The Need for Litigation Against the Church, Sue the Church
The United Kingdom's, Fraud Act of 2006, decrees that making false
representations in order to profit financially is a crime. Thus in principle if
not in practice, there is a right to sue a fraudulent religion.
You can sue the Church yes. That is your right. But can you win? That is the
most important question. If you are rich you may not care if you lose as long as
you have made your point and gained media attention to highlight the issue and
the lies told by the Church.
Even atheists who rail against religious or spiritual abuse worry about giving a
person the right to sue those who harmed him or her. They hold that atheists may
end up in court as well accused of these things. Many believers consider raising
a child as atheist to be child abuse.
To protect against abuse, only a selection of cases should be allowed to go
forward to avoid opening the floodgates.
And also, the allegation should be well supported by testimony and be of an
unusually serious nature. For example, if a picture of Hell is put up in your
bedroom to remind you that you must not question the Church despite the affect
it has on you. Or if you are beaten up for not going to Mass. Or if the Church
sells you a cure for cancer that turns out to be snake oil.
I suppose we need to think of suing as a right in principle if not in practice
now.
Should the ex-religionist sue their faith on the basis that they gave it money
to support it believing it to be the truth when it was not the truth? Should the
Church be made to return the money? If yes then the reason would be that the
religion is lies or at least cannot be proven to be the truth. It cannot be
proven that a man who says he has painted your house with invisible paint that
cannot be sensed is lying. But he can be sued successfully if he promised more
than what he delivered. Religion gives you what it guarantees is the truth.
Suppose that there is not enough evidence that it is the truth. Real truth
stands up. Without sufficient evidence that it is the truth, it is clear that
the religion is conning you.
The Plaintiff suing the Church would need to prove that:
1 The defendant made certain representations to the plaintiff, presenting them
as facts
2 In so doing, the defendant intended the plaintiff to believe the
representations
3 In so doing, the defendant intended the plaintiff to part with something of
value
4 The representations made by the defendant were false
5 The defendant knew, at the time of making the representations, that they were
false
6 The plaintiff, relying on those representations, parted with something of
value
7 The plaintiff, in so relying, was acting reasonably
8 The plaintiff suffered damage as a result
1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 could be established by the plaintiff. There is some difficulty
with 4, 5 and 7.
4 has a few difficulties. The Courts usually refuse to declare any religious
belief to be true. Getting it to declare a religious belief to be false is
near-impossible. But that will change as secularism grows more powerful and more
regarded by society. The stance of the courts is unacceptable. The Christians
produce many books on the resurrection claiming that the evidence for the
resurrection would stand up in court. If they are so confident then they should
campaign for change. For the Catholic, Mormonism is a counterfeit of
Christianity. Would the Church not want the court to be able to prove that? If
the Catholic Church is the true Church it has the copyright on Jesus. Then the
Bible is its book and not the Protestants or the Mormons. The religions should
be suing one another!
One seeming problem with the question of religious belief being true, is that
you cannot put this question before a jury. The jury would need to consist of
philosophers and theologians for that to make sense. But if a jury can work out
if an organisation is lying why should religion be exempt?
Some say another problem is that the suit is really an attack on religious
beliefs. But why not see it not as an attack on religious beliefs but as
standing up for the truth?
It is feared that Church lawyers might argue that you joined or accepted the
religion not because of facts but because of its spiritual claims. If that
happens and you can't prove them wrong then the court can do nothing. Spiritual
stuff is very subjective.
It can be inferred from spiritual claims that the faith is unreasonable and
fanciful and has no concern for facts. No faith can afford to make such an
inference. Each faith wants to be seen as sensible and concerned with evidence
for any faith that is not is plainly immoral and deceitful and causing
unnecessary separation and division in society. Much religion teaches that
spirituality is useless unless backed up by facts. Catholicism would say that
baptism is worthless if Jesus never rose from the dead. Spirituality that comes
from believing lies is held to be false spirituality. So even if the lawyers say
the religion made religious and spiritual claims to you but not factual ones it
shouldn't be a problem. They should lose for they are virtually saying the
religion is false! A religion that makes hard demands on your intellect and
emotions and life in general and has no evidence to support its claim to be
divine revelation simply can't be true!
Religious claims is another term for spiritual claims.
5 is widely thought to be open to the problem that you can't prove that the
people who converted you to the religion knew it was false and were lying to
you. They won't admit it if they were lying. They would be lying to you if they
suspected it was untrue as well.
But if you think about many religious doctrines such as the sin is hateful and
the sinner is not you can see the faith is based on self-deception. To hate the
sin and not the sinner is to pretend that the sin is an entity. It is not.
