5 ms·

He was gone after not because of proving it false, but because he accused the church of purposefully lying I believe. One could call it not much different but

by bruceb 4y ago

He was gone after not because of proving it false, but because he accused the church of purposefully lying I believe. One could call it not much different but it isn't the exact same as being prosecuted for debunking a "miracle" From wikipedia: he skeptic-rationalist author Sanal Edamaruku proved that the water stemmed from a faulty sewage system, which seeped due to capillary action. However, Edamaruku also accused Latin Christian priests of regularly scamming devotees and defrauding miracles to make money, and build bigger and newer churchs or convents,[1] and mocked the Pope as "anti-science".[2] A church representative admitted Edamaruku had the "right to doubt", and Christian activists said that the backlash was not for debunking the alleged "miracle" but for the defamatory statements made live on television.[3]

Kab1r 4y ago
Defamation should not be criminal imo.
- markdown 4y ago
  That would give the rich the ability to defame the poor at will.
  - MrBlueIncognito 4y ago
    Defamation lawsuits are mostly filed by wealthy or influential individuals against common citizens. It is a tool to keep everyone that can’t afford decades-long legal battles obedient and shut. Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good to most people, especially vocal journalists.
    - markdown 4y ago
      So you agree it should be criminal, so that the rich can get prosecuted for it as well? > Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good Everyone thinks so until their lives are ruined by someone else causing mischief. BTW have you stopped beating your wife yet?
FerociousTimes 4y ago
Even though the allegations are indeed defamatory and slanderous in nature, they shouldn't be prosecutable period. The only exception to be made if he divulged very specific details for scams/frauds that perpetuated by certain individuals mentioned by name, then these individuals have every right to sue him and ask for a generous compensation for the damages the defendant inflicted on their reputation and good name by making these baseless accusations. Other than this specific case, he shouldn't face trial for these ridiculous statements no matter how incendiary or inflammatory they might be perceived by certain groups or elements of the general public.
- rndgermandude 4y ago
  You say "baseless accusations" and "ridiculous statements". I have seen "Christians" do what I can only describe as scamming other people regularly, not just the megachurch guys buying private jets with "donations", but also the Catholic Church selling(!) indulgences and sometimes "monetizing" "miracles". I see how other people might feel these activities are not scams at all, but at least to me, that's how I perceive them. I cannot comment on this particular story, as I am lacking background information, and thus do not want form an opinion without knowing the facts. Calling the pope "anti-science" isn't that much of a stretch either, from my perspective.

by bruceb 4y ago

Kab1r 4y ago

Defamation should not be criminal imo.

markdown 4y ago
That would give the rich the ability to defame the poor at will.
- MrBlueIncognito 4y ago
  Defamation lawsuits are mostly filed by wealthy or influential individuals against common citizens. It is a tool to keep everyone that can’t afford decades-long legal battles obedient and shut. Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good to most people, especially vocal journalists.
  - markdown 4y ago
    So you agree it should be criminal, so that the rich can get prosecuted for it as well? > Laws regarding defamation do more harm than good Everyone thinks so until their lives are ruined by someone else causing mischief. BTW have you stopped beating your wife yet?

FerociousTimes 4y ago

Even though the allegations are indeed defamatory and slanderous in nature, they shouldn't be prosecutable period. The only exception to be made if he divulged very specific details for scams/frauds that perpetuated by certain individuals mentioned by name, then these individuals have every right to sue him and ask for a generous compensation for the damages the defendant inflicted on their reputation and good name by making these baseless accusations. Other than this specific case, he shouldn't face trial for these ridiculous statements no matter how incendiary or inflammatory they might be perceived by certain groups or elements of the general public.

rndgermandude 4y ago
You say "baseless accusations" and "ridiculous statements". I have seen "Christians" do what I can only describe as scamming other people regularly, not just the megachurch guys buying private jets with "donations", but also the Catholic Church selling(!) indulgences and sometimes "monetizing" "miracles". I see how other people might feel these activities are not scams at all, but at least to me, that's how I perceive them. I cannot comment on this particular story, as I am lacking background information, and thus do not want form an opinion without knowing the facts. Calling the pope "anti-science" isn't that much of a stretch either, from my perspective.