Religion and Commerce

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Thu Feb 28, 2013 7:08 am

For my take on things, Moreno, that's the errant direction I am not discussing.
Whereas you are thinking of laws holding the theologies and philosophies at question of harm, I am referring to practitioners leading people directly in prescription.

This is why I said before that it is not comparable to a philosophical book where one gathers ideas from.

There is a vast difference between me being your spiritual leader and telling you something that you need to do in practice, in good faith that I have your safety in mind, that returns to you harm, and you picking up a religious text of some form and determining outcomes on your own from it.

This wasn't a book, or a removed instance of capacity of intimacy, but instead direct intimacy of me prescribing to you what your actions should be and those actions that I conveyed to you to do, returning harm unto you.

In no means is this a question of the theological or philosophical capacity for conveyance, but instead a question against the actions contracted between two parties in good faith, that render damages or harm to the recipient party of the good faith social contract.

You can't make a direct social contract using a book in nearly the same way as a direct spiritual leader conducts among their followers, and there in lies the difference.
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby anon » Thu Feb 28, 2013 4:49 pm

Moreno,

I’m not sure, but I think you may be misreading my intention here. I’m not attacking religion. I’m witnessing in the news a broadening sense of the attempt and ability to hold religions (and psychics, etc.) accountable for some of their claims – in ways that have traditionally been considered off-limits because of the separation of church and state. Though most or all of the responses here have been to discuss this as a political issue (“get those damn religionists” or “leave me alone”), I didn’t intend for that to be the topic. The topic I intended was to take this political direction as a fact, and then consider what it will mean for religious beliefs and claims. That’s why I posted this in the religion forum rather than the social sciences forum. It’s about NOMA, basically. Is it right or wrong to make false claims with positive intentions? How much metaphysical speculation, whether of the creative sort or the traditional sort, is beneficial? If the political climate changed so thoroughly that it became impossible to make speculative assertions, would that fundamentally cripple various religions? Or could that be seen as a positive thing, forcing religions to concentrate on their essential points? One major thing to consider is this: people don’t give much money to organizations that just preach kindness and mercy. The money usually comes in when there’s some spectacular cosmology and mythology involved, that satisfies some kind of craving that people have. Does that mean that making money is the reason for a certain cosmology? Not at all.

Anon,
since you are a Buddhist, imagine if the claims for the extinction of suffering were used as a basis for lawsuits against Buddhist meditation centers - who would in most cases refer, at least, to texts where this is stated as an end state of devoted practice. That this was taken as a false claim. Certainly Buddhists could fight this with evidence around the benefits of meditation, but these fall far short of scriptural claims.

There would also be inroads around anatma - my son was freaked out for a year that he had no real self - rebirth, karma, or even the benefits of sitting there 'doing nothing'. Should someone be allowed to sue if they felt they had wasted five years of serious meditation if they felt they were still suffering, perhaps even more and their knees were shot?

Imagine also if relatives of a practicing Buddhist claimed that the meditation and the philosophy had made their child, parent, spouse more detached, more judgmental of other people who 'did not control their emotions enough' or 'were too driven by desire' or had become apathetic in relation to politics or even family tragedies since these were seen as karmic events and strong emotional reactions as in some way pathological.

And when can I sue the makers of 'common sense' and middlebrow philosophies out there who have so much power and are so clueless?

I imagine all these things, which is why I’m discussing this. Again, I think you’ve misconstrued my OP as an attack on religion. It’s hard to know why this misunderstanding would happen, when I explicitly state that I am religious.

Should we really be able to sue the writer of a book - a product one purchases - who says that poor people if they make the effort can achieve any economic goals? Should a working poor mother with a couple of jobs, who does try on the beliefs in such a book, does not succeed, and feels a lot of shame and increased loss of self-esteem until a good friend tells her the book is BS and she decides sue the asshole for two years of lowered self-esteem?

It seems like you are trying to make this into a black and white issue, an all or nothing scenario. I’ve tried to point out that culpability is nearly always considered as a matter of degree. Judges and juries look at multiple factors and considerations. I’m not sure why you don’t see it that way – you rejected an example I brought up illustrating this point. I mean, it’s not like the Angolan church was accused of murder.

