In the UK the game is up for mediums, psychics, tarot card readers and occultists. They now fall within the ambit of consumer protection regulations.

See:

PSYCHIC CRACKDOWN ON THE CARDS

Mediums are fighting new EU rules designed to protect the public from dodgy traders, fearing that honest spiritualists could be targeted

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/06/eu

"….there will now be nothing between the medium and the trading standards officer - and no need to prove fraud. Instead it will be up to the trader, in this case the medium, to prove they did not mislead, coerce or take advantage of any 'vulnerable' consumers."

Fair enough.

But what about the so-called mainstream religions. How reliable are those promises of an afterlife of ease and joy, with or without virgins?

Will your enemies really suffer eternal damnation?

Can a church truly cleanse your mind of pernicious alien influences from 75 million years ago?

Why should some varieties of shamanism be subjected to consumer protection regulations and not others?

We in Australia should go a step further than the UK. ALL religions should be made subject to the Trade Practices Act.*

After that we can start on political parties.

*See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149

If you're going to subject religions to the Trade Practices Act you ought to subject their opposite - atheism. Good luck!

and politicians

Steven, love to see it especially for some of the more extreme groups (the kind of group where Gibo's claims fit in).

I'll go with Graham's idea, any athiest group taking money from people on the basis of the claims made by the group should be required to support their claims.

I'm not sure how many athiest groups make money out of their claims of the non existance of god nr the non existance of an afterlife.

The monothiests have two different types of claims to prove, that their god exists and that all the others don't.

On the other hand athiests just have to add one additional god to the second proof from the monthiests or if their claim is that there is no proof of the existance of god then they just need to rebut the first proof of any thiest group.

Panthiests are in for a really tough time trying to prove the existance of a whole bunch of gods.

Agnostics have little to prove.

Bring it on.

R0bert

GrahamY wrote:

"If you're going to subject religions to the Trade Practices Act you ought to subject their opposite – atheism…"

My first reaction was to say atheists aren't traders. We give our advice away for free – which may be why no one pays any attention to us.

If we're not trading we are not subject to the Trade Practices Act.

But then I realised this was not true. Richard Dawkins must have made a mint out of The God Delusion. He is certainly trading. So are all the shops selling his books.

Can Prof. Dawkins positively guarantee that if you become in atheist you won't end up "where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched?'"*

Should booksellers eagre to profit from Dawkins' books be subject to the Trade Practices Act?

*Mark 9:48. Now there's an ambiguous verse if ever there was one. Imagine how many ways you can interpret that, Willy.

If you want a deeper revelation of Mark 9:48 Steven, have a sqiz on the net at Mary K Baxter- A divine revelation of hell heaven.
Its extremely descriptive about hell and its suffering.
The moment I heard her story I knew in The Holy Spirit that it was true.
We dont pick on a Holy God or His people.

I think the agnostics are the only ones safe. At least they say they don't know, and as long as that is an honest belief...

Dear Steven

what you suggest gets pretty close to a 'Ministry of Truth' does it not?

The problem is.. that it could lead in many very worrisome directions.
I can't even begin to think of them at the moment.

One thing is certain though, some regulatory scrutiny of Mediums who charge money (anyone who charges money)for a service, should be subject to the trade practices act..I agree.

Churches are not in that category.. we are not 'selling' anything. We are proclaiming some historical truths, with their interpretation for the individual, and any 'money' offered is always a free will gift. (Biblically)

We promise 'new life in Christ'.. we proclaim that.. we don't sell it.
In connection with the forgiveness and new life in Him, there is also the assurance by faith of Heaven and dwelling in the presense of the Almighty. We are not 'trading'.

Such a thing cannot be checked unless you have the power to come back :)

Mediums/fortune tellers pretty much couch their predictions in ambiguous generalities, emphasizing how rich you will become, how your love life will improve.. etc. They do this for money.. clearly they have a vested interest in saying things you want to hear.

