Judgement Day
August 6, 2007 11:27 AM Subscribe
UNITED STATES ex rel. Gerald MAYO v. SATAN AND HIS STAFF
posted by sciurus at 11:41 AM on August 6, 2007
posted by sciurus at 11:41 AM on August 6, 2007
It's so crazy it just HAS to work!
Actually, it probably won't, because it'll either be thrown out by the judge or else they'l come up against, you know, juries. Which tend to have at least some religious members.
Still, I admire the spirit of it all.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:42 AM on August 6, 2007
Actually, it probably won't, because it'll either be thrown out by the judge or else they'l come up against, you know, juries. Which tend to have at least some religious members.
Still, I admire the spirit of it all.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:42 AM on August 6, 2007
Meh. James Morrow's Blameless in Abaddon was funnier.
posted by Bromius at 11:42 AM on August 6, 2007
posted by Bromius at 11:42 AM on August 6, 2007
Why does it seem like these things always have it out for Christians?
World Poverty
Near starvation: 500 million
Starvation deaths: 22m pa
Inadequate safe water: 3bn
Dirty water deaths: 22,000 pd
Inadequate clothing: 1.5 bn
No shelter: 150 million
Of course Christians are often generous.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 11:43 AM on August 6, 2007
World Poverty
Near starvation: 500 million
Starvation deaths: 22m pa
Inadequate safe water: 3bn
Dirty water deaths: 22,000 pd
Inadequate clothing: 1.5 bn
No shelter: 150 million
Of course Christians are often generous.
posted by Gnostic Novelist at 11:43 AM on August 6, 2007
I'm not sure what "work" means here. They mostly want news paper headlines saying that churches are being sued for selling stuff they can't deliver. It's just all saying "Hey, ordinary churches still do terrible shit today!"
A few news paper articles about some priest talking some lady out of all her money means more relatives keep weary eyes on their inheritances. I'd say more widespread distrust of organized religion *is* winning.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:03 PM on August 6, 2007
A few news paper articles about some priest talking some lady out of all her money means more relatives keep weary eyes on their inheritances. I'd say more widespread distrust of organized religion *is* winning.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:03 PM on August 6, 2007
You know I am not a fan of any religion that preaches hate, but to malign all religion based on just the haters is kinda fucked up. I mean MLK was a pastor so surely there are some religious people who don't deserve to be treated like hatemongers and bigots...
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 12:12 PM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 12:12 PM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
LOLGOD
posted by languagehat at 12:19 PM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 12:19 PM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
I'd love if there was a chance in hell of this working - removing the tax-exempt status of the more obviously money-hungry televangelists, scientologists, etc. would be a great movement for the greater good of all. If Pat Robertson is going to heaven, then somewhere there's a line of fat camels parading through the eye of a needle.
The downside of this is that (a) it will never fly, and (b) there are small churches that would inevitably end up unfairly bearing the brunt of this kind of a lawsuit, because as always the well-funded are the best protected when it comes to lawyering up.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:20 PM on August 6, 2007
The downside of this is that (a) it will never fly, and (b) there are small churches that would inevitably end up unfairly bearing the brunt of this kind of a lawsuit, because as always the well-funded are the best protected when it comes to lawyering up.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:20 PM on August 6, 2007
Of course Christians are often generous.
Christians love linking to that study, because they love that it twists some facts to make it seem like Christians are just better people than those evil Christian-hating Liberals.
Some of it is true, but much of it is not. Much of the data on Conservatives comes from extremely biased samples that cause such skew as to render the comparisons silly at best.
There are other times where the significance level is adjusted for no obvious reason, except to hide a place where liberals outshine conservatives or to exaggerate a difference that is actually quite minor.
Further, many of the differences are well within the bounds of simple statistical error, but in those cases, no notation is made of this fact. Instead, they are simply presented with a number that is slightly larger than the other.
But perhaps most importantly, the book ignores the moderates, who by all accounts, are less generous with their time and money than both liberals and conservatives.
Unfortunately there's no money to be made in "proving" that you're better than the middle, but not really any different than your opponent, so that book won't ever make the bestseller list, like Arthur Brooks's more divisive tome designed to annoy the generous left, and inflate the egos of the conservative christians.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 12:24 PM on August 6, 2007
Christians love linking to that study, because they love that it twists some facts to make it seem like Christians are just better people than those evil Christian-hating Liberals.