Actions are not entities. The doer of the action is the entity. The sinner is
the sin. It is just a language device that talks about the sin as if it were not
the sinner. In so far as you hate the sin you hate the sinner.
Think about how people tend to imagine they believe in religion just because
they were born into it. That shows faith to be self-deception. They mistake
assumptions and things taken for granted for beliefs. There is a huge
difference.
Another proof is how religionists hoard wealth despite religion being against it
and saying that hoarding the wealth is starving the poor.
Another proof of the deceit of religion is how religion can make extreme and
extraordinary claims without backing them up with proof. The more bizarre or
extraordinary the claim is, the more extraordinary the quality and perhaps
quantity of evidence you need to back it up.
Religion claims to be a form of love. This claim is easily disproven.
The self-deceiver who promotes his faith of self-deception lies to themselves
and others.
If you accuse the religion of lying, is it up to the religion to prove it was
not lying or up to you to prove that it was lying? It is up to you for you are
the Plantiff.
The court will often have defendants who lie but nobody can prove it. But they
can still be found guilty of lying if their lies are absurd or very implausible.
Then the court assumes they are lying even though it cannot prove it. Religion
can be found guilty of lying on that basis.
With 7 there is the problem of how you can say the religion that converted you
tricked you if you had access to books and the internet where you can discover
refutations of its claims. In that case you were a fool and fooled yourself or
let yourself be fooled. It can be said that the law was not intended to protect
fools from their own stupidity. That is a valid point. It cannot be applied to
children. It cannot be applied to people in poorer parts of the world who are
the victims of religion. They can't get access to correct information about why
the faith is wrong. You should be able to sue your religion for lying to you
when you were a child when that lying did you harm. If you suffered from
psychological problems or schizophrenia or bipolar disorder and religion got
into your system you have a case for arguing that it took advantage of you. Very
old people as well would have a good case for claiming to have been fooled by
the Church.
If people are fooled by the Church and they can sue the Church, should spouses
sue their husbands or wives for fooling them into marriage? Would people suing
everybody not clog up the legal system? If they pay for the cases themselves the
legal system will make a profit and there will soon be courts everywhere. There
are not enough court cases anyway in this anarchic society of ours. The legal
system gives us all the right to sue for slander even if it means there will be
a deluge of such suits. It is only fair. Suing religion for fraud will only be
allowed up to a point. It is important for religion to be called to account for
the sake of a principle. But as religious fraud is so common, the state has be
selective so that there are not too many court cases.
The Roman Catholic Church is one religion that says that if you do not pay money
for the support of the Church you will suffer for it forever in Hell. One of the
commandments of the Church is, "To contribute to the support of our pastors."
The Church has its own set of commandments. To break them seriously is to commit
a mortal sin. For example, if you give no money to the Church it's a serious sin
and so deserves Hell.
So anyway it is either pay up or risk hellfire. Is this extortion?
Some say it is not. They might point to the example of an insurance seller who
says to you that if you do not buy his policy your family could starve when you
die.
But we need insurance. We do not need the Roman Catholic Church. Many spiritual
people manage well without it.
We know the insurance seller is telling the truth. We cannot know that there is
a Hell. Thus the insurance seller is not threatening us but informing us. The
Church is threatening us not just as much as the insurance seller would be if he
said he would return some day to burn out our car if we didn't purchase
insurance from him. It is threatening us far more!
We would consider a Satanist to be extorting money if he said he was going to
curse you if you didn't pay up. This would indeed be a crime! The Roman Catholic
Church is doing worse. What worse extortion could there be than saying God might
take your life and damn you to Hell forever for your sin of neglecting to pay
the Church is so serious? If that is not extortion then what is?
It seems that you would need to convince the Court that it was reasonable for
you to believe what the Church was saying about everlasting hell starting at
death and that it is the fate of those who do not pay money to the Church.
If God really runs the Church, he can look after it. The Church can look after
itself. There is just no excuse for any religion teaching that failing to pay it
money is a serious sin that deserves Hell. It is vindictive never mind
extortionate! So it is not reasonable for you. You have silenced your horse
sense!
If we forget that, it would be impossible to prove that it is reasonable for you
to believe for religion is not reasonable. The Christian religion claims to be
reasonable. Suppose you want to sue it. It would be unable to tell its lawyers
to try and defeat your case on the basis that you were behaving unreasonably by
joining it or sticking with it if you were initiated as a child.
A child or poor person or person who is not very well educated can argue that
they reasonably stuck with religion and believed its lies. They must be given
the right to sue especially when they have been threatened by the religion with
hellfire if they don't "contribute to the support of their pastors".
