X-Message-Number: 26506
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 09:54:53 -0500
From: Jeff Dee <>
Subject: Re: CryoNet #26479 - #26501
References: <>

--------------070800090107050703060708

Message #26501
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 01:55:34 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Re: Lawsuit
References: <>

David Pizer wrote:

>>Can you suggest a better immediate (people are dying every day, time is
>>of the essence) way than a lawsuit to get something going that will cause
>>religions to rephrase their beliefs as just that  -- beliefs, and not as 
>>absolute
>>truth?
>

Hi David - hope you don't mind if I step in with a little support for 
your side ;-)

Mike Perry wrote:

> Off the top of my head, if I try to put myself in place of one of 
> these, all I can imagine is that I would take offense at someone trying to 
> infringe on my freedom to (for example) proclaim the Bible as the word of 
> God.


There is free speech, and then there is fraud. Claiming that that a book was 
written by a deity is protected free speech. Collecting *money* on the basis of 
such a claim, *if the claim cannot be shown to be true*, is fraud.

> I might say "this is what I believe" but also "this is what I *know* 
> to be true" as I think many religious people do. (And by the way, to feel 
> that you know that something is true, especially when it concerns a matter 
> such as eternal salvation, is very important to many people. Do you think 
> you need "evidence" of this?)


Suppose a man who does not own the Brooklyn Bridge offers to sell it to you for 
a million dollars. This is a classic example of fraud. You seem to be saying 
that if the man *believes* that he owns that bridge, then his behavior is no 
longer fraud, but protected free speech. I strongly disagree.

> I would say that my right to proclaim my 
> religious belief as *what I **know** to be true* and not as *just a 
> possibility* is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution. 


Yes it is. But if you collect money from other people by telling them that your 
belief is true, when your belief cannot be shown to be true, then you are 
engaging in fraud. The fact that you "believe" it is true is irrelevant. Though 
I suppose it might be grounds for an insanity plea.

> ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or 
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech; or 
> of the press ...")

Of course David is talking about a lawsuit, not an act of Congress.

> I think I would be on solid ground that my position 
> would be most unlikely to be overturned in the courts--can *you* produce 
> any evidence otherwise?


In light of the verbal gymnastics recently employed by members of the Supreme 
Court in upholding the presence of a 10 Commandments monument on the state 
capitol lawn here in my home town of Austin, Texas, I'm forced to admit that 
you're very probably right. If a lawsuit such a David suggests went before the 
courts, it would probably be thrown out.

But not because David is wrong.

> I think the First Amendment grants the right of 
> someone to assert that they "know" something even if they can't produce 
> enough evidence to convince a court of law.


Yes, it does. But does that protection extend to acts of fraud? Do American 
citizens have the right to take money from others on false pretenses, so long as
they can first convince themselves that the pretenses are not false? I would be
amazed and horrified if that were the case.

> Other considerations are that the courts themselves are composed of 
> non-cryonicists, many of whom are religious themselves, and they do 
> consider precedent in arriving at decisions.


True, and that's why I agree that David's lawsuit would probably fail. But 
tilting at windmills can be a noble and glorious exercise, especially if the 
windmills really ARE evil giants that need vanquishing. The Supreme Court 
weaseled out of addressing Mike Newdow's challenge to the words "Under God" in 
the Pledge, but Newdow was *right* and it was a noble effort. He has found a new
group of plaintiffs whose parental rights cannot be disputed, and is trying 
again. Good for him! Thomas Van Orden's challenge to the Austin 10 Commandments 
monument was rejected, but again, not because he was wrong. The swing vote in 
that case, in his written opinion, basically said "that monument is secular 
because nobody ever complained before". Since when is that the way the 
Constitution works? Van Orden was right, but the Supreme Court rejected his 
argument. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have tried. It means that challenge 
needs to me made again, and again, until it succeeds.


It is *wrong* to take money on promises that you don't have a good reason to 
expect you can uphold. If religions commit that wrong, they should be 
challenged. If they win in court it is *still* wrong, and they should be 
challenged again. But many of you seem to think that religion is SOOO dangerous 
that we'd better not annoy it.


A few years ago, when the Godless Americans March on Washington was discussed on
this list, some of the same voices now opposing David's idea attacked me for 
planning to participate - even going so far as to predict that my life would be 
in danger because Christian terrorists were likely to attack. That didn't happen
either. Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned, here.

-Jeff Dee


--------------070800090107050703060708

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26506