Some of it is true, but much of it is not. Much of the data on Conservatives comes from extremely biased samples that cause such skew as to render the comparisons silly at best.
There are other times where the significance level is adjusted for no obvious reason, except to hide a place where liberals outshine conservatives or to exaggerate a difference that is actually quite minor.
Further, many of the differences are well within the bounds of simple statistical error, but in those cases, no notation is made of this fact. Instead, they are simply presented with a number that is slightly larger than the other.
But perhaps most importantly, the book ignores the moderates, who by all accounts, are less generous with their time and money than both liberals and conservatives.
Unfortunately there's no money to be made in "proving" that you're better than the middle, but not really any different than your opponent, so that book won't ever make the bestseller list, like Arthur Brooks's more divisive tome designed to annoy the generous left, and inflate the egos of the conservative christians.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 12:24 PM on August 6, 2007
Why does it seem like these things always have it out for Christians?
I'd make a second note that this (silly) lawsuit does not single out Christianity.
The only reason to think otherwise is if you, yourself, believe that Christianity is especially guilty of making false and misleading statements.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 12:31 PM on August 6, 2007
I'd make a second note that this (silly) lawsuit does not single out Christianity.
The only reason to think otherwise is if you, yourself, believe that Christianity is especially guilty of making false and misleading statements.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 12:31 PM on August 6, 2007
This is interesting stuff. Their essay on the color blue was a little time-cubey, but other than that they make a few good points.
Unfortunately, there is some pretty nasty generalization going on there as well.
For example - right now I'm working on a project involving the resettlement of several families of "1972 Burundian Refugees". I put that title in quotes because it's how they're commonly referred to. It's a pretty massive task - but anyone who has ever been involved in a mainline protestant church can tell you that refugee resettlement is something U.S. churches excel at. Nevertheless, this current project is unique, because rather than assigning individual churches to individual families (which quickly leads to burn-out on behalf of the congregations), PARA (Programs Assisting Refugee Aculturation) is encouraging various churches to team up to oversee the resettlement of several different families. For example, my church (Congregationalist UCC) is working with a Pentecostal Church, a Roman Catholic Church, and as of about a half hour ago, a Charismatic church (a megachurch). Each congregation is contributing what they can - whether it be food and furniture, or clothing, or cash to finance the apartments we're renting for these individuals. All four congregations have extremely divergent polities - I would have never though that I would be linking arms with Pentecostals and Charismatics, but there you go. When the need arises, we are actually able to live up to St. John's admonishment to "become one."
We've had two meetings so far - imagine, all these different sorts of Christians sitting and praying together for the success of these immigrants - very, very moving - and we're planning more. It has been a great success - the members have all given generously of their time and spirit, whether it be cash or simply a ride to the doctor's office or a donation of a couch or an old end-table.
Apparently, this website thinks my parishioners should sue me for the net value of the goods they have donated?
And I would hasten to add, that though I sent several letters and have even made requests in person, the local Freethought Association has yet to show up and work a single day at the AIDS clinic, or the shelter, or to give anything to the refugee families - they have made their presence known solely through their sponsorship of anti-religious debates and presentations and the screening of various documentaries. While I support their efforts (and their burgeoning membership) I would dearly love to see them prove their oft-toted claim that "religion holds no monopoly on morality." Of course, it is a moral claim that any religious individual should posit that it is the responsibility of the privileged to care for the poor (I know that I should never expect the Objectivists to work the soup kitchen) but as of yet I've never met a single outspoken atheist who has given a tenth of the service to their community that I see from the individuals at my church.
I should also add that I live in a very conservative section of the country - but that I do have many, many atheist friends. I'm sure there are other groups of atheists elsewhere who are great servants of their communities, I've just never had the privilege of seeing one in action. I'd like to.
In the meantime, I suppose they'll settle for suing us for the change in the poorbox.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:45 PM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, there is some pretty nasty generalization going on there as well.
