Posted on 02/08/2014 12:07:25 PM PST by marshmallow
If they were teaching about “toys” from the Adam and Eve catalog there would be no problem.
Yes, and ?
This is something you and I find to be wrong.
But someone else could find what your religion or mine do to be similarly wrong. Imagine a suit against a Jewish Rabbi by a disgruntled Jewish convert claiming that he was led to commit grave bodily harm against himself or his children (circumcison).
We are fighting for the right to prosletyze and teach and witness, if it comes to that.
Well, one judge’s bad ruling does not a Nation make. But, yeah, the ruling is absurd and will be overturned.
My concern is that we are also standing with a false prophet.
What I’m seeing in Christianity is that there seems to be a move to embrace all faiths as equal, that all gods are the same.
If you want to see a fight, take a look at this thread. one woman stands up to islam.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3120451/posts
Oh, you again. ;-) Well, not sure of the burden of proof in jolly old England, but hopefully, it is the prosecution that must provide it false.
Its worse than that.
This opens the possibility of such litigation in the UK, raising the legal liability of any organized religion, and possibly that of many individuals. This will possibly increase rates for liability coverage and eat into resources and effectively hamper preaching and mission work.
And because the UK is somewhat open to transnational suits especially in the old empire, and since British cases are also used as precedents, the effects will potentially be very broad.
You don’t have to go that far.
This matter is more fundamental.
On this issue, should they be sued on similar grounds, I would even back the Muslims.
Just Photoshop the scumbag ripping up a Koran—case over.
The U.K. already said something to the Scientologists. The UK government had refused to recognize Scientology as a religion for decades, and a UK court once ruled it "pernicious nonsense."
In December 2013, then UK Supreme Court ruled that a Scientology chapel was a "place of meeting for religious purposes", rending it a religion to all practical purposes.
The UK government has expressed concern that the ruling will affect the current status that Scientology itself is not recognized by the government as a religion.
eh, major typo here. the Mormon god is not God.
hopefully, it is the prosecution that must prove it false
That would certainly be an interesting effort.
LOL! Good idea.
I wasn’t commenting on the suit, I just thought that you might want to learn something about Mormonism, Scientology also gets a raw deal, but they made a deal with president Clinton to get legal status.
“It’s not a fraud if they believe it.”
All fraud requires belief by those being defrauded.
Perhaps this could be applied to liberalism, which fails every time it is tried.
I know a great deal about Mormonism. It is a particularly bizarre heresy. But I can accept the fact of Hindus and Buddhists, and pagans of all sorts, and for that matter even Muslims as long as they behave themselves. Its a big world.
Imagine a similar suit against the cult of Global Warming. Surely England has some sort of institutional “climate change” entity that could be the defendant.
The case for the prosecution must be proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ , the Crown will need the LORD himself in the witness box to obtain a safe conviction.
Then convince the court of appeal, followed by the ‘High court’ ,and House of Lords.
If the funds are still holding out ,EU court.
The laws on Religious freedom should kill this when it hits the Crown Prosecution service , before the initial hearing opens.
The only fraud that should ever be considered is if someone created a cult and it could be proven they didn't really believe their own claims. You know, like Obama or Jim Jones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.