Any hope of a lawsuit against religion?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

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.





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?

[Galloism]

I'm going to ignore all the hysteria and cut straight to the heart of the matter.

What centralized board of directors will represent "religion" in the suit? Who are the common owner(s) of "religion" that you could sue it/them?

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

I dunno, can you sue the CEO of Racism?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'm going to ignore all the hysteria and cut straight to the heart of the matter.

What centralized board of directors will represent "religion" in the suit? Who are the common owner(s) of "religion" that you could sue it/them?

Clergy in the different churches. Catholicism, protestantism, orthodoxy, etc...

...would it need to be targeted at a specific denomination, or could it be done simultaneously to several denominations so that with different denominations you see which charges stick? (I have a feeling "one denomination at a time" might lead to Catholics asking why we don't sue the protestants first, protestants asking why we don't sue the Catholics first, etc...)

[Ifreann]

Is there any hope of a lawsuit against religion for all the deaths it has caused?

No.

[Galloism]

I'm going to ignore all the hysteria and cut straight to the heart of the matter.

What centralized board of directors will represent "religion" in the suit? Who are the common owner(s) of "religion" that you could sue it/them?

Clergy in the different churches. Catholicism, protestantism, orthodoxy, etc...

...would it need to be targeted at a specific denomination?

Yes, you can't sue religion just like you can't sue conservatism or liberalism.

There's a lack of common ownership and control, which is needed for an entity to be one entity (and therefore a legal "person"), and only legal persons can be named in court suits.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Clergy in the different churches. Catholicism, protestantism, orthodoxy, etc...

...would it need to be targeted at a specific denomination?

Yes, you can't sue religion just like you can't sue conservatism or liberalism.

There's a lack of common ownership and control, which is needed for an entity to be one entity (and therefore a legal "person"), and only legal persons can be named in court suits.

Fair enough, then.

So what of the notion of "simultaneous" lawsuits against the leaders of different denominations, such that they can't hide behind the "why are you suing only us and not them" platitude?

[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.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This thread reminds me of the plot of the Indian movie OMG, where the main character, after his anti-religious behavior and losing his livelihood in an earthquake, and being told by his insurance that his policy wouldn’t pay for “acts of God”, decides to sue all Gods. And where does the lawsuit goes to? To every religious institution in India: Hindu, Catholic (Christian), and Muslim.

[Rojava Free State]

Clergy in the different churches. Catholicism, protestantism, orthodoxy, etc...

...would it need to be targeted at a specific denomination?

Yes, you can't sue religion just like you can't sue conservatism or liberalism.

There's a lack of common ownership and control, which is needed for an entity to be one entity (and therefore a legal "person"), and only legal persons can be named in court suits.

Wait, then how are people hunting the CEO of racism?

[Pacomia]

You can't sue an idea.

The idea of suing religion is ridiculous- how would that even work? Besides, religion in general isn't the problem, it's extremism.

[Samudera Darussalam]

This thread reminds me of the plot of the Indian movie OMG, where the main character, after his anti-religious behavior and losing his livelihood in an earthquake, and being told by his insurance that his policy wouldn’t pay for “acts of God”, decides to sue all Gods. And where does the lawsuit goes to? To every religious institution in India: Hindu, Catholic (Christian), and Muslim.

Pfft, that sounds amusing as hell. I can almost imagine the bewilderment on the priests'/imams'/clergies' face when they receive the lawsuit.

On the topic itself, no? Religion is a set of ideas and so on depending on the definition and since it doesn't manifest physically, I don't think it can be sued. The closest thing is as in Nana's quote, the institutions themselves but....Idk.

[Rojava Free State]

You can't sue an idea.

The idea of suing religion is ridiculous- how would that even work? Besides, religion in general isn't the problem, it's extremism.

Which is why there are passages in the bible itself that promote violence either on behalf of god or directly due to god

[Risottia]

Yes, you can't sue religion just like you can't sue conservatism or liberalism.

There's a lack of common ownership and control, which is needed for an entity to be one entity (and therefore a legal "person"), and only legal persons can be named in court suits.

Fair enough, then.

So what of the notion of "simultaneous" lawsuits against the leaders of different denominations, such that they can't hide behind the "why are you suing only us and not them" platitude?

