Utah Women Sue Church for Fraud For Not Getting Promised Land, Meet Christ

and I seriously question their judgement :crazy: ... but religious institutions shouldn't get away scot free when they take advantage of their followers.

I bet P.T. Barnum would be amazed by these two.

:)

that led them to shortcuts in their spirituality now leads them to try shortcuts to wealth...I'm for them inside...really I am...really...

This doesn't really seem all that far out of line with the standard...

That's where afterlife-based religions are such fabulous business propositions: they sell a product that they never have to deliver. Better than that, most of them RENT a product for which one can be billed on a regular basis (instead of just charged once) which NEVER actually has to be shipped.

The snake-oil salesmen here just overreached; sure, it's a better pitch to actually get to bask in the glow of the perfect whosiewhat, but that's something that actually has to show up. Ooops.

Bummer.

May they countersue the afterliving snot out of each other for a goodly long time.

That is what I was taught in my catechism classes anyway.

Don

If they were dumb enough to buy into something like that, well, I guess they should take their lumps. Then again, I wouldn't mind seeing the hucksters get their comeuppence either. I am really kind of torn on this one.

These people are being promised outlandish things. They may be fools, but spotlights on these cases may make some (slightly more mainstream) contemplate.

at Jamestown via Jim Jones. A brother & a sister. He said that he could not reconcile they're joining the cult with anything that he knew about them.

I think some people are fools but many more are just emotionally vulnerable & needy and cross paths with the exact wrong group at the exact wrong time.

...:eyes:

:rofl:

Sort of along these lines, I highly recommend Jon Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven" about the 1984 murder of a Utah woman by excommunicated Mormons turned polygamist cult members. It's a very interesting look into Mormon fundamentalism, and more generally about what makes fundamentalist movements tick. Also, he draws some parallels between fundamentalism's persecution complex and that of the political right. Highly recommended read.

Cheers!

from a fellow Alburquerquian or ite!?!

:toast:

before the internet when we were all in the dark about just how many crazies there are in this country.

I guess we're running out of Bush factotums to attack when we turn our harsh attention to victims of fraud. The underlying idea seems to be that people with poor judgement do not deserve justice, but only punishment, scorn, and inclusion in the "Darwin Awards", that laff-riot beloved of the self-important.

The issue at hand isn't the level of (non-)intelligence Kaziah Hancock and Cindy Stewart showed with regard to Jim Harmston. It's the fraud -- gauche and transparent as it was -- that Mr. Harmston perpetrated. I suppose it was thrown out by a Utah judge who was likewise stoked on the new moral tyranny of Total Personal Responsibility™.

I never thought I'd see so much support for the right-wing notions that the buyer shoulders absolute liability, that all contracts are sacred (even those without legal purpose) and that the strong deserve every spoil they can wring out of their patsies. By the same reasoning, outsourcing is okay because we were too stupid to see it coming; the new Bankruptcy bill is an excellent piece of legislation because anyone who goes broke is obviously fit only for "evolution in action"; and rape victims have nothing to complain about for the stupidity they showed allowing the rape to occur.

The right wing just about owns the Judicial system; don't let it own our minds as well. Otherwise, the "Darwin" yuks will be at our expense.

--p!

Personal responsibility and"social Darwinism" permit insecure people to feel superior because they were not used.We are ALL responsible for the condition and ethics of OUR society because _all of us_ participate in it.
Social Darwinist ideas and libertarianism is just evil anti social and wrong.It allows corruption and bullying to be rationalized by blaming the victims for being" irresponsible" and is easy to do when YOU are not the one being hurt and taken.

Should little old ladies who can only read large print be the only one blamed when they get hooked by insurance fraud ? some corrupt operations use a 5 page contract that is loaded with fine print and convoluted language and high pressure sales pitches.Is scamming vulnerable people OK or not? Who's fault is it people are vulnerable?

And can't some"contracts" be unfair and the unfair parts not disclosed in a sales pitch...and who's fault is it they can't use a legit contract and be honest and up front? The corrupt shady business people.

The only thing I can see anyone can be held responsible for is when they deliberately hurt and exploit other people because they think they can get away wit it,and with social Darwinism they can. because in this system the biggest bully and cleverest cons are"the fittest" .

I've taken note, as well. It's puzzling to me. :shrug:

being overlooked by both sides here. Surely no one should be allowed to defraud or victimize others. But just as surely, there are cases where people are active participants in their own victimization. Is it always clear cut? Certainly not. But it's also not globally the case that everyone who suffers at the hands of another is, themself innocent of all guilt in the matter. It's also not clear that we should support onesided redress in every such matter.

These two don't appear to be completely innocent based on age or mental disability (though I'd be willing to cede the disability point)...and they willingly accepted and participated...at some point we DO have to have some room for personal responsibility and we can't (and shouldn't) become so parentified that we try and save EVERYONE from themself. That's no more liberal than absolute darwinism.

Seek the middle. Look around. It's doubtful these two doves are anywhere in the neighborhood.

who thought a space-ship would pick them up on a given day and killed themselves when it didn't happen.

says that those who accept Jesus as their savior will have everlasting life. How can they prove a promise like that?

Don't be surprised if they move this thread. Stories from The Onion are supposed to be posted in the DU Lounge.

After all, unless these women were specifically promised that they would receive their land and meet Jesus WITHOUT dying first, what kind of a case have they got?

:eyes:
rocknation