MARK 9:48

An easy one. Not ambiguous, no problem giving 'the' interpretation :)

a)Jesus is speaking contextually about the fate of those who cause a child to sin.
b)He quotes from Isaiah 66:24 which, again, contextually is referring to the new heaven and new earth and judgement.

There is nothing ambiguous about it at all.. except that the imagery is 'anthropomophic'.

Next question please? :)

On the face of it if an organisation is trading the they should be beholden to the TPA.

We had a problem here when one particluar charity started selling turf (grass) in competition with a local business. The difference is the charity did not have to pay the same wages and were not subject to penalty rates, some workers were even volunteers. Rightly so, the business complained on the basis of unfair competition. The turf business had workers to pay and they all have families too.

Religion should be subject to the TPA only if they are trading. Not sure if you could argue that 'selling' faith is trading even though money is being earned in the way of tithes or plate collections.

There is a thin line sometimes. I would imagine given that in most cases profit would not be the prime motivation - after wages paid to pastors etal, I am guessing most monies would go towards good works. But there are exceptions with some of the more corporatised faiths. We have all heard about some evangelical ministers receiving huge and obscene salaries and where the Chuch itself becomes a corporation selling merely for profit.

How you could distinguish I wouldn't know.

Dawkins or any author, would probably not be subject to the TPA a such, but the booksellers and distributors would be. As an author he would receive a sum of money and probably royalties on sales which would naturally fall under the normal taxation obligations.

Generally the TPA refers to trades and services involved in trade and commerce.

- Is confession a trade/exchange?
- Does a priest or minister deliver a "service"?

Section 52 deals with fitness for purpose @ s. 74 deals with false descriptions and non-correspondence with samples. Under s 74 there is an emphasis on manufacturer [of a surmon?] and consumer [laity?].

A "person" is a body politic as well as an individual and an extension of the concept of consumer, which is more prolific in the TPA.

First century sources on tithing do state that practice was giving one-third of one's income to the Church: One should work for two days to help the indigent. Of the third day, I assume work for the Church. Mispresentation of original meaning by today's religions?

[citation not to hand. I think it was the Dead Sea Scrolls (Trans.)]

Sanitarium, Seventh Day Adventists, I understand, does not pay taxes. Is this example, fair competition? Should churches only receive taxation relief for charitable deeds?

"If you're going to subject religions to the Trade Practices Act you ought to subject their opposite - atheism. Good luck!" - GrahamY

Hello Graham. Welcome to this thread.

Atheists sued under TPA?

Yes, if implementable. One can test "faith healing", to see it is "fit for purpose" [s.52], but, atheism, I think would be harder.

Perhaps, denial of a religious reward represents an opportunity cost to the atheist; but who is the defendant? Suspect it would be leglisation, other than the TPA, if feasible. That said, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Go for it churches: Sue the atheists!

Suspect the damages for eternal damnation would run high, but, the grounds for the aforementioned damages need to be established.

If praying does not save a terminally ill person, can an action be taken under the TPA? If we don't pray and the person lives can the beneficiaries of a Will sue an atheist?

"The Man Who Sued God", is a funny film, if one ignores the swearing in te first fifteen minutes. Turns on "An Act of God" and TPA s.52.

Palimpsest,

I would like to see the Pollies make their promises, while being scanned by a functional-MRI. Apparently, a very sophisticated lie detector. Superior to a polygraph.

Greetings.

*See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149

but please take us to the sections you would plead

and yes, especially when they are hired by Howard as NGOs eg CentreCare was one of the Catholic NGOs that took over the jobsearch functions of CentreLink [back in DSS days]

ditto for Privacy Act

both acts could be pleaded as is

and sure enough the Crim Code was added to this Act TOO in 2001

6AA. Application of the Criminal Code

I had hoped that at least one person would realise that when I submitted this thread I had tongue firmly planted in cheek.

For God's sake, let's get rid of religion altogether.

stevenlmeyer,

You would enjoy "The Man who sued God", then. I took it seriously so rid ourselves or faith healers and mediums, a small step towards stopping the churches acting like corporations.

"it", your thread: Not, the Movie. Albeit, regarding the Movie, there are some truths under the cheekness.