The courts will see a person who was part of say a big Catholic community as
acting reasonably when believing in and paying to the Church. It is not
reasonable. It can't be reasonable to follow a Church or religion just because
everybody else in your locality does. The Catholic Church claims to be a
reasonable faith or a faith that makes sense. It cannot agree then that the
Hindu is being sensible in following the Hindu religion just because his village
does it. However, the courts will not blame a person for being fooled by the
Church when they are part of it because everybody else is and they are copying
their example.
Class Action
A class action means when a group of people with much the same complaint sue the
defendant. This would be a good route to take when suing the Church. It is best
to have a group bearing the legal costs rather than one person in case the suit
will be lost.
The Church will fight hard if sued for causing distress, teaching misleading
doctrine, extortion and fraud and can afford very good lawyers - better ones
than the plaintiffs. But if the Church is sued where there is great hostility to
religion the Church would be bound to lose. The best lawyers cannot save it if
it is guilty and it can be proven. It could be easily proven in Court for
example that the Bible is not infallible and that the Church is lying by calling
it the word of God and the truth. It is just a matter of looking at the text.
A lot of people are damaged by the Church. The lawsuits would cripple the legal
system so it is best to limit prosecutions to maybe five dissimilar and
disturbing cases per year. The main purpose should be to highlight how dangerous
religion is.
Proof that the Suit can be won!
The state cannot assume any religion to be true for the state is not about
looking after religion but the people. Religion must be treated by civil law as
a human creation. Religion had a lot of influence over the state in the past and
there are some residues of that in the law. That is why religion can get special
treatment.
Children or naive people or disturbed people who are damaged by the Roman
Catholic should be able to sue the Church for damages.
People damaged by the lies of the Church are reluctant to take the Church to
court as the Church can afford better lawyers than they can. Also they are
afraid that their neighbours will think they are weird. In fact, the only reason
the Church does not destroy more people is because many of its members who think
they believe do not believe and haven't noticed. If the parish priest really
thought you were going into grave danger of everlasting Hell say by taking a
homosexual lover or joining the Jehovah's Witnesses he would at least go to your
door and ask you if he could talk things over with you. Yet he claims to believe
that you are going into such danger. The Bible commands the ministers of the
Church to snatch the erring from the flames - see the Epistle of Jude. If the
priest really believed in Hell - not just thought there was a Hell - he would be
at your door begging and pleading with tears in his eyes. Most religious people
mistake feelings for faith. Also, if you have evidence for something you may
still only think it is true, assume it is true, not believe it is true. This
makes it all the more confusing.
None of that absolves the Church when true believers come along and are
destroyed by their faith.
Small sects can be sued and often are. But just because the Church is big and
powerful doesn't give it an exemption! It is disturbing how Catholicism and
Protestantism and Mormonism were strongest and most popular when they spat
hatred and vengeance and worshipped at the throne of a shocking fundamentalism.
When they calmed down they were deserted in droves and the remaining people had
little fervour. Jesus was very scathing and sarcastic and threatened those who
didn't please him with everlasting torment and all this, according to the
gospels, didn't impair his popularity.
Freedom of religion should not mean that abusive religions should get away with
it.
Freedom of speech should not mean that anything at all can be said with
impunity. Say what you will but be aware that somebody has the right to sue you
for saying it. It is not a crime to use or misuse freedom of speech but it can
lead to you being sued for damages.
Criminal law and civil law are different. If you commit murder you will be
subject to criminal law. If you libel somebody you have not committed a crime.
The victim however can sue you for damages under civil law. We encourage people
to take civil cases against the Church. That is the best way to expose the
Church for what it really is.
By the Church we mean the priests and bishops and nuns who make and promote
Catholic teaching.
The Church is totally arrogant. It does not say, "We are so sure of our rules
and their goodness. Keep them and if they fail sue us!"
We suppose it can't afford to encourage people!
Finally
It is vital that religion, especially Christianity and Islam, be fought in the
courts and brought to their knees. They will fight back viciously and even cause
bloodshed but they are bullies. Being nice to them will not stop them being
potential bullies. Leaving them alone and giving them rights they should not
have only postpones the trouble. To placate bullies by giving them their own way
only makes them more willing to trample on those who see through them. Give the
religions no money, get your name off their membership records and sever
yourself from their religious practices. Without money they will crumble. Take
what you deserve off them and give them nothing.
Instead of religion we must have self-esteem. Anything that indicates that Jesus
Christ was more special than us, ie that he is Son of God and/or God or that
such and such is a saint and God does miracles through this person is offensive
to those trying to benefit themselves and society by possessing self-esteem.