
Discuss
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Ahh then you could sue them under bibing a puplic offical because A State Religion is illegleI think their defense could be: "But the government said God exists"
Because they never have tried no one has ever thought of this particular angle before, mostly because no one is as insane/brillant as IIf it were that easy, would not someone have done it by now?
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)What is it you would have the church prove then?
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.Martin Blank wrote: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 fact that something is perceived as extreme does not necessarily make it wrong, Blankie. Look up "Golden Mean fallacy".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 "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.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.
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.Darth Wong wrote: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.
So easy to yank your chain sometimes.Darth Wong wrote:The fact that something is perceived as extreme does not necessarily make it wrong, Blankie. Look up "Golden Mean fallacy".Martin Blank wrote: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).
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.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).
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.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.