Res Ipsa wrote:The issue isn’t verifiability; it’s the separation of church and state.
Sure, but does that separation give churches absolute immunity from fraud claims? It is one thing to believe and claim something that one cannot prove or disprove. It is quite another to claim something that is verifiably untrue. Women in Europe, for example, were assured by Mormon apostles that the church was not practicing polygamy when it was, when even some of those apostles telling them it wasn't were already married to multiple women. This resulted in them arriving in Utah, and being confronted by the practice of polygamy and then its coercive way Mormons practiced it.
Regardless of what the organisation is, be it a church or a logging company in Alaska, this would be an extremely, verifiably, fraudulant practice that hurt people.
Not to mention the money paid in tithing to the church based on those representations that were verifiable, but false.
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov
Res Ipsa wrote:The issue isn’t verifiability; it’s the separation of church and state.
Sure, but does that separation give churches absolute immunity from fraud claims? It is one thing to believe and claim something that one cannot prove or disprove. It is quite another to claim something that is verifiably untrue. Women in Europe, for example, were assured by Mormon apostles that the church was not practicing polygamy when it was, when even some of those apostles telling them it wasn't were already married to multiple women. This resulted in them arriving in Utah, and being confronted by the practice of polygamy and then its coercive way Mormons practiced it.
Regardless of what the organisation is, be it a church or a logging company in Alaska, this would be an extremely, verifiably, fraudulant practice that hurt people.
No, it’s not absolute immunity from fraud. Courts distinguish between religious truth claims and non-religious truth claims. For example, if the Mormon Church told me that tithing was given to the poor, but actually the big 15 spent it all on hookers and blow, a court would probably adjudicate a fraud suit because the representation about how the money would be spent is not a religious truth claim. Courts have allowed lawsuits based on predatory practices of churches in pressuring seniors to leave their estates to churches.
I think your example is a close call. It does involve a religious practice, but doesn’t require the court to determine whether polygamy was a bona fide religious practice. In practice, courts give a very broad interpretation to what constitutes a religious question that they have no constitutional authority to decide.
And, yes, it means that churches can harm folks in ways that private businesses legally cannot. Religious and political speech get special protections that commercial speech does not.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Another example, supposing leaders of the Willie-Martin handcart company had promised that they had horse teams meeting them halfway, but knew they didn't, and then members who in prudence depended on such information to make their decision suffered injury, in part because it was a lie. That would have been verifiable fraud, different from what appears to have happened: members being promised "through revelation" that the way would be cleared for them. The former is deliberate falsehood, the latter is mutual belief in something unverifiable.
Holy Ghost wrote:Not to mention the money paid in tithing to the church based on those representations that were verifiable, but false.
Even if a court could be persuaded to examine the truth of religious representations, proving reliance on the types of representations Kay has discussed would be tricky. Put a believing Mormon on the stand, and he will testify that he pays tithing based on a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. That witness is so powerful that the Mormon will claim to know that Smith was a prophet and that the Mormon church is God’s one and only true church on the face of the earth. That spiritual witness is why folks pay tithing — not some distinction between magic glasses and rock in a hat.
Persuading a jury that there was actual reliance on the kinds of statements Kay discusses would be, in my opinion, extremely difficult.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Meadowchik wrote:Another example, supposing leaders of the Willie-Martin handcart company had promised that they had horse teams meeting them halfway, but knew they didn't, and then members who in prudence depended on such information to make their decision suffered injury, in part because it was a lie. That would have been verifiable fraud, different from what appears to have happened: members being promised "through revelation" that the way would be cleared for them. The former is deliberate falsehood, the latter is mutual belief in something unverifiable.
I agree that one is verifiable and the other is not. But the verifiable one is also not a religious truth claim and the unverifiable one is a religious truth claim. Courts will adjudicate unverifiable claims. The first amendment issue isn’t verifiability — it’s the religious nature of the question.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Holy Ghost wrote:Not to mention the money paid in tithing to the church based on those representations that were verifiable, but false.
Even if a court could be persuaded to examine the truth of religious representations, proving reliance on the types of representations Kay has discussed would be tricky. Put a believing Mormon on the stand, and he will testify that he pays tithing based on a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. That witness is so powerful that the Mormon will claim to know that Smith was a prophet and that the Mormon church is God’s one and only true church on the face of the earth. That spiritual witness is why folks pay tithing — not some distinction between magic glasses and rock in a hat.
