does that make? No one's forcing you to pay for tarot card readings. The church, on the other hand, gets a tax-exempt status from the government, effectively forcing everyone to subsidize their business through tax breaks. When a company evades tax, we call it corporate welfare.

The difference between a donation and a fee are quite simple. The Something Awful forums require a fee to be paid for people to even be able to read the forums. If you do not pay the fee, you do not see the forums, it is that simple. That is how the Something Awful forums help cover the costs of their hosting. Here, on your forums, you ask that people pay a donation to help cover the costs of your hosting. You do not, however deny people access from reading or posting on the forums based on if they pay you or not. If I wanted to go to a religious ceremony, I could easily do so and not pay a single penny. If I wanted to have a tarot reading at any one of the shops, they can and will deny me service unless I cough up the cash up front.

Most religious services claim to have knowledge concerning the real world. Ridiculous claims regarding evolution and geology, for example (not to mention that whole "judgement day" thing and their incessant harping about prophecy).

As I said, the religious services do not require that you pay them anything for compensation, and do not deny you access if you do not pay. Tarot reading, by and large, does.

No they're not. The people hawking the scam LIE. This can be shown objectively; they make a claim which they have no intent of keeping. This is not true for tarot card readers; you can't prove that they don't believe what they're selling.

A good point. But now how about people who propegate pyramid schemes? They might believe it, but the end result is that the person at the end of the line gets screwed.

In order to commit fraud, you must knowingly be committing a public falsehood. Saying something which is not scientifically defensible is not necessarily fraud, otherwise we'd have to send every religionist to prison.

So claiming to be able to predict the future, talking to the dead, divining, or cure diseases with what are basically placebos are not falsehoods, or at the very least gross deceptions? There are several cases in which the people are clearly committing a public falsehood, by claiming specific success rates, claiming to have worked with government agencies, etc.

All religions are equally invalid.

Not all "religions" are equally protected by the government. As far as I know, the court case concerning Scientology is still raging, as it was claiming to be a religion to benefit from the tax-free status of religions, but did not meet the proper requirements. Obviously there is a standard, or Microsoft would declare itself a religion with Bill Gates as God on Earth.

[Hotfoot]

Most churches expect you to donate a sizable portion of your income.

"Expect" and "Require" are two very different terms.

Furthermore, they do charge for religious services, like marriage and baptism.

Marriage is a special case, especially if one wants to use the church for the ceremony. Then there are the legal costs, the priest/minister/whatever has to be liscensed by the government, etc. Baptism I was unaware of, though I imagine that has to do more with scheduling than anything else.

Do you know that many churches will harass you if you don't give them money? They'll send letters saying that you're a bad Christian and that you're doing a bad job raising your child by not giving them money every week.

If they're trying to convince a fence-sitter to join the flock, they won't harass them at all, they'll just give mild encouragement. They could only get away with harassing the true believers.

When I went to Catholic school, they charged me more tuition because my family had stopped going to church and had stopped giving the parish money, even when my dad was out of a job and I was writing the tuition checks out of my own pocket. Churches are just as much a corporation as anything else.

Are catholic schools tax-free as well as the church? I was unaware of that. I had thought they were subject to the laws concerning private schools more than anything else.

Why shouldn't it be?

Some would argue that it is not a religion in the first place.

You said yourself that there are people who actually believe in Tarot readings, which are nothing more than superstitious nonsense. That makes it religious. Whether or not the purveyors actually believe in it doesn't really matter. The government is not allowed to administer tests of religious faith.

You're right. But as I said, from what I understand, the majority of people who do believe that stuff don't demand cash up front for it, but rather simply request a donation at the end, which is completely up to whoever recieved the reading.

Those are games of chance. There's a difference between playing the odds and trying to divine the future from cards.

Let's compare then, shall we?

The game is blackjack. Simple, yet still applicable.

Both "dealers" shuffle the deck. The cards are mixed in a mostly random fashion. The deck is then cut. The dealer starts placing the cards on the table. While the dealer is placing the cards, he uses the meanings he learned from his "How to play card games" book to determine what the possible outcomes are going to be. When the dealing of cards has finished, the dealer reads the meaning of all the cards in combination to determine the outcome. In this case, the outcome is clearly defined, either the dealer wins or one of the players does.