As far as I can tell I am surrounded by religious claims - they are implicit and very, very effective, using the latest cognitive science and extremely high level consultants in the advertising, they are being sold as common sense, as the way things are through the news, through books, through teachers in public and private schools - hence services paid for either directly or through taxes....

Much of these religious claims - and by this I mean philosophical claims based on the intuition of the believers - in secular society.

Do you think I should be able to bring these people to court if I have suffered from their half baked, manipulative, philosophically sloppy and often quite damaging philosophies?

This will clearly radically rearrange rights to free speech, much as I would love to sue and criminally prosecute a great many 'experts' out there, and not just for religious institutions and people.

Personally I would begin with the Neo cons and the advertisers...

I am rather excited right now thinking of it.....but....
I think it's a bad idea.

(and with advertising, I am not talking so much about the kinds of lies consumers do have some rights around, I am talking about the false philosophies of what the world is, what a person is, what one should hide, what one should be like, what is real, what is not....that advertisers create. And sure, our conscious minds may know much of this is BS - though many fall for it even there - but unconsciously these images and stories are very effective, much more effective than a lecture would be. And for the neo-cons, I want to sue them over the invisible hand of the free market.)

Again, I think there are differences of degree in the kind of claims that get made. It seems somewhat nihilistic to think of all claims, of all kinds, as essentially the same in the eyes of the law (or of anyone). It reminds me of the Christian notion that all sins are the same in the eyes of God – I think such an idea is a misguided. As I mentioned before, I think most of us agree that certain kinds of religious leader can be shown to be so greedy, self-serving, manipulative, etc. that when combined with some kind of claim, it is easy to hold them accountable for their actions according to the standards of any sane society. There is a point where “the separation of church and state” can afford no more protection.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby anon » Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:32 pm

Moreno,

Moreno wrote:
anon wrote:I think it’s reasonable to place blame on the conscious lying and manipulation that contributed to the death of 16 people due to greed – even if it’s that special kind of greed that can be defended as “doing what it takes to keep on doing (some other) good”.
Would the same hold true if I said there was going to be a great concert, but in fact the concert sucked. I don't think you could ask for extra damages - if there was a similar stampede and deaths - due to the cynical promises of the concert promoters.

Didn’t we already discuss chickens or something? My answer to all these examples is that it has to do with an overall picture that is formed when weighing the evidence in a case. If a killing isn’t automatically a murder, why would an unfulfilled promise automatically be a scam? And even if “murder” or “scam” are judged to be the case, there is still a large variety of outcomes, with respect to suitable punishments, etc.

I don’t think so, in general. The nature of the claims is completely different. A politician claims to try and do what he can to solve messy problems, and his power is inherently compromised.
Politicians make claims that they will do things they then do not do. These can be easy to track. Of course new situations arise, but these could just as easily be evaluated by the courts, since they must often evaluate extremely complicated contexts and their effects on the agents involved.

Politicians make claims about the effects of a policy they are trying to convince the public is a good one, often without divulging there own cynical interests or who has lobbied them and who the real benefactors are. Nafta and GAtt are good examples. It was clear that US jobs would be lost to any rational analyst and the lobbying was clearly coming from those who would gain, corporations. The exact processes that ended up taking place and the effects on the jobs and wages of US citizens came to pass as the critics predicted. Of course some politicians believed the BS and had their hearts in the right place, but there were key politicians who lied, earned money via campaign contributions and later positions in industry.

And they can be held accountable for these things. Are you just trying to say why discuss this in a religious context when you think politicians and corporations are a bigger problem?

Read again what that church claimed. Maybe it’s because we’re so used to such claims that we can’t see them with fresh eyes and see how completely disgusting they are.
Sure, the claims are ridiculous. But that is part of my reaction to the OP. Here we have an example that is the exception rather than the rule. Most of the major religions would not make claims anything like this. Most of the minor ones also. Buddhism might be the only one that makes claims so directly, but there the adherent is expected to make a lifelong committment to serious practice before their suffering will be eliminated (or not be the same problem it was).

So part of my reaction was that the OP could be seen as implicitly arguing this example is a good general one.

I thought the OP was fairly clear that it is an example of a trend I see happening – a trend of holding religions accountable for their claims. I never claimed that the example was typical of churches.

