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.
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.
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.
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.