For example - right now I'm working on a project involving the resettlement of several families of "1972 Burundian Refugees". I put that title in quotes because it's how they're commonly referred to. It's a pretty massive task - but anyone who has ever been involved in a mainline protestant church can tell you that refugee resettlement is something U.S. churches excel at. Nevertheless, this current project is unique, because rather than assigning individual churches to individual families (which quickly leads to burn-out on behalf of the congregations), PARA (Programs Assisting Refugee Aculturation) is encouraging various churches to team up to oversee the resettlement of several different families. For example, my church (Congregationalist UCC) is working with a Pentecostal Church, a Roman Catholic Church, and as of about a half hour ago, a Charismatic church (a megachurch). Each congregation is contributing what they can - whether it be food and furniture, or clothing, or cash to finance the apartments we're renting for these individuals. All four congregations have extremely divergent polities - I would have never though that I would be linking arms with Pentecostals and Charismatics, but there you go. When the need arises, we are actually able to live up to St. John's admonishment to "become one."
We've had two meetings so far - imagine, all these different sorts of Christians sitting and praying together for the success of these immigrants - very, very moving - and we're planning more. It has been a great success - the members have all given generously of their time and spirit, whether it be cash or simply a ride to the doctor's office or a donation of a couch or an old end-table.
Apparently, this website thinks my parishioners should sue me for the net value of the goods they have donated?
And I would hasten to add, that though I sent several letters and have even made requests in person, the local Freethought Association has yet to show up and work a single day at the AIDS clinic, or the shelter, or to give anything to the refugee families - they have made their presence known solely through their sponsorship of anti-religious debates and presentations and the screening of various documentaries. While I support their efforts (and their burgeoning membership) I would dearly love to see them prove their oft-toted claim that "religion holds no monopoly on morality." Of course, it is a moral claim that any religious individual should posit that it is the responsibility of the privileged to care for the poor (I know that I should never expect the Objectivists to work the soup kitchen) but as of yet I've never met a single outspoken atheist who has given a tenth of the service to their community that I see from the individuals at my church.
I should also add that I live in a very conservative section of the country - but that I do have many, many atheist friends. I'm sure there are other groups of atheists elsewhere who are great servants of their communities, I've just never had the privilege of seeing one in action. I'd like to.
In the meantime, I suppose they'll settle for suing us for the change in the poorbox.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:45 PM on August 6, 2007 [2 favorites]
This has to be a joke.
It's clear there are no lawyers involved in this as there is no lawsuit here. It seems like the idiots behind this took a business law class in undergrad or something and thought they had a case.
There is no cause of action here, despite their efforts to assert a vague deceptive trade practice claim. And the pleadings would be most certainly frivolous and sanctionable. To those of you who are still interesting, go for it. When the countersuit certainly comes and you are on the hook for the church's legal fees, I hope that good feeling you got is worth however much you are going to nailed for with a malicious prosecution claim.
posted by dios at 12:48 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's clear there are no lawyers involved in this as there is no lawsuit here. It seems like the idiots behind this took a business law class in undergrad or something and thought they had a case.
There is no cause of action here, despite their efforts to assert a vague deceptive trade practice claim. And the pleadings would be most certainly frivolous and sanctionable. To those of you who are still interesting, go for it. When the countersuit certainly comes and you are on the hook for the church's legal fees, I hope that good feeling you got is worth however much you are going to nailed for with a malicious prosecution claim.
posted by dios at 12:48 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
PIINM, It's not about hate, it's about deceptive marketing practices. Not all people who commit fraud hate. Not all who hate commit fraud.
Those who supported MLK knew what they were buying here in this world. And he delivered on his worldly promises. It's not fraud if you do what people pay you for. It's faud when you sell worthless trinkets & rob old ladies.
And people who practice their religion outside any organizational structure usually don't use fraud to get rich or support said structure.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:10 PM on August 6, 2007
Those who supported MLK knew what they were buying here in this world. And he delivered on his worldly promises. It's not fraud if you do what people pay you for. It's faud when you sell worthless trinkets & rob old ladies.
And people who practice their religion outside any organizational structure usually don't use fraud to get rich or support said structure.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:10 PM on August 6, 2007
I don't get it. How did Atheism make the list?
Top Offenders
(based on claims)
1. Christianity
2. Christianity - Televangelist
3. Atheism
4. Scientology
posted by Mr_Zero at 2:01 PM on August 6, 2007
Top Offenders
(based on claims)
1. Christianity
2. Christianity - Televangelist
3. Atheism
4. Scientology
posted by Mr_Zero at 2:01 PM on August 6, 2007
Next they are going to sue the makers of Axe Body Spray because it doesn't really make girls chase you down the street.
