Religion and Commerce

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Quite.
And so I’ll respond after the following…

It’s not the focal of the fact that homosexuality is or is not a protected theological clause that’s in question, but instead what was gained in the adherence comparative to damages accrued from the same result.

Meaning, the point of the example that I compiled only serves to function as a problem if the individual does not receive elation as expected, and the prescription to sever social ties compounds further damages.

Before, in just about all ancient civilizations, any religiously affiliated group or individual (even in mixed culture societies) was judged by how much unity or destruction of unity they caused within the society.
Destruction of societal bond and unification was considered a strong threat of death to the civilization, and therefore a violation of social contract in some fashion (though, typically, too many instances occurring from one demographic typically also included death or removal of the adherents to that given group in violation).

Clearly, it cannot be said for our cultures today that all advice for avoidance of demographics of society are to be ridden of.
However, where there is needless (produced no evident gain) social destruction among a claim of harm; I would find that within merit of reprimand for, at the very least, negligent and non-gainful destruction of society.

Which brings me back around to the first post in response above.
I agree that there’s no way to hold accountability for the metaphysical claims, nor do I think there’s anything of the kind reasonably within question.

Instead, like you, I see it as applicable to hold responsible where religious institutions, or leading individuals, are using religion to command or offer endophysical (as opposed to metaphysical) prescriptions should those prescriptions result in any adherent’s complaint of harm.

Essentially, the reason that I see this as making sense is because it’s the adherent that must first claim harm.
It is from within the culture that the complaint should arise, and then at that point it is held accountable.

So, if no adherent claims harm, then there’s nothing to process against the institution or leader; it only occurs when harm from within is claimed. At that point, the endophysical prescriptions are reviewed for damages, to include the consideration of damages upon unity of society in the prescriptions, should they apply in the claim of harm.

Ierrellus,
The consideration of faith, aside from not being universal in religious infrastructures, isn’t capable of side-stepping the endophysical consideration, but only instead the metaphysical considerations.

What I mean by this is that if a party claims harm from adherence to a prescription from a given religious leader from a given religious institution, and that leader claims the harm fell upon the adherent due to a lack of faith; then the leader can be held accountable for willfully placing the individual within harms way without devoted effort to remove them from harm by using their trade to either increase the faith of the adherent, or increase the metaphysical or endophysical preservation of their adherent.

It’s what I call a ‘shepherd law’, because it’s like saying the sheep is responsible for securing its safety in the dark of night, and not the shepherd’s.

This isn’t the same as someone picking up a book of philosophy and taking from it whatever they want.
This is a question of social prescriptions that are actively engaged intimately.

It doesn’t stand up well for a Doctor, for instance, to hand someone medication and not tell them how to take it, nor to follow up with them to ensure that solution is continuing.
The Doctor doesn’t get to walk away from the event claiming that the individual didn’t bother to read the dosage directions or make followup appointments if the Doctor never bothered to offer the information or the option for followup appointments.

Similarly, it doesn’t follow for someone to offer prescriptions in sweeping fashion and then lack any actual follow-through with the individual in interest of preservation of the individual’s metaphysical and endophysical safety.

22

I focused on the example case because it was the example. And in fact it was an exceptional one. Most religions do not offer universal cures for the woes of the earthly plane - to use a randomly made up neo-religious phrase, mostly for fun - like the one in the example did. Most religions are offering solutions on the spiritual side. Of course there are exceptions.

I don’t know if that is the case or not. If the religious ‘expert’ or expert is directly making a practical mundane world based claim - I will heal your body, period or I will make you a million dollars if you… - I am pretty sure they are open to being charged in many countries, especially if money changes hands.

Generally because there is a direct financial transaction. I pay you for this product. There are specific, empirically testable claims made about the product.

If there is a clear pay for this and you will receive this testable for product, then there is no significant difference.

Why? The recent crisis happened because systematically banks sold products they knew had little value while claiming they did have greater value. This systematic misrepresentation of products led to untold destruction and misery and the effects are still coming in, possibly increasing. I cannot see how that is not a parallel to the situation presented as an example in the OP.

The politician example, I think, is actually a better parallel to the religious ones. Here we have claims being made about the results of this or that policy or the future action of the politician. The results are much harder to track empirically, though easier to track than many of the claims made by religions on the more spiritual side of claims.

I think if there is a purchase then secular laws should hold. I do understand that this can get fuzzy - were they pressured to donate in exchange for a guarantee of cancer healing, etc. But if there is a direct purchase promise and one can demonstrate that the promised result was not achieved by purchasers in general, then secular laws should be applied.

