Any hope of a lawsuit against religion?

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Religion has succeeded in smearing all humanity as hopelessly evil without it. You have prominent advocates of Christianity blaming atheism for the actions of some of the 20th century's worst mass murderers, as if belief in a God whose supposed edicts aren't really clearly stated would've stopped them.

Meanwhile in the real world, the correlation is clear.

(Image)

(Image)

Whatever "sins" religion is really meant to combat, violence isn't one against which it is particularly effective, leaving one to wonder about the moral priorities of those in charge.

We see signs of it, though, in the Catholic church's opposition to condom use in Africa, spreading AIDS even further. You could argue it's not their fault people failed to adhere to monogamy, right? But continued opposition seems to reflect either willfull ignorance or a prioritization of monogamy over human lives. (Or possibly, on the part of the church hierarchy, "higher Catholic birthrates so that Catholic parents who raise their kids Catholic outbreed everyone else.")

Then there's diseases that aren't known to be transmitted sexually, like Parkinson's or diabetes or cancer. Embryonic stem cell research could've cured them if not for religion holding it back.

Is there any hope of a lawsuit against religion for all the deaths it has caused? Would we be able to get them on slander, reckless endangerment, or both and more?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst plaintiffs? Would it has to be anyone who currently has an illness ESCR could've cured, or any disease attributable to condom opposition in Africa? Could it be all humanity, since any one of us could end up with something ESCR could've cured?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst defendants? Would it have to target individuals within individual denominations who made these judgment calls, or could "progressive" Christians be indicted as accomplices in this by legitimizing religion's continued miserable existence in the eyes of popular opinion, to whatever extent popular opinion isn't on the same page as the church?

Don't get me wrong, to me the most beautiful image is abortion patients, LGBTQ activists, stem cell patients, HIV patients, and everyone else who's been screwed over by religion dancing in unison on its ashes. But in the name of pragmatism, would a lawsuit seeking compensation for this be a good way to reimburse those screwed over?

If it were not holy terra the ordo hereticus would bring illumination of the God emperors inquisition to this world and enact exterminatus. Nothing but technobarbarians and the occult. Now if you will excuse me I must burn incense every hour to keep my cogitators machine spirit happy.

But seriously, religion cannot be sued. It is an idea. You could sue Pope Francis, Peter Gilmore, or Ali Khamenei but I doubt you'd succeed.

[Hakons]

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your full of shit" and abandons the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

What a profoundly empty, dead world-view to have. Spirituality is an aspect of the human condition. It's never going away, and trying to end it makes a mockery of the word "progress." If anything, posts like this demonstrate what happens when people ignore an entire aspect of humanity and lack spirituality.

[Foxanist Revolutionary State]

Good luck with suing Buddhism and/or Taoism for "violence"

[Rojava Free State]

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your full of shit" and abandons the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

What a profoundly empty, dead world-view to have. Spirituality is an aspect of the human condition. It's never going away, and trying to end it makes a mockery of the word "progress." If anything, posts like this demonstrate what happens when people ignore an entire aspect of humanity and lack spirituality.

What happens? We actually think for ourselves? Don't pretend that there aren't things to believe in besides religion. We can start by convincing people to believe in themselves, a trait lost on 99% of mankind. I know many people who believe in your lord. I know very few who have faith in their own capabilities. Secondly we can believe in our community be it a nation or just a town. Thirdly, we can believe in science, a trait lost on much of humanity as well.

My world is not dead. It is dying due to the selfish actions of others but it could be full of life if others didn't keep taking without giving. You can have your religion all you want. I don't want it or need it and I think the world would be better without it or any other ideology that seeks blind obedience to an unjust authority which in theory is your God but in reality is your church, or a mosque or a synagogue or whatever religion one believes in that forces itself on society.

[State of Turelisa]

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Religion isn't the 'opiate of the masses'. Mass entertainment, crass consumerism, sexual intercourse divorced from love; and of course tobacco and alcohol, the legal mass-produced members of the class of opioid receptors. They are all both symptom and cause of 'the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.'

(The words in italic belong to the rest of Marks' quote in which you introduced your post.)

Religion enables us to have faith, gives us hope, and accords us charity.

[Rojava Free State]

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Religion isn't the 'opiate of the masses'. Mass entertainment, crass consumerism, sexual intercourse divorced from love, and tobacco and alcohol, the mass-produced members of the class of opioid receptors, are all both symptom and cause of 'the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.'