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:21 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:21 PM on August 6, 2007
I'm going to sue for the near-seizure inducing purple text on gray background. Jesus.
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 2:22 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 2:22 PM on August 6, 2007
Divorced couples can't leave each other alone. Lapsed fundamentalists can't quit making blogs.
posted by roll truck roll at 2:24 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by roll truck roll at 2:24 PM on August 6, 2007
If it's a joke, then it's a good one. Otherwise:
Victimist powers, activate!
posted by oncogenesis at 2:47 PM on August 6, 2007
Victimist powers, activate!
posted by oncogenesis at 2:47 PM on August 6, 2007
What the hell is the essay Baby_Balrog references above about the colour blue all about? Mightily confused me as the rest of site seemed simple enough in motivation.
posted by Gratishades at 2:52 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by Gratishades at 2:52 PM on August 6, 2007
A citation to United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) should suffice to dismiss this case, though doubtless there are many post-Ballard lower court cases throwing out private fraud suits against ministers and churches based on the same reasoning.
Here's the relevant passage, penned by Justice Douglas. I've split up Douglas's monster paragraph into multiple paragraphs for ease of reading:
"[W]e do not agree that the truth or verity of respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury. Whatever this particular indictment might require, the First Amendment precludes such a course, as the United States seems to concede. 'The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.' Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728, 20 L.Ed. 666.
"The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only 'forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship' but also 'safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.' Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. 'Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.' Id., 310 U.S. at pages 303, 304, 60 S.Ct. at page 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. West Virginia State Board of Education by Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628, 147 A.L.R. 674. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law.
"Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom.
"The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious
views.
"The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding
their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religiion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 891, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81.
"As stated in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342, 10 S.Ct. 299, 300, 33 L.Ed. 637. 'With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.' See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438.
"So we conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents."
posted by saslett at 3:02 PM on August 6, 2007
Here's the relevant passage, penned by Justice Douglas. I've split up Douglas's monster paragraph into multiple paragraphs for ease of reading:
"[W]e do not agree that the truth or verity of respondents' religious doctrines or beliefs should have been submitted to the jury. Whatever this particular indictment might require, the First Amendment precludes such a course, as the United States seems to concede. 'The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.' Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 728, 20 L.Ed. 666.
"The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only 'forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship' but also 'safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion.' Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. 'Thus the Amendment embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.' Id., 310 U.S. at pages 303, 304, 60 S.Ct. at page 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352. Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. West Virginia State Board of Education by Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628, 147 A.L.R. 674. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law.
"Many take their gospel from the New Testament. But it would hardly be supposed that they could be tried before a jury charged with the duty of determining whether those teachings contained false representations. The miracles of the New Testament, the Divinity of Christ, life after death, the power of prayer are deep in the religious convictions of many. If one could be sent to jail because a jury in a hostile environment found those teachings false, little indeed would be left of religious freedom.
"The Fathers of the Constitution were not unaware of the varied and extreme views of religious sects, of the violence of disagreement among them, and of the lack of any one religious creed on which all men would agree. They fashioned a charter of government which envisaged the widest possible toleration of conflicting views. Man's relation to his God was made no concern of the state. He was granted the right to worship as he pleased and to answer to no man for the verity of his religious
views.
"The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding
their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religiion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 891, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81.
"As stated in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 342, 10 S.Ct. 299, 300, 33 L.Ed. 637. 'With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.' See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S.Ct. 438.
"So we conclude that the District Court ruled properly when it withheld from the jury all questions concerning the truth or falsity of the religious beliefs or doctrines of respondents."
posted by saslett at 3:02 PM on August 6, 2007
Great site.
And what seems to be an ever increasing number of overly credulous Mefites are out in full force...
posted by Ricky_gr10 at 3:09 PM on August 6, 2007
And what seems to be an ever increasing number of overly credulous Mefites are out in full force...
posted by Ricky_gr10 at 3:09 PM on August 6, 2007
Of course Christians are often generous.
