Should there be a law against public institutions that lie for money?

Religions and many charitable organizations of all stripes make their revenues by lying to people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ9oBCLwwL0

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... endas.html

Should we help protect the gullible by eliminating all the fraud that is being passed off as religion and charity?

Those who do not believe the lies being sold by religions and charities are presently subsidize the tax exemptions and credits that religions and charities enjoy. What they save in taxes, non-believers and those who actually want to give to charities must fork up.

I am not what most would call a non-believer, I am a Gnostic Christian, but still resent my hard earned tax money being used to perpetuate what most know are lies. If you are a non-believer, or one who wants your charitable donations to actually be used for charity, I hope you feel the same and do not like being fleeced the way the gullible are.

There ought to be a law against institution like religions and bogus charities that live off of lying to the gullible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... on-a-year/

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

Yes in principle, but tricky to define lying. What would you do if evangelists got totalitarian control of the state and used such a law to define Gnosticism as lies? As actually happened in Ancient Rome?

in texas they would fine schools for teaching evolution.

Because the people in charge would define what constitutes a lie based on what they think is the truth. And where they don't value facts above what they would RATHER be true, the facts can be called lies...

very sad, but likely.

sigh.

johnson1010 wrote:in texas they would fine schools for teaching evolution.

Because the people in charge would define what constitutes a lie based on what they think is the truth. And where they don't value facts above what they would RATHER be true, the facts can be called lies...

very sad, but likely.

sigh.

There goes our world dominance, huh?

Robert Tulip wrote:Yes in principle, but tricky to define lying. What would you do if evangelists got totalitarian control of the state and used such a law to define Gnosticism as lies? As actually happened in Ancient Rome?

I hope I would have the guts to stand by my words but that would depend more on my lifestyle than courage.

If alone, death for principles is easy.

If I had a family to raise, I would fly whatever flag had the power over me and choose life and throw principle away.
My duty would be to family and not pride.

Regards
DL

johnson1010 wrote:in texas they would fine schools for teaching evolution.

Because the people in charge would define what constitutes a lie based on what they think is the truth. And where they don't value facts above what they would RATHER be true, the facts can be called lies...

very sad, but likely.

sigh.

I hear you. Here we are in 2015 and we have to fight against the stupidity of what you hear in this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dtC052f9A4

Where in hell are the smart Americans?

American wants to rule the world yet hamstring themselves with a really stupid political system.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:johnson1010 wrote:
in texas they would fine schools for teaching evolution.

Because the people in charge would define what constitutes a lie based on what they think is the truth. And where they don't value facts above what they would RATHER be true, the facts can be called lies...

very sad, but likely.

sigh.




I hear you. Here we are in 2015 and we have to fight against the stupidity of what you hear in this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dtC052f9A4

Where in hell are the smart Americans?

On another thread I posted an article by biologist and mutations expert Wolf E Loennig titled; Mutation breeding,evolution and the law of recurrent variation.
Neo-Darwinism requires random mutations and natural selection to work the oracle and for macro-evolution there can not be limits and barriers to change.
I want you guys to demonstrate to me where Loennig's facts and conclusions are incorrect and why?
Don't just appeal to majority consensus. The scientific data here is strongly against unlimited variations. What facts contradict this evidence? Here it is again.
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Ve ... iation.pdf

Incidentally here's a recent news item in relation to dinosaur soft tissue. It's not the work of cranks but scientists at Imperial College in London. Make of this what you will. One solution is to postulate that soft tissue can survive for 75 million years. I wonder about that. http://www.history.com/news/scientists- ... saur-bones

American wants to rule the world

Which Americans have said they wish to rule the world?

Please do not include conspiracy theories or speculation as evidence for your claim.

Thanks

Flann 5 wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:johnson1010 wrote:
in texas they would fine schools for teaching evolution.

Because the people in charge would define what constitutes a lie based on what they think is the truth. And where they don't value facts above what they would RATHER be true, the facts can be called lies...

very sad, but likely.

sigh.




I hear you. Here we are in 2015 and we have to fight against the stupidity of what you hear in this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dtC052f9A4

Where in hell are the smart Americans?

On another thread I posted an article by biologist and mutations expert Wolf E Loennig titled; Mutation breeding,evolution and the law of recurrent variation.
Neo-Darwinism requires random mutations and natural selection to work the oracle and for macro-evolution there can not be limits and barriers to change.
I want you guys to demonstrate to me where Loennig's facts and conclusions are incorrect and why?
Don't just appeal to majority consensus. The scientific data here is strongly against unlimited variations. What facts contradict this evidence? Here it is again.
http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Ve ... iation.pdf

Incidentally here's a recent news item in relation to dinosaur soft tissue. It's not the work of cranks but scientists at Imperial College in London. Make of this what you will. One solution is to postulate that soft tissue can survive for 75 million years. I wonder about that. http://www.history.com/news/scientists- ... saur-bones

I am not into this science but nature can only work with the genes we have. If we presently only have 98% of ape genes for instance, we can only mutate to being 98% ape and will always be 2% something else. Regression is always possible and that is why some of us are born with vestigial tails.

Regards
DL

ant wrote:

American wants to rule the world

Which Americans have said they wish to rule the world?

Please do not include conspiracy theories or speculation as evidence for your claim.

Thanks

If control of the world is not the agenda, why is the U.S. military force, what, 7 times the size of the closest competitor?

The U.S definitely does not need that much for security at home.

Regards
DL