(The words in italic belong to the rest of Marks' quote in which you introduced your post.)

Religion enables us to have faith, gives us hope, and accords us charity.

Religion gives people false hope and the tv televangelists and Catholic church prove it doesn't accord anyone charity. Everything you labelled is a problem but saying religion is the answer is like saying fascism is the answer to America's current state of decay. People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

[Middle Providence]

Religion itself is ok what needs to be sued are the extremists who use it as a way to further themselves or their personal ideas

[The Alma Mater]

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Religion isn't the 'opiate of the masses'. Mass entertainment, crass consumerism, sexual intercourse divorced from love, and tobacco and alcohol, the legal mass-produced members of the class of opioid receptors, are all both symptom and cause of 'the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.'

(The words in italic belong to the rest of Marks' quote in which you introduced your post.)

Religion enables us to have faith, gives us hope, and accords us charity.

Nah, religion is just a tool. It can be used for good or for evil. It can be an addictive drug or a cure.
What people do with it is what matters.

[Panslav]

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your full of shit" and abandons the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

What a profoundly empty, dead world-view to have. Spirituality is an aspect of the human condition. It's never going away, and trying to end it makes a mockery of the word "progress." If anything, posts like this demonstrate what happens when people ignore an entire aspect of humanity and lack spirituality.

What's the use for your "spirituality"? I am materialist, and I don't feel like I lack someting compared to more religious people I know. There is no need for spirituality, there is a need for rationality, which, many humans, certainly lack.

Religion is the opiate of the masses. Like opiates, you take it when you're feeling hopeless and find a lack of any other meaning in your life.

I dont [sic] want these religions sued. I want them gone. I want there to come a day when the last of their adherents says "your [sic] full of shit" and abandons [sic] the church to decay like the ruins of Rome. However, being the realist I am, I doubt this day will ever come and I know history isn't moving endlessly toward progress so all we can do is separate ourselves as much as possible from the forces of darkness we call organized faith.

Religion isn't the 'opiate of the masses'. Mass entertainment, crass consumerism, sexual intercourse divorced from love, and tobacco and alcohol, the mass-produced members of the class of opioid receptors, are all both symptom and cause of 'the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.'

(The words in italic belong to the rest of Marks' quote in which you introduced your post.)

Religion enables us to have faith, gives us hope, and accords us charity.

Faith is blind, hope without action is useless, and charity... Charity doesn't require religion, and efficient rearrangement of wealth can't be done through charity. It requires either socialism or taxation.

[Aeritai]

Suing religion is impossible and blaming religion for violence isn't right. The ones that you should sue are the extremist that ruins everyone's religion.

[Hakons]

People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

What a profoundly empty, dead world-view to have. Spirituality is an aspect of the human condition. It's never going away, and trying to end it makes a mockery of the word "progress." If anything, posts like this demonstrate what happens when people ignore an entire aspect of humanity and lack spirituality.

What's the use for your "spirituality"? I am materialist, and I don't feel like I lack someting compared to more religious people I know. There is no need for spirituality, there is a need for rationality, which, many humans, certainly lack.

You lack the entire metaphysical side of life if you are purely a materialist. There is much more to life than the material and the observable. If you truly believe that there's no need for metaphysical introspection, and no need to find metaphysical truth, that's alarming in my eyes. What is rationality without philosophy? Without the metaphysical "why," the rational "what" is a useless prick of knowledge in a brain that is a handful of decades away from dying.

[Cekoviu]

You talk about religion's body count and then use the creation and destruction of human beings to harvest their cells like meat from a cow to say that religion is evil

Um... What? Creation and destruction of humans? I suppose you mean growing fetuses in a lab.

1. It's possible to take stem cells from non-fetuses, though they aren't as useful.

Regulatory proteins can even be altered in non-stem cells to change their cell specialization, such as a kidney cell to a skin cell.

2. They aren't really people yet. At least, I wouldn't consider a 5-day old blob of cells with human DNA, a human.

To be fair, a 5-year-old is just a 1,821-day old blob of cells with human DNA.

[Cekoviu]

People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

Seeing things that other people don't is called hallucinating, you know.

[Aureumterra]

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

Seeing things that other people don't is called hallucinating, you know.

Is this supposed to be a gotcha?

[Cekoviu]

Seeing things that other people don't is called hallucinating, you know.

Is this supposed to be a gotcha?

It's whatever you want it to be.