Is the guy who allows tithing given to a church as a charitable donation? Utah, for example, is often cited as the most charitable state (by tax records) but then comes in dead last by far when comparing non-tithing donations.
posted by Brian B. at 3:34 PM on August 6, 2007
Is the guy who allows tithing given to a church as a charitable donation? Utah, for example, is often cited as the most charitable state (by tax records) but then comes in dead last by far when comparing non-tithing donations.
posted by Brian B. at 3:34 PM on August 6, 2007
...but to malign all religion based on just the haters is kinda fucked up. I mean MLK was a pastor so...
Similarly, to unmalign all religion based on just the saints is also wrong.
It comes down to this: What has religion, as a whole and in an of itself, done for us?
Nothing.
Sure, it had some side effects and good people. But the basic idea--that you can navigate the world just by "having faith" that the next world exists--is harmful. Period.
posted by DU at 4:21 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
Similarly, to unmalign all religion based on just the saints is also wrong.
It comes down to this: What has religion, as a whole and in an of itself, done for us?
Nothing.
Sure, it had some side effects and good people. But the basic idea--that you can navigate the world just by "having faith" that the next world exists--is harmful. Period.
posted by DU at 4:21 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying don't criticize it I'm just saying reactionary reductive arguments against religion are best left in the high school cafeteria.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 6:15 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 6:15 PM on August 6, 2007
On the contrary, I think it is far past the time to stop continuing taking religion seriously. Nobody uses anything but "reactionary reductive arguments" against flat earth theories, for instance. That's because flat earth theories are obviously false and no rational person believes them. Other long-obsolete myths deserve the same respect.
posted by DU at 6:20 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by DU at 6:20 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yeah so radical right wingers act stupid ergo so should we!
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 7:03 PM on August 6, 2007
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 7:03 PM on August 6, 2007
I think the best chance of taking down the larger religious organisms comes from prosecuting their legitimate criminal activities. The Roman Catholic Los Angeles Archdiocese is going to have to shell out $660 million dollars (pinky finger to corner of mouth) for systematically sheltering child molesters from prosecution. If only there was some way to take them to court for the Spanish Inquisition...
When it's all said and done, this idea of theirs (mass small claims) will fail. People want religion, and they don't give a fuck if it's obviously a fairy tale. You could produce an essay penned by Constantine himself admitting that Jesus was a fabrication amalgamated from Esus, Krishna, and some Mithraism thrown in, and not a single christian would stop believing.
If God revealed he wasn't real, people would kill him and imagine up a new one. People don't want to stop believing in fables just because they've grow up.
posted by mullingitover at 8:27 PM on August 6, 2007
When it's all said and done, this idea of theirs (mass small claims) will fail. People want religion, and they don't give a fuck if it's obviously a fairy tale. You could produce an essay penned by Constantine himself admitting that Jesus was a fabrication amalgamated from Esus, Krishna, and some Mithraism thrown in, and not a single christian would stop believing.
If God revealed he wasn't real, people would kill him and imagine up a new one. People don't want to stop believing in fables just because they've grow up.
posted by mullingitover at 8:27 PM on August 6, 2007
It comes down to this: What has religion, as a whole and in an of itself, done for us?
Nothing.
what has science, as a whole and in and of itself, done for us?
nothing
what has the alphabet, as a whole and in and of itself, done for us?
nothing
hey, i can take ANYTHING out of its social and cultural context and claim that it's useless! ... that is because if you take something as a whole and in and of itself, there is no us or doing for us to consider, is there? ... because once you ask about us, you're no longer taking it as a whole and in and of itself, are you?
and you thought you were being clever
posted by pyramid termite at 8:36 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
Nothing.
what has science, as a whole and in and of itself, done for us?
nothing
what has the alphabet, as a whole and in and of itself, done for us?
nothing
hey, i can take ANYTHING out of its social and cultural context and claim that it's useless! ... that is because if you take something as a whole and in and of itself, there is no us or doing for us to consider, is there? ... because once you ask about us, you're no longer taking it as a whole and in and of itself, are you?
and you thought you were being clever
posted by pyramid termite at 8:36 PM on August 6, 2007 [1 favorite]
PIINM, It's not about hate, it's about deceptive marketing practices.
it's not about deceptive marketing practices ... or principles ... or anything else but what most lawsuits are about
money
posted by pyramid termite at 8:37 PM on August 6, 2007
it's not about deceptive marketing practices ... or principles ... or anything else but what most lawsuits are about
money
posted by pyramid termite at 8:37 PM on August 6, 2007
mulling & p.t., I don't think the point is to win money, you'd use class action suits to minimize lawyer costs there. The point may be just to raise awareness of current unacceptably-fraudy religious practices.
