Couldn’t this problem be handled by consumer fraud laws which are already on the books?
Whereas the Bible, of course, is factual in every detail.
Since God is spirit, any contact with God will also be effected, and God does promise the gift of prophecy to some. Fortune telling, contacting other gods (spirits/demons) is just another religious practice actually it’s more of a faith, then a man made religion.
So you would be fighting God Himself to try to get such a law passed.
Only when people are charging to contact God for you.
The discussion here is giving a free pass to mediums (prophets?) who work for free.
It would presumably sweep in chiropractors, acupuncturists, etc.
Could economists show that their professional activities actually work? Sociologists? Social workers? Management consultants?
Would political figures be liable for soliciting donations on the basis of absurdly unrealistic promises?
I think a fool and his money should be parted as soon as physically possible. If you are willing to pay someone to tell you that they’ve received messages from the dead, go right ahead. Suckers have to learn somehow. Provided the “psychics” don’t make any false medical claims, we need them as much as we need guys in vans selling $60 speakers for $600. You can’t con an honest man.
Our right to free speech has been reduced quite a bit over the years. Most of the examples that can be brought up did not exist when the U.S. was founded, and were implemented within the last century. Personally I believe that we’ve moved too far towards restrictions on speech (and other things) and I’d like to see us moving back in the other direction. For those who make the “we regulate barbers so let’s regulate mediums” argument, my response is “we don’t regulate mediums so let’s deregulate barbers.”
Even in our current, highly regulated state, most sellers are not legally required to tell the truth about their products. A movie studio can advertise their latest release as “fast-paced and action-packed” even if it’s slow-paced and dull. A restaurant can insist that a certain dish tastes great even if it tastes like styrofoam. A fashion designer can advertise clothing as looking great when it really makes your butt look fat. In the grand scheme of things, very few merchants have their speech restricted.
In case where the government does restrict speech, it’s unclear whether it leads to customers making smarter decisions. Take food, for example. The last couple generations have seen a massive increase in government action on food, from requirements for dietary information on labels to official dietary guidelines. Yet none of this has stopped millions of Americans from ballooning in size. Once the rules and guidelines were established, companies quickly found ways to mislead the customer while remaining within the guidelines. People came to put too much trust in the government’s guidelines and not enough in their own common sense when picking food. There’s reason to question whether the food pyramid and USDA recommendations are based on the best possible information.
That leads us to another problem. You have faith that “there are numerous, clearly defined guidelines for ensuring impartiality in the laboratory.” Yet is this actually true? Experience suggests that it may not be. For example, look at the instance of drug companies and FDA regulators. Most people trust that the FDA runs some fixed series of tests on every drug. In fact, clinical trials are carried out at universities and research labs which are heavily funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. There are also numerous ways by which the companies pay the researchers directly. Even without outright fraud, it’s easy to imagine that results could be tilted to favor companies that are generous with their money. For example, there might be ten studies on a drug, and the company would only submit the study with the best result while burying the others. This articles covers some specific examples, and is a good read for anyone who cares about medical issues. The bottom line is that a lot of drugs get prescribed for conditions that they haven’t been tested on.
The other bottom line is that we can’t step in whenever we see “vulnerable people” without first having a definition of who’s vulnerable. To separate people into a vulnerable class and a non-vulnerable class would be discriminatory and un-American.
I’m just going to leave this sentence alone.
Okay, I see that some of what I wrote in my first post was getting a little too personal, and I apologize for that. I do believing that you think this idea would be better for people at large, I just disagree with the methods you propose.
Then you get mediums who work for a “suggested donation”. Same practice, different words.
I don’t agree with the first sentence, but I do agree with the second. If I want to hire somebody to impersonate my dead grandmother and make up stuff about life beyond the grave, and I am a competent adult paying for this with my own money, why should anyone stop me? It might not be everyone’s first choice of entertainment, but are we also going to outlaw going to movies that some people think are bad? Some people might have a problem with spending too much on mediums, but some people have a problem with drinking too much alcohol, too, and we saw how well banning that went.
The LORD Almighty charges:
And if that doesn’t turn into a lie as soon as scientists start tracking the results, then the practitioner of that scam would be allowed to continue to rake in the cash.
Oh, knock it off, please. This is a discussion about something being proposed for the United States, where we don’t have lords.
This is a tough one. On the one hand I completely agree with the OP…I think all mediums (and other supposed para-normal practitioners) are complete frauds (or delusional). On the other hand I think the last thing we need is MORE government intervention for our own good. After all, we have fraud laws on the books that could be applicable. Any further laws written to ‘fix’ this ‘problem’ would, IMHO, have unintended consequences, would be thrown out (rightfully) on First Amendment grounds or would be useless because of all the dancing around they would have too do.
I feel for people who are victims of fraud…but we can’t fix everything or have contingencies for every situation. Sometimes shit simply happens and people do bad things…and sometimes society and/or the government can’t just fix it and make it right. I think this is one of those gray areas where a fix may actually have more negative impacts than simply dealing with it using already existing means.
-XT
One nation under God
In God we trust
“Oh, God, that’s good, yeah, touch me there.”
You do realize that those statements don’t refer to God, right? The reason that the SCOTUS has allowed them to remain in the pledge and as the motto are that they are simply “ceremonial,” not endorsing any religion. Sort of like saying that the Norman invasion happened in 1066 AD does not endorse religion just because it has “AD” in it. If the court found that these two phrases actually referred to God, they would be forced to overrule them because the government can’t endorse any religion.
I really fail to see how free speech or the first amendment have anything at all to do with this.
Depending on the state you live in, you have to have a license to accept money for practicing law, preparing other people’s income taxes, doing home inspections, driving a car, and a whole lot of other things. To get that license, you must pass a test proving your competence.
What’s the problem with requiring such a test for psychics, mediums (media?), astrologers, faith healers, and so forth?
Okay, ma’am, if you’d like a license to work as a psychic, just contact my dead father and tell me which drawer he used to keep his loose change in. Can’t do it? Sorry - no license.
Sir, you’d like a license to work as a faith healer? This gentleman right here has rabies. Make it go away, and we’ll issue you a license.
And, miss, you say you’d like a psychic license? That’s fine, you’ve come to the right place. There are ten sealed envelopes on that table, numbered one through ten. I’ve never seen their contents. Each contains one word. Please write down the ten words, in order.
- way to not get a joke, and
- Constitutionally speaking, either those are meaningless, or they’re illegal. That being the case, perhaps you can understand why some of us might not be impressed by them as a cite for how we are all God’s slaves.
Not on only do they refer to God, but it is God Himself that ensured that those are there and enforced - thanks be to God.
My statement stands, try to remove them and you will be fighting God Himself.
Any time a faith healer gets tested he is revealed as a fraud. We do have laws against fraud. These people like Johnathan Edwards are absolute jokes. South Park treated him with the proper reverence. The police should stop these people.