[Hanafuridake]

Good luck with suing Buddhism and/or Taoism for "violence"

Uh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_Turban_Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dhei
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecuti ... in_Myanmar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War

[Aureumterra]

Good luck with suing Buddhism and/or Taoism for "violence"

Sri Lankan Civil War just seems to fall out of memory?

[Panslav]

People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

What's the use for your "spirituality"? I am materialist, and I don't feel like I lack someting compared to more religious people I know. There is no need for spirituality, there is a need for rationality, which, many humans, certainly lack.

You lack the entire metaphysical side of life if you are purely a materialist. There is much more to life than the material and the observable. If you truly believe that there's no need for metaphysical introspection, and no need to find metaphysical truth, that's alarming in my eyes. What is rationality without philosophy? Without the metaphysical "why," the rational "what" is a useless prick of knowledge in a brain that is a handful of decades away from dying.

1. You say you somehow see and know more than I do. Yet... you can't prove it. You simply claim that, without any proof (in fact, you physically can't prove it). Well, you say that I can't see what you see. Well, maybe, I was pretty much neutral until I became a materialist, but what about people that deconverted? They have seen and know the same thing you see and know, right? Well, then why did they deconvert?

2. First, "metaphysics" never asks question "why?", it pretty much looks at the world from a supernatural, non-scientific viewpoint (you probably mean some different part of phylosophy). Second, unlike rational "what", metaphysics has no predictive capabilities, and as such, useless. You can't better the life of a common man using metaphysics, but you can using, well... physics.

[Rojava Free State]

People do need something to believe in. Maybe it's time we give them something they can actually see and know is real.

The difference between my view and yours is summed up here. The problem with us trying to communicate is that we see this in a fundamentally different way. Religious people do see and religious people do know what is real. When you look at our faith, our practices, and our duties, you see and learn nothing because you approach it from a priori irreligion. We, religious people, see things you don't and know things you don't attempt to figure out. We see, and we know, and it's beautiful.

What's the use for your "spirituality"? I am materialist, and I don't feel like I lack someting compared to more religious people I know. There is no need for spirituality, there is a need for rationality, which, many humans, certainly lack.

You lack the entire metaphysical side of life if you are purely a materialist. There is much more to life than the material and the observable. If you truly believe that there's no need for metaphysical introspection, and no need to find metaphysical truth, that's alarming in my eyes. What is rationality without philosophy? Without the metaphysical "why," the rational "what" is a useless prick of knowledge in a brain that is a handful of decades away from dying.

You believe something but you can't see it. Yes you can see religion. You can see people waste their whole life away trying to please a deity that likely isn't there. you can see the violence and misery inflicted on countless individuals in the name of said deity. And you can see how time and time again people have begged god to save them from some horrible fate and time and time again they were not saved.

When I see religion, I see unnecessary control. I see a gay man being forced out of his home by his devout parents who love God more than they love their own son. I see a person being beheaded for not having the right beliefs. I see nothing but violence. And they wanna say I'm the bad guy. They wanna claim that the guy who is against murder and against bigotry is the real villain and not them. I will never sacrifice my life for things no one can prove, and for values that are twisted and sick.

[Hispanus Maxima]

Religion has succeeded in smearing all humanity as hopelessly evil without it. You have prominent advocates of Christianity blaming atheism for the actions of some of the 20th century's worst mass murderers, as if belief in a God whose supposed edicts aren't really clearly stated would've stopped them.

Meanwhile in the real world, the correlation is clear.

(Image)

(Image)

Whatever "sins" religion is really meant to combat, violence isn't one against which it is particularly effective, leaving one to wonder about the moral priorities of those in charge.

We see signs of it, though, in the Catholic church's opposition to condom use in Africa, spreading AIDS even further. You could argue it's not their fault people failed to adhere to monogamy, right? But continued opposition seems to reflect either willfull ignorance or a prioritization of monogamy over human lives. (Or possibly, on the part of the church hierarchy, "higher Catholic birthrates so that Catholic parents who raise their kids Catholic outbreed everyone else.")

Then there's diseases that aren't known to be transmitted sexually, like Parkinson's or diabetes or cancer. Embryonic stem cell research could've cured them if not for religion holding it back.

Is there any hope of a lawsuit against religion for all the deaths it has caused? Would we be able to get them on slander, reckless endangerment, or both and more?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst plaintiffs? Would it has to be anyone who currently has an illness ESCR could've cured, or any disease attributable to condom opposition in Africa? Could it be all humanity, since any one of us could end up with something ESCR could've cured?