In fact winning cases is quite realistic in many EU countries, but they've included the U.S. too dispite U.S. vs. Ballard. Te me, this suggests that they just want lots of press about religious fraud (or their just crazy).
posted by jeffburdges at 9:27 PM on August 6, 2007
In fact winning cases is quite realistic in many EU countries, but they've included the U.S. too dispite U.S. vs. Ballard. Te me, this suggests that they just want lots of press about religious fraud (or their just crazy).
posted by jeffburdges at 9:27 PM on August 6, 2007
How can it be fraud when it's so blatantly false?
Invisible sky wizard loves us unconditionally, and so sends us to burn in hell. He warns us that sex is filthy and dirty, and we should save it for the one we love most.
The premises are absurd enough before you even start to dig into the history. It's like kids suing their parents over the tooth fairy and santa claus. If you actually believe it, you should be institutionalized. Having some money swindled from you is getting off easy.
posted by mullingitover at 9:40 PM on August 6, 2007
Invisible sky wizard loves us unconditionally, and so sends us to burn in hell. He warns us that sex is filthy and dirty, and we should save it for the one we love most.
The premises are absurd enough before you even start to dig into the history. It's like kids suing their parents over the tooth fairy and santa claus. If you actually believe it, you should be institutionalized. Having some money swindled from you is getting off easy.
posted by mullingitover at 9:40 PM on August 6, 2007
I don't think the point is to win money, you'd use class action suits to minimize lawyer costs there.
do you have any idea what lawyers get for a successful class action suit? ... the phrase "win the lottery" comes to mind
posted by pyramid termite at 9:46 PM on August 6, 2007
do you have any idea what lawyers get for a successful class action suit? ... the phrase "win the lottery" comes to mind
posted by pyramid termite at 9:46 PM on August 6, 2007
what has science, as a whole and in and of itself, done for us?
nothing
Kidding, right? The essential core of science is a reliable method of finding out stuff about the world. That has done plenty for us.
The essential core of the alphabet is representing sounds in a physical medium combinatorially. Very useful.
The essential core of religion is believing things despite a lack of, or even in the face of, evidence. Not so much.
posted by DU at 4:33 AM on August 7, 2007
nothing
Kidding, right? The essential core of science is a reliable method of finding out stuff about the world. That has done plenty for us.
The essential core of the alphabet is representing sounds in a physical medium combinatorially. Very useful.
The essential core of religion is believing things despite a lack of, or even in the face of, evidence. Not so much.
posted by DU at 4:33 AM on August 7, 2007
Kidding, right?
no ... the whole point, which you're deliberately missing, is that you're taking religion out of its social and cultural context and then judging it
The essential core of science is a reliable method of finding out stuff about the world. That has done plenty for us.
and the minute you say "that has done plenty for us" you have stopped considering science "as a whole and in and of itself"
you're not being logical or consistent
The essential core of religion is believing things despite a lack of, or even in the face of, evidence.
according to who? you? ... actually, there's the little bit about how people should live and treat each other, too, if you haven't noticed, among many other things ... some of which have influenced things like the alphabet and science ... we wouldn't have much of either if it weren't for monasteries
that's historical fact and no, you don't get to brush it off
posted by pyramid termite at 5:52 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
no ... the whole point, which you're deliberately missing, is that you're taking religion out of its social and cultural context and then judging it
The essential core of science is a reliable method of finding out stuff about the world. That has done plenty for us.
and the minute you say "that has done plenty for us" you have stopped considering science "as a whole and in and of itself"
you're not being logical or consistent
The essential core of religion is believing things despite a lack of, or even in the face of, evidence.
according to who? you? ... actually, there's the little bit about how people should live and treat each other, too, if you haven't noticed, among many other things ... some of which have influenced things like the alphabet and science ... we wouldn't have much of either if it weren't for monasteries
that's historical fact and no, you don't get to brush it off
posted by pyramid termite at 5:52 AM on August 7, 2007 [2 favorites]
...we wouldn't have much of either if it weren't for monasteries...
This would be like judging the influence of chemistry based on the quality of lab glassware. Irrelevant.
