X-Message-Number: 26389 From: Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:48:33 EDT Subject: Sueing religion for unsubstantiated claims...great concept! In a message dated 6/24/2005 5:00:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, writes: Perhaps the disclaimers could be something like: "We only hope for these things that we talk about, we cannot guarantee them." "We have been wrong in the past on certain items, we may be wrong again, but we hope we are not." "Individual results may vary." "No human can speak for God, (if he or she exists), we can only present our best impressions of what we think Gop thinks." "There is a lot as stake here, we suggest you check out other options." Religions are, after all, big businesses that do take in lots of money. Why should they be allowed to make unsubstantiated claims any more than a company selling nutritional supplements, or offering health care, or selling automobiles? Cigarettes? Fast Food? Further, if my scenario above turns out to be true, religions are doing more harm than any other entity today. They are costing people their chance at very long lives. Even if we did not prevail in court at the present time, the publicity would be enormous (if done right) and would cause people to think. The results could help many people. David Hello, David and others... Well...we finally have another great thread on Cryonet! Thanks to the courageous and creative mind of David Pizer, we now have an interesting way to garner publicity and provide that those who make "extraordinary claims" simply provide at least a shred of evidence for these claims. What a concept! As a investment and insurance broker, I work in a highly regulated industry. Any claims or representations I make MUST be accurate, i.e. verifiably and independently correct. And, in addition, there are STILL onerous requirements and stipulations on my activities and claims by regulators such as the SEC, NASD, and various state regulatory bodies. (The pettiness and lack of common sense some of these beaurocrats display is truly awful...but that point is a digression from this discussion.) For example, I am disallowed from doing such a simple and straightforward thing as placing accurate endorsement statements on my website. While it would be accurate and smart marketing for me to reprint some of the great comments my clients write to me, I am disallowed from doing this by the SEC. So, we have a situation where I can't reprint a simple, accurate personal experience a client has actually had, like, "Thank you for you prompt and cost effective service. You provided conciege level service at a great price, and it has been a pleasure to do business with you." Contrast this with the unregulated world of charlatans and con men who inhabit the religious arena. These yahoos extort money from folks by telling them lies, falsehoods, unsubstantiated superstitions, and threats. And, not only are they not prosecuted, but it is considered socially unacceptable to even be CRITICAL of them! Billy Graham, for instance, was listed among the hundred most admired Americans on a recent Learning Channel poll. Does anyone else see the enormous disconnect here? We hold people accountable for making unprovable, speculative, potentially damaging claims in most areas. If I am a scientist, and make stuff up without independently verifiable research, and make claims on this, I am vilified by my community. If I am a financial planner or investment broker, and I shade the truth, or repeatedly make unsubstantiated claims, I should, will, and can be held accountable for the damage my statements have caused. But religionists are held to a different standard, it seems. Or perhaps to no standard. The promulgators of the afterlife explanations are not expected to provide any proof at all. Instead, they put the onus on US, to unquestioningly accept their worldview, on FAITH! And fault us if we don't have enough faith. What a pernicious and upside down state of affairs this truly is! We prosecute con men in other arenas...financial, science, education. We vilify phonies when they are smelled out, and hold them to public shame and humiliation. But, put on the cloak of religion, and make similar wild and outlandish claims...and you are given a free pass! You get the accolades of millions, as the pope and Billy Graham does... So, yes, David...I think a lawsuit is a very interesting idea. This would need to be handled impeccably, of course. Other ideas? For Centuries, Rudi Hoffman Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26389