Or you can be a psychiatrist/pharmaceutical company and have managed to get the dominant paradigm in society and get a pass on precisely the kinds of consumer protection you are asking for in relation to religions.
A scientific critique of anti-depressants.
scientifica.com/2012/965908/

My response is not the response I would have in all contexts. In this forum the dominant paradigm is physicalist, science is the only way to knowledge, etc. In this context I am going to react defensively in a broader way than I might in another context. Here I am going to present secular crimes against consumers that get a pass because of the power of those who commit those crimes. Hence my examples coming from banking and now psychiatry/psychotropics. These people get passes regularly in Western society despite evidence of systematic criminal activity in the former and philosophical confusion and poor empirical support in the latter.

I would like have a more nuanced response, than I have here, in another context.

  1. As long as they are not advocating violence or crimes against homosexuals, it seems to me this falls under Freedom of Speech and should be responded to in other ways.

  2. And then demonization is common in secular society. This is done in relation to anarchists by the mainstream media - and this would include people, say, who are well read followers of Murray Bookchin and social ecology. This is done in relation to communists by many actors in modern society.

People who follow non-dominant religions are subject to this kind of abuse.
In fact going against norms of pretty much any kind leaves one open to systematic abuse and prejudice by secular society.

Of course two wrongs do nót make a right, but will all these types of demonization and prejudice fostering also be attacked legally?

Then you would be expecting to have more power here than you would in the same situation against a psychiatrist who gave your child anti-depressants and the child killed herself.

Again, if there is a direct purchase, I tend to agree, though the results need to be looked at in general, since makers of over the counter meds, for example, need not be successful in all cases - and, as an aside, thousands die each year taking these and few family members will get recompense for this and criminal charges are out of the question.

Right now some religions have dominance status in the West: Christianity, Judaism, even Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism…
In some discussion forums, I would likely be more sympathetic to the OP or at least to how the questions the OP is raising could be used to attack religions and possibly lead to policy, given the behavior of the major religions and much of my distaste for them. Though frankly, I think they are generally careful to avoid direct claims about earthly woes in direct financial transactions. However in this context, I want to point out that other dominant organizations in the West get away with this shit all the time. I suspect that much of the sympathy for attacking religious misdeeds will not, here at ILP, will not lead to similar attacks on dominator organizations that are secular - this could of course be wrong on my part and I have no idea if the OP writer’s position would be one I would be critical of. If people say, Oh, yeah, I would aim the same kinds of criticism at these secular organizations7actors, I know, at least that there is a certain level of fairness.

One strong concern I have is that the kind of logic that can come out of this line will lead to dominator actors going after minority spriritual religions/beliefs in society with the goal of eradicating them.

23

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.

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 evaulated 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.

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 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.

I don’t think that’s really a parallel.

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.

It might have been a good thing to do.

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.

24

Moreno,

I wasn’t suggesting that other sectors of society shouldn’t be addressed, so don’t think I’m outlining a special case for the religious sector.
Instead, what I was saying was that I’m not going to hold back in ideals of what should be done regarding the religious sector based on a proposition that other sectors lack in successful articulation of like regulation.

Meaning, I’m looking at the religious sector and how it is held responsible for its actions regardless of other sectors of society and their temperamental statuses at current, as that is within line of address.

Mostly, you seem to be stating that if monetary exchange occurs, then legal precedent is established by the exchange of currency and that does satisfy the circumstances rather simply.
In fact, it does so well that such is our current system.

Where you seem to find me hard to agree with is when there is a lack of monetary exchange.
Here, you have difficulty drafting a difference between this sector and others by extrapolation of questioning similarities between such institutions as psychiatry.

Firstly, psychiatry can be legally pursued for the death of the child in your example: that is the nature of a malpractice suit.
In fact, a form of malpractice suit is precisely what is lacking in law regarding religious institutions.

Regarding the homosexuality issue; as I mentioned to anon, that was only compounded damage for consideration following the first and primary claim of harm: that the prescription against their depression was not accurate and neglected their medical classification of clinical depression - thereby causing the individual to pursue remedy of their depression through metaphysical adherence that I prescribed, which included removing their only remaining parent from their affiliation due to their parent being homosexual.

Meaning, I was not suggesting that the claim of harm was the prescription to remove affiliation with homosexuals, but instead that such was being prescribed as a remedy for what was actually clinical depression, and served, therefore, as a negligent medical prescription.

Perhaps that helps clear up a few things.

25

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?

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?

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.)

26

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.

27

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.

28

Moreno,

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

29

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.

30

Thanks for contributing, Moreno. Come back any time. Your views always resonate with me.

31

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.

32

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.

33

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!

34

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.

35

Swaggert and Bakker are back at it–fleecing the impressionable. What law can stop this? What has become of the fundies who picket funerals?

36

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

37

Yes, cases where donors won in court, and got their donations back.

38

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.

39

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.

40

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.