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