Again, in tarot, while the cards are dealt, the dealer attempts to determine the meaning of the cards based on which order he deals them, based on information he learned from his "How to read tarot cards" book. The dealing of the cards is random, just as in blackjack, only instead of the dealer trying to determine the value of the player's hidden cards by his actions ("reading" is common in gambling, it helps to know when another player is bluffing or not), he is attempting to divine the accuracy of his interpretation, to play up on the hits he might get and play down on his misses, or twist the interpretation. In comparison, the dealer might do the same thing. If he thinks the player is closer to 20 than he is, he might take another card in order to make the game more favorable to him again, or he might simply cheat.

[neoolong]

From here.

Concerning the Scientology case, the above gives some descriptions on the standards to determine the tax exemption. They are:

"In order to be entitled to a tax exemption a religious organization must meet three tests: (1) the group must be organized for religious purposes; (2) the property must be used primarily in furtherance of
that purpose; (3) no pecuniary benefit may inure to the benefit of any of its officers, members or employees, nor may it be used as a guise for profit-making operations. (Gospel Volunteers v. Village of Speculator, 33 A.D.2d 407, 308 N.Y.S.2d 785, aff'd 29 N.Y.2d 622, 324 N.Y.S.2d 412, 273 N.E.2d 139). Where the primary purpose is a religious one, incidental use of the **267 property for a nonexempt purpose will not destroy the exemption. The mere fact that an organization makes a profit from its operations does not make it a commercial enterprise so long as all profits are devoted to the permitted purpose"

[Hotfoot]

When does a religion become valid enough to be protected by the state?

Two standards: When it's proved to be real. Or you have to protect any religion that doesn't endanger it's members.

How do you prove that a religion is real?

[Hotfoot]

And more than 70% of acute liver failure cases in the United States are caused by tylenol. Why is that still sold over the counter?

Good question. I'd put my money on FDA bribes. Still, homeopathic cures do not need to be inspected by the FDA at all. They could sell arsenic as a magical weight-loss potion and still be protected.

The problem with alternative health remedies is that you can't differentiate the scams from the decent stuff (and some of it IS valid; you DO realize that many drugs are simply extracted and purified or synthesized ingredients from natural food sources, right?) because the necessary clinical tests are ridiculously expensive and no one has an incentive to do them unless they can patent the results (which won't be the case for, say, a Chinese herbal tea which has been used for 4000 years).

Yeah, some of it is valid, but homeopathic cures generally aren't, especially the ones that claim to have "trace elements" of real drugs, but tend to have none at all. There are brands of water which claim, with no scientific basis whatsoever, to hydrate X% better than "normal" water, for whatever reasons.

If you sell a car knowingly with false information, you would get prosecuted. But if you sell a Bible and tell people that everything in it is the absolute truth, would you get prosecuted? Like it or not, we make allowances for religious beliefs, and that's one of them.

But if I say "God told me to scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre," people would still probably slap me with charges if there was no fire.

[Durandal]

"Expect" and "Require" are two very different terms.

While true, the real heart of the matter is whether or not churches are comparable in their money-grubbing to panhandlers. That's what I'm getting at. If they're going to outlaw Tarot reading because its panhandlers are selling bullshit for money, then they ought to do the same for churches, since they receive billions in donations (some of which are spiritually extorted from their members), enjoy tax-exempt status and peddle just as much bullshit as the panhandlers do. Actually, they peddle more.

Marriage is a special case, especially if one wants to use the church for the ceremony. Then there are the legal costs, the priest/minister/whatever has to be liscensed by the government, etc. Baptism I was unaware of, though I imagine that has to do more with scheduling than anything else.

The license is a one-time cost until it must be renewed. Whichever way you look at it, churches do require money for religious services. They even sell tickets to confirmations.

If they're trying to convince a fence-sitter to join the flock, they won't harass them at all, they'll just give mild encouragement. They could only get away with harassing the true believers.

No, they do this to anyone. Why would a true believer stop going to church and stop donating money in the first place? If you're a member of their parish and not shelling out money, churches will harass you for it or penalize you in some other way if they can.

Are catholic schools tax-free as well as the church? I was unaware of that. I had thought they were subject to the laws concerning private schools more than anything else.