I don't think it is. Here they were making specific secular claims. Ending misery could be interpreted fairly broadly and subtley and they might be able to slide away from that one in the way a Buddhist might. But unenemployment? Nah. And I cannot imagine most religions having a big meeting where if you come you are guanteed a job will arise in your life. Maybe the Na Myo ho Renge Kyo people come some steps in that direction, but most, not even close.

Yes, I think the biggest issue is when religious claims intersect with the real world. Claims about healing, for instance. This isn’t a black and white issue though – positive thinking has been shown to help people heal. Prayer too, if I’m not mistaken. But I think it’s important to be guarded about the kinds of results that can be expected. I think it’s wrong to make spectacular claims about such things.

It depends. There are various factors and pieces of the puzzle that lead to any judgment of culpability. The various aspects of the situation present an overall picture – it is on the basis of such an overall picture that some decision is made. This is almost always true. For instance, criminals who provide strong evidence of a harsh upbringing will often receive a lesser sentence – in effect, more forgiveness.
I don't think that's really a parallel.

Why not? It’s an example of how “various factors and pieces of the puzzle …lead to any judgment of culpability”. I have no idea why you object to this.

And? Are you saying that they should be held accountable for false claims? Interestingly, police departments have been known to consult psychics to help find missing persons.
Oh I believe some people are full on psyhics. I would want to see the power brokers in society held accountable for their claims and actions first. To me false psychics are a low priority.

I’m not engaging in activism here, so I have no idea why you keep bringing up priorities.

I think maybe you misunderstood what I was referring to. Let’s take noble lies. This psychic may have changed her client’s jar of water to black using some additive. But maybe she knew something about this relative and used this deception in order to give good advice. And that advice just happened to cost a hell of a lot of money. So… was this deception legal? And, whether legal or not, was it right? Was it a good thing to do?
It might have been a good thing to do.

Ok, so you’re not against noble lies. Me neither, to be honest. But would you allow a juice manufacturer to tell white lies on their products, in order to get people to drink juice rather than soda? This thread is about the intersection of religion and commerce. That’s the topic.

Perspective is fine, but this subject happens to be what I decided to post about.
Sure. You don't have to respond to my broadening issue questions. I explain a bit more why I raise them in response to Jayson. But to sum it up quickly...I think this line of reasoning will not make a dent on the dominator religions - if, say, it were to lead to laws and policy. It will certainly not touch any of the major secular players either who are causing damage and selling garbage. What it will do however, I would guess, is end up being a part of attacks on players who have relatively little power. IOW it will become a tool of oppression, though certainly in some cases will target assholes or dangerous idiots. I've seen how similar lines of reasoning have led to the suppression of alternative health care that worked as well or better than mainstream medicine, even leading to the incarceration of doctors successful at treating certain diseases.

The powerful escape the application, those not so powerful do not and do not have it fairly applied.

To me the power context is critical.

That’s probably a fair assessment. Though I wouldn’t underestimate the ambitions of the people who are most interested in taking things in this direction.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Moreno » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:47 pm

I've made a partial pretty disorganized case against the implied proposal, but rather than do what might be seen as hijack the thread I will not post at least for a while, check in later and see where it has gone.

It is an interesting OP. I should have said that earlier.
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby anon » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:08 am

Thanks for contributing, Moreno. Come back any time. Your views always resonate with me.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby The Golden Turd » Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:55 am

I'm not getting swept up into a 'culture is changing, becoming more evolved, or is on a cognitive-education tipping point of a more enlightened age' debate, as it more or less encompasses a sectarian viewpoint, and every sect, no matter or 'religious' or 'atheists' are thinking they are the next big wave, while at the same time lamenting how they are threatened or declining- which is blah. Men are today as they were yesterday, and will be much the same tomorrow. Evolution doesn't happen that quickly, but our natural viewpoints always seem so special, informed, and bias towards itself. This is for me and everyone else.