So, exactly, what would be the charges against, let's say, Pope Francis or Queen Elizabeth II or Queen Margrethe II? According to what code?
By the way, Francis, Elizabeth and Margrethe are Heads of State.

[Purgatio]

....you kinda need a legal person to be the Defendant, so who is the legal person being sued? Islam, Inc. or Judaism, Inc., Christianity, Inc., or Buddhism, Inc. isn't really a thing, you know. I guess Vatican City is a legal person in international law, but suing Vatican City in any national court would be barred under State immunity and par in parem non habet imperium.

Anyways, answer's clearly NO.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This thread reminds me of the plot of the Indian movie OMG, where the main character, after his anti-religious behavior and losing his livelihood in an earthquake, and being told by his insurance that his policy wouldn’t pay for “acts of God”, decides to sue all Gods. And where does the lawsuit goes to? To every religious institution in India: Hindu, Catholic (Christian), and Muslim.

Pfft, that sounds amusing as hell. I can almost imagine the bewilderment on the priests'/imams'/clergies' face when they receive the lawsuit.

On the topic itself, no? Religion is a set of ideas and so on depending on the definition and since it doesn't manifest physically, I don't think it can be sued. The closest thing is as in Nana's quote, the institutions themselves but....Idk.

With an appearance of lord Krishna himself too as a swanky motorcycle rider. Interestingly enough, the brunt of the criticism in this movie is aimed at the Hindu side. With the Hindu religious leaders being greatly parodied and criticized.

It’s highly amusing to watch.

[Ayytaly]

Interesting how most former colonial powers are happy as hell, yet half of Africa and America are somehow miserable. Is it really religion's fault, or just the European man's insatiable lust for power and wealth over the world to blame?

[Valrifell]

I don't think the two graphs you show illustrate a strong correlation like you think it does.

[Tinhampton]

Meanwhile in the real world, the correlation is clear.

>>> "2015 Global Peace Index" passed off as accurate indicator of global violence rates in 2020
>>> "Gallup poll 2006-08" to prove the findings of above Index
erm... OK?

Parkinson's or diabetes or cancer. Embryonic stem cell research could've cured them if not for religion holding it back.

https://mbbnet.ahc.umn.edu/scmap.html

[Heloin]

I don't think the two graphs you show illustrate a strong correlation like you think it does.

Zambia being all nice and peaceful.

[Deacarsia]

This whole topic is absurd.

[Shokpos]

could "progressive" Christians be indicted as accomplices

Are you fucking kidding me, seriously, you're full of shit.
Are you seriously going to indict the people now, and not the institution, I know there are some assholes in every religion but seriously. Punishing the people in place of punishing the institution is ridiculous and doesnt help at all. That is like suing every German citizen for the crimes of Nazis.

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

Why destroy when you could fix. History has been a tale of modernizing and/or fixing old things. Radio signals to WiFi, fireworks to rockets, bows to guns, balloons to airplanes ect.
Destroying things has gotten us nowhere, and only pushes us back, and you cannot deny that religion has played a pivotal role in moving forward, name 5 revolutionary scientists from before 1500 who didnt have religion in their lives. Why destroy something that 63% of the world participates in actively, when you could change it, and these movements already exist. I don't think it's religion that destroys things per se, but those who wish to destroy what they don't like, and you are coming out to look like someone who wishes to destroy

Lets talk about how impossible this idea is. You plan to sue 4.9 billion people for the crime of their beliefs just because in the past their beliefs caused crimes. What percent of those people now commit crimes for their religion. You act like every person who follows a religion is a mindless drone who can't think or question for themselves, religious institutions don't represent all of their followers, or vice versa.

[Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar]

Those graphs show a poor correlation at best, and we already know there are different underlying factors in wartorn regions.

NS threads intelligence quality has been going downhill lately.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Vatican City in any national court would be barred under State immunity

What about those who ship Catholic churchgoers' money from other countries to Vatican City? Would lawsuits against them be actionable?

[Samudera Darussalam]

I don't think the two graphs you show illustrate a strong correlation like you think it does.

Zambia being all nice and peaceful.

A lot of countries that are said in the graph as "religious" are actually rather peaceful, such as Bhutan, Mongolia, Senegal, etc.
Yeah, I love Libya has no data in the Gallup poll