Persuading a jury that there was actual reliance on the kinds of statements Kay discusses would be, in my opinion, extremely difficult.
Except the verifiable claims do impact credibility. That Smith was delving in folk magic of the time and using it to translate would change perspective of him now. That he was practicing polygamy and said he didn't then would change perspective on him now. That Mormons were not merely persecuted victims and rarely if ever aggressors makes a difference to us now. That the top leaders don't get paid today makes a difference to people now.
These deceptions and more concerning verifiable fact impact our ability to evaluate the character of the institution before we decide to exercise our right to believe unverifiable claims.
Holy Ghost wrote:Not to mention the money paid in tithing to the church based on those representations that were verifiable, but false.
Even if a court could be persuaded to examine the truth of religious representations, proving reliance on the types of representations Kay has discussed would be tricky. Put a believing Mormon on the stand, and he will testify that he pays tithing based on a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost. That witness is so powerful that the Mormon will claim to know that Smith was a prophet and that the Mormon church is God’s one and only true church on the face of the earth. That spiritual witness is why folks pay tithing — not some distinction between magic glasses and rock in a hat.
Persuading a jury that there was actual reliance on the kinds of statements Kay discusses would be, in my opinion, extremely difficult.
The church leaders' misrepresentations go much broader and deeper than 'some distinction between magic glasses and rock in a hat.'
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov
Meadowchik wrote:Except the verifiable claims do impact credibility. That Smith was delving in folk magic of the time and using it to translate would change perspective of him now. That he was practicing polygamy and said he didn't then would change perspective on him now. That Mormons were not merely persecuted victims and rarely if ever aggressors makes a difference to us now. That the top leaders don't get paid today makes a difference to people now.
These deceptions and more concerning verifiable fact impact our ability to evaluate the character of the institution before we decide to exercise our right to believe unverifiable claims.
But is that really how religious faith works? People examine all the available evidence and then make a choice to believe? Sure, I might buy a used car that way: do my homework on the car and the seller, and then buy the car even though I don’t know for sure that it’s not a lemon. But is it how people form religious belief?
Think of the issue in terms that are broader than our former Mormon perspective, because that’s what judges will do. Should my former evangelical neighbors be able to sue their former pastor because he taught a literal seven day creation that happened 4000 years ago without disclosing all the evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved over millions of years? If not, what would be the difference between that and not disclosing that Smith was into folk magic?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Holy Ghost wrote:The church leaders' misrepresentations go much broader and deeper than 'some distinction between magic glasses and rock in a hat.'
I picked that example because it is one of the claims in the lawsuit. More specifically, the claim is based on artistic representations of Smith’s translation process.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Meadowchik wrote:Except the verifiable claims do impact credibility. That Smith was delving in folk magic of the time and using it to translate would change perspective of him now. That he was practicing polygamy and said he didn't then would change perspective on him now. That Mormons were not merely persecuted victims and rarely if ever aggressors makes a difference to us now. That the top leaders don't get paid today makes a difference to people now.
These deceptions and more concerning verifiable fact impact our ability to evaluate the character of the institution before we decide to exercise our right to believe unverifiable claims.
But is that really how religious faith works? People examine all the available evidence and then make a choice to believe? Sure, I might buy a used car that way: do my homework on the car and the seller, and then buy the car even though I don’t know for sure that it’s not a lemon. But is it how people form religious belief?
Think of the issue in terms that are broader than our former Mormon perspective, because that’s what judges will do. Should my former evangelical neighbors be able to sue their former pastor because he taught a literal seven day creation that happened 4000 years ago without disclosing all the evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life evolved over millions of years? If not, what would be the difference between that and not disclosing that Smith was into folk magic?
I think it depends on what they know and what they don't disclose about what they know. Maybe a pastor who goes to preach young-earth to an enclave of backwoods people who have no books SHOULD get in trouble for taking their prayer money, and it's the one who does the disclaimer, "Scientists say xyz but don't believe them" that aren't actionably fraudulent.
I really do think my husband would have been much more resistant to baptism had the missionaries answered his polygamy questions truthfully.