Quote:
|
Quote by: italiangm Except they do so by comparing two entirely subjective sets of beliefs. This may meet your personal standard for dishonesty, but I doubt it fulfills the legal standard. |
No they do it by applying two different standards. When you examine most supernatural religions they are all very similar in regards their standards for acceptance. In order to claim religion "A" is "true" and religion "B" is not you must apply two different standards. This practice in and of itself should cause any rational person to at least suspect both claims. They **ought** to know that their claim is at least suspect.
Quote:
|
Except no damage is sustained. There were no donations/tithes misused by fiduciaries. There are no parishoners receiving damages for time lost while unknowingly committing a crime perpetrated by a religious leader. Where's the injury?
|
Some people think that wasting half or more of their life on a superstition is great damage. I would concur. You can file for damages based on what you might have accomplished if you had not been damaged. If supernatural religion wants to keep clear of this problem then they should stop proselytizing forthwith. If they ain't selling it then there are no buyers. But they better be careful that they are not attractive nuisances either.
Quote:
|
I'm not convinced. Any caselaw to support your assertion? Or will you be first?
|
None that I am aware of but as far as I can tell it could very well be an entirely new legal precedent. It was not all that long ago where I would have been severely punished for even mentioning any of this. There are still places in the world where I would be punished for it to this very day. Give it time. In any case fraud is fraud.
Starboy