Something similar to monastaries can exist without religion. Religion cannot exist without the idea of "faith".
Similarly for "how people should live and treat each other". This is a philosophy (or something). Atheists have ideas on living together, you know.
posted by DU at 6:52 AM on August 7, 2007
This would be like judging the influence of chemistry based on the quality of lab glassware. Irrelevant.
Something similar to monastaries can exist without religion. Religion cannot exist without the idea of "faith".
Similarly for "how people should live and treat each other". This is a philosophy (or something). Atheists have ideas on living together, you know.
posted by DU at 6:52 AM on August 7, 2007
the problem with the argument you're making it is that it requires willful ignorance of 2,000 years of western history
Something similar to monastaries can exist without religion.
which is not about what "can exist" but what DID exist
note that i'm not the one who's bringing hypotheticals into this
but i've pointed out the flaw in your logic, already, and you've yet to refute it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:13 AM on August 7, 2007
Something similar to monastaries can exist without religion.
which is not about what "can exist" but what DID exist
note that i'm not the one who's bringing hypotheticals into this
but i've pointed out the flaw in your logic, already, and you've yet to refute it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:13 AM on August 7, 2007
Let's say my neighbor is really great with his kids. He mows his lawn twice a week, throws block parties, chats over the fence--the whole suburban nine yards. Then he murders his wife.
So are murderers good or bad?
Now you could reasonably say "but that good stuff wasn't because he was a murderer." Yeah, exactly my point. The good stuff that has come out of religion, which I 100% acknowledge existing, wasn't because of the basic insanity of "faith" either.
Whereas the good stuff that has come out of science and the alphabet are exactly because of what science and the alphabet are. Science is a tool to find out the truth about the world. Because of that tool, we know more about the truth of the world.
posted by DU at 9:57 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
So are murderers good or bad?
Now you could reasonably say "but that good stuff wasn't because he was a murderer." Yeah, exactly my point. The good stuff that has come out of religion, which I 100% acknowledge existing, wasn't because of the basic insanity of "faith" either.
Whereas the good stuff that has come out of science and the alphabet are exactly because of what science and the alphabet are. Science is a tool to find out the truth about the world. Because of that tool, we know more about the truth of the world.
posted by DU at 9:57 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
Based on this and other discussions, DU, I'm not very sure you even know what religion is.
posted by roll truck roll at 10:03 AM on August 7, 2007
posted by roll truck roll at 10:03 AM on August 7, 2007
DU has evolved beyond religion. He is overman - faith in something greater than the human will is a weakness of the peasantry.
People who have genuinely experienced some sort of transcendent revelation are simply deluded. I mean, why isn't this obvious to everyone other than DU? It surely couldn't be because his premises are false. Never fear, DU - your faith shall guide you, your militant denial of the hidden architecture shall be a lamp unto your feet - the wonders of science have clearly laid bare the foundations of reality and have explained all that can be explained. All that is left is to profit and die happy.
I would wish you Godspeed, or good luck at the very least - but your narrow little world leaves no room for either of these things.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:39 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
People who have genuinely experienced some sort of transcendent revelation are simply deluded. I mean, why isn't this obvious to everyone other than DU? It surely couldn't be because his premises are false. Never fear, DU - your faith shall guide you, your militant denial of the hidden architecture shall be a lamp unto your feet - the wonders of science have clearly laid bare the foundations of reality and have explained all that can be explained. All that is left is to profit and die happy.
I would wish you Godspeed, or good luck at the very least - but your narrow little world leaves no room for either of these things.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:39 AM on August 7, 2007 [1 favorite]
The good stuff that has come out of religion, which I 100% acknowledge existing, wasn't because of the basic insanity of "faith" either.
not having the experience of faith, how can you know that? ... in any case, in spite of your clumsy analogy, you've basically conceded my point with this acknowledgement, so i'm through
posted by pyramid termite at 8:20 PM on August 7, 2007
not having the experience of faith, how can you know that? ... in any case, in spite of your clumsy analogy, you've basically conceded my point with this acknowledgement, so i'm through
posted by pyramid termite at 8:20 PM on August 7, 2007
« Older As long as the mind is enslaved, the body can... | Irving Sandler Artist File, a good way to search... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by klangklangston at 11:37 AM on August 6, 2007