That's a tricky question. It depends upon in what capacity you mean by "tax free." I'm not sure if they pay property taxes, but I'm fairly certain that teacher salaries are taxed.

Some would argue that it is not a religion in the first place.

That doesn't answer my question. What is Scientology missing that makes its religious status questionable? And "mainstream religions don't recognize it" isn't an acceptable answer.

You're right. But as I said, from what I understand, the majority of people who do believe that stuff don't demand cash up front for it, but rather simply request a donation at the end, which is completely up to whoever recieved the reading.

Whether or not the panhandlers actually believe it is irrelevant. The government cannot administer religious tests. People who buy into Miss Cleo's bullshit are a religious cult, whether Miss Cleo thinks she's really psychic or not.

Let's compare then, shall we?

The game is blackjack. Simple, yet still applicable.

Both "dealers" shuffle the deck. The cards are mixed in a mostly random fashion. The deck is then cut. The dealer starts placing the cards on the table. While the dealer is placing the cards, he uses the meanings he learned from his "How to play card games" book to determine what the possible outcomes are going to be. When the dealing of cards has finished, the dealer reads the meaning of all the cards in combination to determine the outcome. In this case, the outcome is clearly defined, either the dealer wins or one of the players does.

Again, in tarot, while the cards are dealt, the dealer attempts to determine the meaning of the cards based on which order he deals them, based on information he learned from his "How to read tarot cards" book. The dealing of the cards is random, just as in blackjack, only instead of the dealer trying to determine the value of the player's hidden cards by his actions ("reading" is common in gambling, it helps to know when another player is bluffing or not), he is attempting to divine the accuracy of his interpretation, to play up on the hits he might get and play down on his misses, or twist the interpretation. In comparison, the dealer might do the same thing. If he thinks the player is closer to 20 than he is, he might take another card in order to make the game more favorable to him again, or he might simply cheat.

Apples to oranges. Blackjack ultimately creates testable predictions. It's quite easy to test whether or not one is correct in assuming the dealer is bluffing. That is not the case with vague Tarot predictions, which are not testable for days in advance, if at all.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure I see your point. What are you trying to prove here? That, since Blackjack and Tarot are somewhat similar and Blackjack is not a religion, Tarot must not be a religion?

God dammit, all this talk about panhandlers is getting me hungry. There's a really damn good pizza place in my hometown called Panhandler's, and they make the biggest, most awesome calzones.

[Darth Wong]

Good question. I'd put my money on FDA bribes.

No no, not bribes. They're called "administrative fees" and "campaign contributions"

Still, homeopathic cures do not need to be inspected by the FDA at all. They could sell arsenic as a magical weight-loss potion and still be protected.

Most foods are also not tested by the FDA (that falls to local health authorities which only look for impurities, not verification of health claims), and since most herbal remedies are traditional folk cures which look an awful lot like food, this is a pretty gray area.

Yeah, some of it is valid, but homeopathic cures generally aren't, especially the ones that claim to have "trace elements" of real drugs, but tend to have none at all. There are brands of water which claim, with no scientific basis whatsoever, to hydrate X% better than "normal" water, for whatever reasons.

Of course there's snake-oil in there. On the other hand, there are plenty of herbal-based concoctions which are so powerful and effective that the FDA does want them regulated as drugs. You can't have it both ways; the pharmaceutical industry recognizes the power and efficacy of some herbal concoctions and even wants them regulated as drugs, but then they turn around and say it's all hokum. Some of it is, but unless governments start testing these things on their own dime (since services of universal good which cannot be witheld from non-payers are within the purview of government rather than private industry), we'll never know which. With no patent potential, clinical tests are too expensive for herbal product suppliers to perform.

If you sell a car knowingly with false information, you would get prosecuted. But if you sell a Bible and tell people that everything in it is the absolute truth, would you get prosecuted? Like it or not, we make allowances for religious beliefs, and that's one of them.

But if I say "God told me to scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre," people would still probably slap me with charges if there was no fire.

Of course. But tarot card readers aren't accosting people the way you would be in that case. No one pays for the tarot card reading unless they already believe in it.

