# Why is religion exempt from federal Truth in Advertising laws? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417 "2014-02-03T14:58:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/21 "2014-02-03T16:15:37Z")
Might as well ask why politicians aren’t subject to Truth in Advertising. Or pundits. Or talk-show hosts. Or comedians. Or posters on message boards. It’s a concept that goes way back in history. Subjective opinions are not truths that are falsifiable and punishable. [Puffery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery) > [@](#): > > Puffery as a legal term refers to promotional statements and claims that express subjective rather than objective views, which no “reasonable person” would take literally.[1] Puffery serves to “puff up” an exaggerated image of what is being described and is especially featured in testimonials. > > The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defined puffery as a “term frequently used to denote the exaggerations reasonably to be expected of a seller as to the degree of quality of his product, the truth or falsity of which cannot be precisely determined.”[2] > > The FTC stated in 1984 that puffery does not warrant enforcement action by the Commission. In its FTC Policy Statement on Deception, the Commission stated: “The Commission generally will not pursue cases involving obviously exaggerated or puffing representations, i.e., those that the ordinary consumers do not take seriously.” e.g., “The Finest Fried Chicken in the World.” You might object that some people do take these claims literally. The rejoinder is straightforward: these people are not reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/22 "2014-02-03T16:18:36Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > The only thing that keeps religion from being legally ‘non-commercial’ is a DEFINITION. For all practical purposes, organized religion is a commercial enterprise. Not really. Soliciting donations isn’t the same as a buyer and a seller exchanging a good or service for money at an agreed-upon price. ---
**Author:** ![cns21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee59a6/32.png) [@cns21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cns21)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/23 "2014-02-03T16:19:20Z")
I am going to concede that most, if not all, public religious marketing would not be subject to FTC regulations, and that religion is basically a contract between a salesman and a consumer, and it is up to the consumer to determine whether or not the terms of the contract have been fulfilled, and worth the cost, if any. Why is the tobacco industry more stringently regulated, by being forced to state the harmful effects of their product right on the packaging? Shouldn’t that be a case of caveat emptor, too? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/24 "2014-02-03T16:21:11Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > I am going to concede that most, if not all, public religious marketing would not be subject to FTC regulations, and that religion is basically a contract between a salesman and a consumer, and it is up to the consumer to determine whether or not the terms of the contract have been fulfilled, and worth the cost, if any. > > Why is the tobacco industry more stringently regulated, by being forced to state the harmful effects of their product right on the packaging? Shouldn’t that be a case of caveat emptor, too? Because selling tobacco is commercial activity. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/25 "2014-02-03T16:24:42Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > I am going to concede that most, if not all, public religious marketing would not be subject to FTC regulations, **and that religion is basically a contract between a salesman and a consumer, and it is up to the consumer to determine whether or not the terms of the contract have been fulfilled, and worth the cost, if any.** (bolding mine)Just noting that you are “conceding” a point that only _you_ are making. There is usually no contract, written or otherwise, and for most religions donating money and/or services is entirely voluntary. ---
**Author:** ![cns21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee59a6/32.png) [@cns21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cns21)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/26 "2014-02-03T16:24:58Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Because selling tobacco is commercial activity. Organized religion looks, smells, feels, tastes and sounds like a commercial activity. Only its special definition saves it from being recognized for what it really is. ---
**Author:** ![cns21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee59a6/32.png) [@cns21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cns21)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/27 "2014-02-03T16:26:07Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > (bolding mine)Just noting that you are “conceding” a point that only _you_ are making. There is usually no contract, written or otherwise, and for most religions donating money and/or services is entirely voluntary. I will concede that, too. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/28 "2014-02-03T16:29:38Z")
What do religions promise to provide in return for money, and what do they provide in practice? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/29 "2014-02-03T16:30:16Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Organized religion looks, smells, feels, tastes and sounds like a commercial activity. Only its special definition saves it from being recognized for what it really is. You have been given responses dealing with each of your points, and you respond as if you haven’t read any of them. _This_ is the reason threads like this don’t belong in General Questions. You’re not here to ask questions-you’re here to push a position. