Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kirsten on June 1, 2011 at 3:36pm

   This is why I make sure I research who I am donating money to, and prefer to donate service or goods directly to those who need them. Even if I like the goal of a church or group (feed the children, build houses in poverty stricken areas) I will not donate, as I do not know how much of my funding goes where or what hoops they make people jump through. I'm pretty sure you'd be able to sue. If someone gets in contact with one of the big secularist societies they often have lawyers on tap just for these kinds of cases. 

 

http://www.americanhumanist.org/What_We_Do/Publications seems like a good go-to for help.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AntiChristianLeague on June 1, 2011 at 3:43pm

Thanks for the link. I'm going to look into a lawsuit and see where it goes.

 

Thankfully, I never gave those people a cent, but given the amount of donations that they apparently received last year (approx. $450,000) under the premise of preventing suicide, I would think that is just cause for investigation and legal action.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirsten on June 1, 2011 at 4:17pm

You'll probably need someone who did donate to begin, and if it was cash donations it is going to be very, very hard to track. They might not get the money back, but the people defrauding like this should be forced to stop at least, and maybe they can even being kept from starting again later. A big, whopping fine would be perfect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AntiChristianLeague on June 1, 2011 at 4:29pm

The majority of the donations are, to my knowledge, mostly in cash form. Though Bradlee and his group do rent space at the MN state fair, and are going to be there this year as well, so there are probably more easily traced donations/payments in cc form as well.

I'm not a law expert, but I would like to do something, get a group or list of those who did donate and take group action against the organization, or just whatever it takes to seek justice against the pastor and his congregation. A huge fine and being banned from soliciting donations in the future would be great.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Wood on June 1, 2011 at 3:42pm

I think suicide should be encouraged for those who are old, sick, becoming dependent upon their families.  I certainly hope to retain enough vigor to off myself when the time is appropriate, and, failing that, have a law allowing my doctor to do it for me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by AntiChristianLeague on June 1, 2011 at 3:55pm

I agree completely Brian. I have nothing against suicide. What I take issue with is that this extremist christian group is soliciting donations under the premise of suicide prevention, when the money is actually being used to fund anti homosexual goals and legislation in the name of fundamentalist christianity (Google Bradlee Dean, hes disgusting).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on June 2, 2011 at 2:51am

Suicide encouraged?

I'm not sure if you really meant it like that. If you meant to endorse euthanasia as a means to allow someone the freedom to chose to die, if it all possible, as a way out to be relieved of intractable suffering in the prospect of death and the progressive loss of worth and dignity, then I am in agreement with you.

Euthanasia is perpendicular to your formulation. You do not - ever - encourage people by trying to take away their sense of self-worth by emphasizing their burdensomeness to family or society or whoever they are possibly in some way dependent upon.

That isn't euthanasia, that is a form of torture.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Wood on June 3, 2011 at 1:47pm

Suicide keeps one from having to suffer further, just as abortion spares kids from having to be birthed unloved, unwanted, and doomed to the awful life we all have.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on June 1, 2011 at 3:52pm

Disheartening.  I wish I had an answer, but US law is, understandably, different from Canadian; what would work here almost certainly wouldn't work there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kirsten on June 1, 2011 at 3:57pm

Actually, they're pretty similar from what I'm seeing. I was born and lived in California till two years ago (married a Quebecer) and now I'm up here in Quebec. They're both based on the lovely old English system. 

 

Same issues at the least: corruption in the judges, bribes, long wait times. Good stuff, hah.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on June 1, 2011 at 5:07pm

While I wouldn't say you are wrong on the whole, I mostly disagree.  There are important distinctions between Canada and the United States in cases like this.

 

If this ministry receives and tax breaks, they could be revoked in Canada (as has happened in the past), but I think that's far less likely to happen in the US.  Also, if their message is hate propaganda, it could be brought before the a Human Rights Council which could issue punitive fines.  In theory, it could be a criminal charge, but that seems highly unlikely.  It really depends on what their message is, and more importantly how it's spread.  To the best of my knowledge, the United States doesn't have an equivalent provision in its laws.

 

Also, while Canada inherited many things from its English roots, we've had decades of forming separate legislation and Supreme Court rulings that are entirely isolated from Old England from whence we came.  Human Rights Councils and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are fairly recent developments.  They were established in the early 80s under Pierre Trudeau, a Montréalais who wasn't exactly part of the monarchist/ slave-to-the-past tradition. I know that there are a lot of mixed feelings on both the HRC and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I do think they establish certain distinctions in the way Canadians do things.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by oneinfinity on June 1, 2011 at 4:23pm

Maybe try writing to the ACLU for advice on whether or not there's anything you can do against this? I guess it all depends on whether or not this is actually (by the law that is) considered illegal. It's definitely grotesque, yet another psychopathic moron who needs his face smashed with a baseball bat. Alas.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page