You try to make a large distinction between a payment for services and a request for donations. That is a distinction, no doubt about it. But it is not a relevant distinction for the purpose of determining whether something is criminally fraudulent. If we decided that everything which could be sold and shown to be untrue is criminal fraud, then everyone who ever sold a religious book could be put in jail.

Having said that, I think that when you get into outright misrepresentation of the scientific community, that's definitely outright fraud. Saying, for example, that the scientific community is backing away from evolution theory and beginning to embrace creation theory is an outright lie.

[Hotfoot]

While true, the real heart of the matter is whether or not churches are comparable in their money-grubbing to panhandlers. That's what I'm getting at. If they're going to outlaw Tarot reading because its panhandlers are selling bullshit for money, then they ought to do the same for churches, since they receive billions in donations (some of which are spiritually extorted from their members), enjoy tax-exempt status and peddle just as much bullshit as the panhandlers do. Actually, they peddle more.

Most of the things that the churches provide are either valuable community services or spiritual matters which cannot be proven or disproven. The claim of being able to predict the future can, however, be tested. The claim of going to heaven or hell once you die cannot.

The license is a one-time cost until it must be renewed. Whichever way you look at it, churches do require money for religious services. They even sell tickets to confirmations.

Fair enough then. Still, I'd like to know what keeps Bill Gates from declaring Microsoft a religion.

No, they do this to anyone. Why would a true believer stop going to church and stop donating money in the first place? If you're a member of their parish and not shelling out money, churches will harass you for it or penalize you in some other way if they can.

If it's a true believer in danger of becoming a fence-sitter or a nonbeliever, maybe, but a nonbeliever or prior nonbeliever-now-fencesitter who they are enticing into the fold? Harassment would only drive them off, I would imagine.

That's a tricky question. It depends upon in what capacity you mean by "tax free." I'm not sure if they pay property taxes, but I'm fairly certain that teacher salaries are taxed.

Even the teachers who happen to be clergy (nuns, priests, etc.)?

That doesn't answer my question. What is Scientology missing that makes its religious status questionable? And "mainstream religions don't recognize it" isn't an acceptable answer.

I don't remember exactly offhand, but I do remember it being a serious issue. I think that it had to do with it being more like a corperation than a religion.

Whether or not the panhandlers actually believe it is irrelevant. The government cannot administer religious tests. People who buy into Miss Cleo's bullshit are a religious cult, whether Miss Cleo thinks she's really psychic or not.

They can, however, prosecute fraud, but that line isn't very clearly defined.

Apples to oranges. Blackjack ultimately creates testable predictions. It's quite easy to test whether or not one is correct in assuming the dealer is bluffing. That is not the case with vague Tarot predictions, which are not testable for days in advance, if at all.

Furthermore, I'm not really sure I see your point. What are you trying to prove here? That, since Blackjack and Tarot are somewhat similar and Blackjack is not a religion, Tarot must not be a religion?

Tarot, in and of itself, isn't a religion, any more than "Wee-Gee" boards are a religion. Still, Tarot readings are still random, as the entire outcome relies on the draw of the cards.

God dammit, all this talk about panhandlers is getting me hungry. There's a really damn good pizza place in my hometown called Panhandler's, and they make the biggest, most awesome calzones.

Damn, it's a good thing I read this post after I made my pizza, or you would have gotten me hungry, you bastard. As it is, I'll happily sate my hunger on my nice, tasty Pepperoni Pizza, while you suffer in agony of the memory of your Pizza Joint's calzones. Mmmm....mmmm...oh, yes, it's so good. The sauce, so nice, and the hot, melted cheese, the spices of the pepperoni, the crispness of the crust, and it's mine, all mine! Bwahahaha!!

[Stravo]

The key here is strange hats, if your religious leaders wear strange hats than the greater chance that its valid.

[Hotfoot]

No no, not bribes. They're called "administrative fees" and "campaign contributions"

Bah and humbug. I'll freely admit that the FDA is corrupt. My father has numerous horror stories of how the FDA can be manipulated by companies that don't want competition in a certain market. Nutrasweet is a royal bitch, for example.

Most foods are also not tested by the FDA (that falls to local health authorities which only look for impurities, not verification of health claims), and since most herbal remedies are traditional folk cures which look an awful lot like food, this is a pretty gray area.