How broad or sweeping could it be amongst defendants? Would it have to target individuals within individual denominations who made these judgment calls, or could "progressive" Christians be indicted as accomplices in this by legitimizing religion's continued miserable existence in the eyes of popular opinion, to whatever extent popular opinion isn't on the same page as the church?

Don't get me wrong, to me the most beautiful image is abortion patients, LGBTQ activists, stem cell patients, HIV patients, and everyone else who's been screwed over by religion dancing in unison on its ashes. But in the name of pragmatism, would a lawsuit seeking compensation for this be a good way to reimburse those screwed over?

[Purgatio]

Good luck with suing Buddhism and/or Taoism for "violence"

Guessing you haven't heard about what's happening in Myanmar right now? Or almost everything in Sri Lankan history?

[Northwest Slobovia]

This reminds me of a short story by an author named Ben Bova that involves someone named Sam Gunn suing the Pope.

Suing the Pope for things the Catholic Church has done -- like, oh, systematically covering up child rape by its agents -- is at least possible, if difficult. Oh, he's a head of state? Gosh, isn't that what the International Criminal Court is for?

[Crockerland]

Abortion is used to facilitate a systematic genocide of Intersex people, who are LGBT.

Intersex birth defects are extreme, but mostly external, malformations that can be easily corrected by infant surgery, and perhaps even in-utero surgery. The fact that people would kill their child for having malformed half-genitals when it could easily be fixed is stunning. That is yet another testimony to the horrors of abortion.

Perhaps we should sue abortion?

Actually, come to think of it, there are abortion survivors, plenty of adults who survived saline abortions back in the 1970s. I wonder if any of them have tried to sue the clinic that attempted to kill them? For example, Gianna Jessen has a disability from the attempt on her life, that seems like grounds to sue to me. The only case I could find was of a father suing an abortion clinic that killed his unborn child against his will.

This reminds me of a short story by an author named Ben Bova that involves someone named Sam Gunn suing the Pope.

Suing the Pope for things the Catholic Church has done -- like, oh, systematically covering up child rape by its agents -- is at least possible, if difficult. Oh, he's a head of state? Gosh, isn't that what the International Criminal Court is for?

The Vatican is not party to or signatory of the Rome Statue, so the ICC has no jurisdiction over it or its head of state.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Intersex birth defects are extreme, but mostly external, malformations that can be easily corrected by infant surgery, and perhaps even in-utero surgery. The fact that people would kill their child for having malformed half-genitals when it could easily be fixed is stunning. That is yet another testimony to the horrors of abortion.

Perhaps we should sue abortion?

Actually, come to think of it, there are abortion survivors, plenty of adults who survived saline abortions back in the 1970s. I wonder if any of them have tried to sue the clinic that attempted to kill them? For example, Gianna Jessen has a disability from the attempt on her life, that seems like grounds to sue to me. The only case I could find was of a father suing an abortion clinic that killed his unborn child against his will.

But if it isn't against hers, does he even have a leg to stand on?

I think the strongest case for abortion rights is in fetuses being insentient anyway. An emphasis on this would eat away at the "you can't jail me for drinking while pregnant" loophole, (let alone the "you can't sue for malpractice if the malpractice is the only reason you're alive" loophole) as opposed to the "part of her body until it comes out of her body" emphasis that has exacerbated it.

Anyway, lawsuits against abortion would be better directed at whomever in society that made having children cost $200000 each and many mothers not sure if; let alone when; they could afford them. In the meantime, if mothers can't afford them, better their kids' lives not even start at all than be started in poverty.

The Vatican is not party to or signatory of the Rome Statue, so the ICC has no jurisdiction over it or its head of state.

So what of those who bring non-Vatican residents' money to the Vatican? Could they be prosecuted as accomplices in the ICC's international crimes?

[Hanafuridake]

Intersex birth defects are extreme, but mostly external, malformations that can be easily corrected by infant surgery, and perhaps even in-utero surgery. The fact that people would kill their child for having malformed half-genitals when it could easily be fixed is stunning. That is yet another testimony to the horrors of abortion.

Perhaps we should sue abortion?

Actually, come to think of it, there are abortion survivors, plenty of adults who survived saline abortions back in the 1970s. I wonder if any of them have tried to sue the clinic that attempted to kill them? For example, Gianna Jessen has a disability from the attempt on her life, that seems like grounds to sue to me. The only case I could find was of a father suing an abortion clinic that killed his unborn child against his will.

This isn't an abortion thread.