I think in the original OP, the Ugandan government was certainly justified for shutting down for a period of review- from a perspective of safety, the large scale meetups FOR A LIMITED TIME- which 60 days is realistic, for large gatherings, but the church as a whole, no. Not household of chapel gatherings, but large ones like this that clearly turned fucked up in the end- it's hard to get trampled from 12 people in a living room escaping because the curtain catches fire. Is it a infringement on our religious freedoms? Yep, but one that isn't permanent, is quite short term, and is for the long term safety of the members from dying under such stupid circumstances.

This is going to involve the equivelent of a fire marshall looking at the cold facts of ingress and egress in and out of large events, how emergency crews will respond, and responsibilities of necessary security and police forces to coral people from violent, life ending panic when something accidentally goes wrong.

Yes, a Church, Mosque, tree shine, temple, or even a university class room or legion's standard can be designated as sacred and untouchable- but we also have to remember the Church in the west isn't designed after a Synagogue, but roman Basilica- a market place where men would walk around, buying goods- very similar to a indoor bazaar. It's completely rational and acceptible to say 'upper limit is this' incase something happens, like a priest's robe catches onfire, stumbling around in flames infront of a scared parishioners. It's a structure like any other.

This other monkey babble, such as Irrelius bringing in taxation- imposing his 'atheistic spiritualism'- religion by any other name- over more formal gatherings of the more established religious- has nothing to do with the safety of people in attendance to anything. It's a safety issue, and we gotta take this into account as our main understanding. If your congregation is considered too large to fit inside of the church, consider it a complement and start looking to build a second site somewhere. This goes for any group meeting up, not just religious.

Fire Marshalls, and hiring competent security, could of solved this. It has nothing to do with commerce. Uganda is a former british colony, and certainly has similar liability clauses that exist in other formerly british nations. This isn't hard to figure out. Big groups of people do stupid stuff, it's been known since Aeneas the Tactician first wrote on this in his work 'On the Defense of the Fortified City'.... the rule for the last 2400 years in the western world has been making sure groups are guarded and coordinated by informed guards when mass hysteria takes place.

This got jack to do with religion. It was never a religious question- as I've pointed to it's origins in Aeneas' work. No special cults, no antagonisms between church, ideology, or state. It's literally that simple.

No further debate about religion, or commerce- it's not applicable. It never was, and the case can't be rationally be made from this perspective. It's a done story, we've known for ages how to solve this one. It's stupid simple, and God isn't to blame for it. Our capacity to panic and react to others panicking is. The need for government to insure it's population isn't systematically knocked off from panic. A backdoor sneak attack on religion is completely unwarranted, as I can easily point out countless scenarios were non-religious meetups turned out even worst. This is just a backdoor sneak attack by the less than honest to tear a hole into group meetings by those you despise for whatever petty bias. Rest assured, your viewpoint probably won't be around in a few generations, so your angst will not last. Not saying all men will become religious, or vice versa- but I doubt this petty positioning will exist as it does not in five or six generations. It doesn't work, isn't conductive on any side, and is a big dead end that needlessly antagonizes groups of men against other groups of men who have more in common than they care to admit.

Fire Marshals, if large groups, use security. If you need help getting information on how to figure out how many people is safe, email me- no matter what country, ideology, or religious creed you are, and I will find someone local to you, or will hook you up with a competent means to figure out the formulas on your own in countries with no such offices to guide you. I can also explain to you how to set up a competent security force that can manage crowds. In Uganda, Mongolia, Tajikistan, wherever. If you can read this, and are in doubt, PM me, and I'll get back to you. Don't do something stupid like ban religion because of a crowd stampede, or ban education because of a school stampede, or ban food because of a supermarket stampede. It's the most thickheaded and prejudice course you can go, and doesn't resolve anything. Short term banning until you figure this out- which will take days at most, is okay for complex locations. Don't do this to philosophy clubs or church clubs meeting up by the dozen in a house of cafe because you dislike it.

This discussion is over. It's bullshit to continue on. Read Aeneas the Tactician, which is now online, for better insight if anyone gets confused.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Fri Mar 01, 2013 5:18 am

Anon,

I know you were interested in where commerce, in the form of money, crosses religion. However, to me, this is already well regulated in most societies.
It's not terribly interesting to me, as the matter of leverage is at hand in that an exchange of money occurred and thereby offers a tangible handle to pliably work around in law.