One which should, I think, be looked into more than it is to prevent abuses from happening.

Of course there's snake-oil in there. On the other hand, there are plenty of herbal-based concoctions which are so powerful and effective that the FDA does want them regulated as drugs. You can't have it both ways; the pharmaceutical industry recognizes the power and efficacy of some herbal concoctions and even wants them regulated as drugs, but then they turn around and say it's all hokum. Some of it is, but unless governments start testing these things on their own dime (since services of universal good which cannot be witheld from non-payers are within the purview of government rather than private industry), we'll never know which. With no patent potential, clinical tests are too expensive for herbal product suppliers to perform.

There's a bit of a difference between herbal and natural curatives and the homeopathic "drug memory" bullshit though. The herbal cures tend to actually do something, the placebos don't.

Of course. But tarot card readers aren't accosting people the way you would be in that case. No one pays for the tarot card reading unless they already believe in it.

Or if they're curious, but that's an insubstantial point. Fair enough.

You try to make a large distinction between a payment for services and a request for donations. That is a distinction, no doubt about it. But it is not a relevant distinction for the purpose of determining whether something is criminally fraudulent. If we decided that everything which could be sold and shown to be untrue is criminal fraud, then everyone who ever sold a religious book could be put in jail.

Not if they sold it as "fiction".

Seriously though, that would only apply if they claimed that everything in the Bible was true. Only the very extreme literal fundamentalists believe that, everyone else tends to use it as a spiritual guidebook, at which point the nature of "truth" is entirely subjective.

Having said that, I think that when you get into outright misrepresentation of the scientific community, that's definitely outright fraud. Saying, for example, that the scientific community is backing away from evolution theory and beginning to embrace creation theory is an outright lie.

And claiming that "drug memory" homeopathic cures (with absolutely no drug content) are just as effective as regular doses of a specific drug would be an outright lie in the same regard.

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough then. Still, I'd like to know what keeps Bill Gates from declaring Microsoft a religion.

They don't ask you believe in something which is scientifically nonsensical. Therefore, they're not a religion.

[Hotfoot]

Fair enough then. Still, I'd like to know what keeps Bill Gates from declaring Microsoft a religion.

They don't ask you believe in something which is scientifically nonsensical. Therefore, they're not a religion.

They ask you to believe that they ship a product which works reliably.

Seriously though, what's stopping them from proclaiming Bill Gates as the second coming, making the next version of their operating system "Pearly Windows" or "Windows to Heaven" and avoiding all the anti-trust laws and taxes they have to put up with?

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough then. Still, I'd like to know what keeps Bill Gates from declaring Microsoft a religion.

They don't ask you believe in something which is scientifically nonsensical. Therefore, they're not a religion.

They ask you to believe that they ship a product which works reliably.

Unfortunately for them, it's a tangible product. If they sold you NOTHING and pretended to be giving you salvation, they would be able to claim tax exemption.

Seriously though, what's stopping them from proclaiming Bill Gates as the second coming, making the next version of their operating system "Pearly Windows" or "Windows to Heaven" and avoiding all the anti-trust laws and taxes they have to put up with?

They would still be selling a tangible piece of operating system software that is installable on real, physical computers. If they stopped selling you any physical product and instead demanded money so that you could have a superior operating system in the great computer ether of the afterlife, then they would become a religion.

Mind you, I personally think religious tax-exemption is a huge scam and should be disallowed, for similar reasons to the ones you posted. But as long as we DO allow it, we must be fair about it and not claim that one hokey religion is more "valid" than another.

Either that, or we use Stravo's "funny-looking hat" criterion.

[neoolong]

Fair enough then. Still, I'd like to know what keeps Bill Gates from declaring Microsoft a religion.

They don't ask you believe in something which is scientifically nonsensical. Therefore, they're not a religion.

They ask you to believe that they ship a product which works reliably.

Seriously though, what's stopping them from proclaiming Bill Gates as the second coming, making the next version of their operating system "Pearly Windows" or "Windows to Heaven" and avoiding all the anti-trust laws and taxes they have to put up with?

"no pecuniary benefit may inure to the benefit of any of its officers, members or employees, nor may it be used as a guise for profit-making operations" Like I mentioned before.

The law is stopping him from doing that.