Chances are, some of you have probably seen the "you can run but you can't hide" tables set up in front of Wal-Mart or gas stations in your area.The "ever so friendly" man behind the table asks if you are willing to donate money to help
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.