Where I find it fascinating and difficult is where money isn't existent.
My argument is that commerce still exists in this environment, and my claim of such is based on the existence of a form of social contract. Specifically, in legal terms, an implied contract.
I see it as such, as an implied contract is a contract that is held existant in the absence of an explicit (or express) contract when the denial of one existing permits the existence of unjust enrichment to one of the parties involved in the relationship.

By unjust enrichment, it is meant that a condition where a benefit of some fashion is retained by one party without any compensation, though the circumstances are clear that the provision of that benefit is not intended as a gift.

The benefit gained by the individual offering spiritual prescriptions is the adherent, and the compensation for adherence by the recipient is an advantage perceived out of good faith; whereby good faith is the earnest intent to fulfill a promise without taking an unfair advantage over another person.

Negligence, thereby, is held accountable due to the assumed good faith position by the recipient of the provider of prescriptions, as if the provider claims an absence of awareness of the implied contract, then they are held accountable for negligence if there is an existence of a duty or expectation to exercise reasonable care over their relationship, a failure to exercise said reasonable care, a cause of physical harm by their negligent conduct, or a physical harm in the form of actual damages to property; as well as a clear line showing that the harm is within the scope of liability of the provider.

Which means, harm occurred, and they should have known harm was possible as a reasonable individual (up to the court's say on this portion) would have been aware.

I hold the weight of responsibility resting mostly on the side of the provider of spiritual prescriptions as they are claiming an offer of expertise and/or knowledge to those willing to adhere who have not the knowledge the provider proposes the capacity of offering.
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby anon » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:47 pm

Thanks for the comments, Jayson and CN. I apologize for not responding, I think maybe I'm losing interest in the topic or something. It has nothing to do with you guys!
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:25 am

Jayson wrote:I know you were interested in where commerce, in the form of money, crosses religion. However, to me, this is already well regulated in most societies.

Hey Jay, can you cite any court judgments against the provider of prescriptions? And how are these matters regulated in most societies?

Sure they are regulated by conviction of fraud or crimes.

But donations are a different matter.

Case in point is that of Jim Bakker back in the 1980s & 90s. There was a class action, against Bakker, by 160,000 donors, that was thrown out. So the implied contract standing is weak.
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Ierrellus » Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:09 pm

V-OutOfTheWilderness wrote:
Jayson wrote:I know you were interested in where commerce, in the form of money, crosses religion. However, to me, this is already well regulated in most societies.

Hey Jay, can you cite any court judgments against the provider of prescriptions? And how are these matters regulated in most societies?

Sure they are regulated by conviction of fraud or crimes.

But donations are a different matter.

Case in point is that of Jim Bakker back in the 1980s & 90s. There was a class action, against Bakker, by 160,000 donors, that was thrown out. So the implied contract standing is weak.

Swaggert and Bakker are back at it--fleecing the impressionable. What law can stop this? What has become of the fundies who picket funerals?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:44 pm

V-OutOfTheWilderness wrote:
Jayson wrote:I know you were interested in where commerce, in the form of money, crosses religion. However, to me, this is already well regulated in most societies.

Hey Jay, can you cite any court judgments against the provider of prescriptions? And how are these matters regulated in most societies?

Sure they are regulated by conviction of fraud or crimes.

But donations are a different matter.

Case in point is that of Jim Bakker back in the 1980s & 90s. There was a class action, against Bakker, by 160,000 donors, that was thrown out. So the implied contract standing is weak.

Just to clarify, are you asking for cases of implied contract violations?
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:52 pm

Jayson wrote:
V-OutOfTheWilderness wrote:
Jayson wrote:I know you were interested in where commerce, in the form of money, crosses religion. However, to me, this is already well regulated in most societies.

Hey Jay, can you cite any court judgments against the provider of prescriptions? And how are these matters regulated in most societies?

Sure they are regulated by conviction of fraud or crimes.

But donations are a different matter.

Case in point is that of Jim Bakker back in the 1980s & 90s. There was a class action, against Bakker, by 160,000 donors, that was thrown out. So the implied contract standing is weak.

Just to clarify, are you asking for cases of implied contract violations?

Yes, cases where donors won in court, and got their donations back.
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:19 am

Oh, that?
Loads.