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/30 "2014-02-03T16:31:14Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Organized religion looks, smells, feels, tastes and sounds like a commercial activity. Only its special definition saves it from being recognized for what it really is. I don’t know of any special definition or exemption for organized religion. It’s the same as any other not-for-profit business. And their advertising (as far as I know) is indeed held to the same standard as other not-for-profit businesses, which is (as far as I know) the same as for for-profit businesses. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/31 "2014-02-03T16:31:40Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Organized religion looks, smells, feels, tastes and sounds like a commercial activity. In that money is sometimes involved? That’s not the criteria. There’s no transaction taking place. Donations are not a purchase. > [@cns21](#): > > Only its special definition saves it from being recognized for what it really is. That is how definitions work. Also, it’s not a special definition for religion. Other examples of non-commercial advertising include political advertising, and that done for civic organizations. You have no more recourse if Candidate Smith didn’t really improve your neighborhood, than if the local church didn’t really give you a purpose-driven life. In neither case were you a consumer. ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/32 "2014-02-03T16:31:49Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Organized religion looks, smells, feels, tastes and sounds like a commercial activity. Only its special definition saves it from being recognized for what it really is. What type of warning do you envision for the “packaging” of the religious product? ---
**Author:** ![cns21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee59a6/32.png) [@cns21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cns21)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/33 "2014-02-03T16:32:15Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > What do religions promise to provide in return for money, and what do they provide in practice? Salvation. Empty promises. ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/34 "2014-02-03T16:32:17Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > You have been given responses dealing with each of your points, and you respond as if you haven’t read any of them. This is the reason threads like this don’t belong in General Questions. You’re not here to ask questions-you’re here to push a position. ditto ---
**Author:** ![Keeve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@Keeve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Keeve)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/35 "2014-02-03T16:34:18Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Salvation. Empty promises. Can you show that these promises haven’t been kept? And if you CAN demonstrate this, then consider: If Disney World promises me a wonderful vacation but it wasn’t fun to me, how do they get away with that? See “Puffery”, in **Exapno Mapcase** ’s post above. There’s really no double standard. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/36 "2014-02-03T16:35:06Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Salvation. Empty promises. And you can show that, after they die, they do not receive this “salvation”? It may or may not be a fraud, but good luck proving it in a court of law. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/37 "2014-02-03T16:35:24Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Salvation. Empty promises. In my experience, they offer the \*possibility \*of salvation. They never guarantee it. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/38 "2014-02-03T16:36:17Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Salvation. Cite? No, seriously. Some promise these things, but usually after you are dead. Do you have any actual evidence they haven’t kept up their end of the bargain? > [@cns21](#): > > Organized religion looks, smells, feels, tastes and sounds like a commercial activity. Only its special definition saves it from being recognized for what it really is. Only in the same way secular charities do, which are subject to similar restrictions. You asked why this is in GD instead of GQ. Well, your posts are your cite. Your implicit assumption is that there are negative physical and/or mental effects of religion. That’s an awfully big assumption, and one that you must know is more than a bit controversial, especially with the complete lack of evidence you have presented. The posters around here are fairly well known not to be entirely friendly to the concept of religion (including most of the posters you are engaging with). But they’re less friendly to semantic tomfoolery and debates in poor faith. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/39 "2014-02-03T16:36:29Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > In my experience, they offer the \*possibility \*of salvation. They never guarantee it. And most offer it to any and all, not just to those who tithe. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/40 "2014-02-03T16:37:09Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > … religion is basically a contract between a salesman and a consumer… No, actually it is not much like that at all, since there is no contract and no agreed-on payment for services rendered. > [@](#): > > Why is the tobacco industry more stringently regulated, by being forced to state the harmful effects of their product right on the packaging? Several reasons, among them that selling tobacco is commercial activity, not religion, and therefore selling tobacco is not subject to the same special protections offered by the Constitution. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417.md?page=3)