For one example, look up Vaughn Reeves.
He swindled massive amounts (10 or 13 million) of donations from elderly for building Churches and then pocketed the money.
This was a 2010 case.
Last I read, he was serving a 50 some-odd year sentence.

That's not an implied contract as I was using it though.
Because mine is more challenging; there's no exchange of money.

Most implied contracts are civil cases between folks like you and me.
I was piecing the legal logic together in an argument as to why I think the case could be made even in the absence of monetary exchange; though I don't believe any such legal suit as of yet exists regarding religious institutions.
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:45 am

Jayson wrote:Oh, that?
Loads.

For one example, look up Vaughn Reeves.
He swindled massive amounts (10 or 13 million) of donations from elderly for building Churches and then pocketed the money.
This was a 2010 case.
Last I read, he was serving a 50 some-odd year sentence.

That's not an implied contract as I was using it though.
Because mine is more challenging; there's no exchange of money.

Most implied contracts are civil cases between folks like you and me.
I was piecing the legal logic together in an argument as to why I think the case could be made even in the absence of monetary exchange; though I don't believe any such legal suit as of yet exists regarding religious institutions.

I think I'm misunderstanding you Jay. Reeves doesn't fit my question. His is investment fraud.

What I'm wondering is if ordinary donors to a church have been able to get their donations back when they discover their donations were misused.

In Jim Bakkers case, 160,000 were unable to reclaim their donations.
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:37 am

I'm not aware of any such case, but that also wasn't my intention.

That's a monetary concern; I wasn't looking at monetary exchange and return, but the absence of such.


For example of what I'm referring to in the argument that I've laid out, imagine that I'm a guy that lives in your town.
Now imagine that I've spent my own money, we'll imagine that I'm well off, to put together a weekend trip for kids.
I go over everything with you and you decide that it sounds great, and there's no cost, so why not let the kids have some fun.
I take your kids out and they get hurt because I didn't take any precautions for their safety.

If you took me to court, you would likely win that case because there was an implied contract of good faith that I had your child's safety in mind, and therefore my neglect of such presents an instance of unjust enrichment because I got what I wanted (your kids), but you did not get what you wanted (your kids safely taking a camping trip).

I was using this same form of legal logic and applying it to spiritual advisers and leaders.
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:37 am

Jayson wrote:I'm not aware of any such case, but that also wasn't my intention.

That's a monetary concern; I wasn't looking at monetary exchange and return, but the absence of such.


For example of what I'm referring to in the argument that I've laid out, imagine that I'm a guy that lives in your town.
Now imagine that I've spent my own money, we'll imagine that I'm well off, to put together a weekend trip for kids.
I go over everything with you and you decide that it sounds great, and there's no cost, so why not let the kids have some fun.
I take your kids out and they get hurt because I didn't take any precautions for their safety.

If you took me to court, you would likely win that case because there was an implied contract of good faith that I had your child's safety in mind, and therefore my neglect of such presents an instance of unjust enrichment because I got what I wanted (your kids), but you did not get what you wanted (your kids safely taking a camping trip).

I was using this same form of legal logic and applying it to spiritual advisers and leaders.

Got it. Thanks ....
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Ierrellus » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:15 pm

What became of the suit against the Baptist fundies who picket funerals?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:01 pm

Ierrellus wrote:What became of the suit against the Baptist fundies who picket funerals?

Weatboro Baptist won 1st amendment rights. The guy that brought suit owes them over $16,000 for legal fees.
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:39 am

Yep,
So we can picket Westboro Baptist Church 24/7 and they can't do jack shit.
And we can picket their funerals too.
:D
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:03 am

Jayson wrote:Yep,
So we can picket Westboro Baptist Church 24/7 and they can't do jack shit.
And we can picket their funerals too.
:D

Ex-members will do more damage to this hate group than picketing them : Banished: Lauren Drain

Play the odds in your favor. Don't listen, or give money, to anyone claiming to speak for God.
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:17 am

Play the odds in your favor. Don't listen, or give money, to anyone claiming to speak for God.

Well, yeah. But that's easy for us to say.
Whether or not we perceive it as the individual's responsibility or not, do we want to be surrounded by people that are naive enough to follow perverted religious leaders who don't have the safety of their adherents in mind when giving out prescriptions or advice?

Wouldn't it be better to have a legal way to show and document the harmful perversions where they accure so that the level of naivety lessens by familiarity through example?
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:58 pm

Jayson wrote:Wouldn't it be better to have a legal way to show and document the harmful perversions where they accure so that the level of naivety lessens by familiarity through example?

It would be nice indeed. But because of our constitution -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -- the law is touchy about religion.
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Ierrellus » Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:06 pm

V-OutOfTheWilderness wrote:
Jayson wrote:Wouldn't it be better to have a legal way to show and document the harmful perversions where they accure so that the level of naivety lessens by familiarity through example?

It would be nice indeed. But because of our constitution -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -- the law is touchy about religion.

Can I write and distribute a diatribe accusing the WB church of being diabolical without being sued for slander?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12534
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby V-OutOfTheWilderness » Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:52 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Can I write and dispense a diatribe accusing the WB church of being diabolical without being sued for slander?

It depends. If it draws nationwide or worldwide media attention to WBC, no. Would it stick? Would they win? Not likely since I think it would be easy to prove that they are diabolical ... but on second thought, considering we're talking religion, even if crazy, maybe not.

But would you really want to get tangled up in that web? Have you seen the legal section on WBC on wiki? What an ugly mess. Even Capital Hill got involved.

WBC has only about 50 members. How did they garner worldwide attention? I'll tell you how, and frankly.

By calling those that have given their life for America fudge packers and cock suckers.

My big question is, where is WBC coming by funding?

Both mainstream Baptist conventions have denounced them. So conventional funding isn't available. Maybe the funding of WBC is diabolical.

I haven't been able to find out about funding yet. But I would think a thread about Religion and Commerce would want to know enough to look into it. Maybe not.

Why be interested in a bunch of crazies? If we have that attitude this thread would only be called "Commerce."
"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
~ Socrates

There's a serpent in every paradise ...

The question mark is shaped like a serpent ???

Degrees from the University of Divine Quackery (UofDQ).

It's not God I have a problem with. It's his fan club ....
User avatar
V-OutOfTheWilderness
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2662
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Religion and Commerce

Postby Jayson » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:14 pm

V-OutOfTheWilderness wrote:
Jayson wrote:Wouldn't it be better to have a legal way to show and document the harmful perversions where they accure so that the level of naivety lessens by familiarity through example?

It would be nice indeed. But because of our constitution -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." -- the law is touchy about religion.

There's no prohibition taking place.
There's a legal process existing for the complaint of harm.

I do think that it's wrong for a society to protect religious institutions at the expense of individual harm; that equally violates the Constitution.

The 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


And the 5th Amendment, if for no other obvious inheritance, grants that without due process, no Citizen is to be denied life, liberty, or property.

Which means that if we permit religious institutions to openly hurt people without leverage available legally to file claim against them for harm, then we have forfeited one right for another, when such is expressly outlined as not being permitted by our Constitution.

We each have rights, up until we harm each other without justified merit.
And to determine that justice, we have courts.

And taking religious institution individuals to court over harm doesn't actually address the religion; it addresses the individual actions, as Jefferson stated:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."


Also, Ierrellus can write as much as he wants about how evil any Church is.
It doesn't matter what he writes, he has the freedom of speech to talk slander about any organization; the President or any religion.

They can attempt to sue for slander, but if such took place, I would make a Supreme Court case out of it immediately and demand that the First Amendment is recognized over the reputation and pride of any organization or individual; as not one such entity is outlined as sacred and unavailable for slander in the Constitution, and further, most of the founders of these American States were openly against any individual or organization being beyond the mark of scorn through the letter or speech.
Take a few of their views into consideration.
"Without Freedom of Thought there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as Public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." - Benjamin Franklin
"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." - George Washington
"What influence, in fact, have religious establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison

And one of my favorites on this sort of matter:
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." - Benjamin Franklin



And I don't mean to call upon the founders as the authority on the matter.
Instead, I mean only to refer to the mindset of those involved in shaping the original leaning of our liberties and rights.

I think it's pretty logical and reasonable for religion to be left alone unless it harms someone.
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8321
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users