# 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:** 3
**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, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/41 "2014-02-03T16:41:35Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > 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? > > 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. It was never my intention to engage in any semantic tomfoolery, or act in poor faith. I have probably misunderstood the nature of this board (too much time on Yahoo!Answers, probably). I apologize for wasting anyone’s time, and promise to formulate my questions better in the future. ---
**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, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/42 "2014-02-03T16:49:37Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > It was never my intention to engage in any semantic tomfoolery, or act in poor faith. I have probably misunderstood the nature of this board (too much time on Yahoo!Answers, probably). > I apologize for wasting anyone’s time, and promise to formulate my questions better in the future. Thank you for your politeness. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/43 "2014-02-03T17:13:32Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > 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. Actually, that’s not the case. As a fundraiser for a non-profit organization, I can call anyone I like - regardless of whether or not they’re on the federal Do Not Call list. For-profit companies are not allowed to do that. ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/44 "2014-02-03T17:19:12Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Actually, that’s not the case. As a fundraiser for a non-profit organization, I can call anyone I like - regardless of whether or not they’re on the federal Do Not Call list. For-profit companies are not allowed to do that. Yeah ☹ I know. But surely you’re not allowed to misrepresent the things that you do with the funds you raise, right? Like, if you claim to be raising funds for a hospital, and instead you spend it on a playground, that wouldn’t be allowed, I hope. Or, even closer to what the OP asked, if you offer your donors a video of some recent event, and instead you send them a candy bar - or nothing at all - I hope that would be not allowed. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/45 "2014-02-03T17:20:43Z")
> [@cns21](#): > > Anyone who thinks that organized religion (in America) is NOT ‘business’ is not being objective. Very well. I’ve attended three mainline churches in my life (UMC, ECA, and ELCA). Let’s put your self-proclaimed objectivity to the test by seeing whether you can provide evidence of your claims about organized religion. > [@](#): > > It clearly follows a standard business model Where would I find a copy of the “standard business model” used by the UMC, the ECA, or the ELCA? > [@](#): > > has a product about which it makes promises What “product” do the UMC, the ECA, and the ELCA offer? What promises do they make about this product? > [@](#): > > engages in active public marketing I suppose I could agree that most mainline churches do advertise, but that doesn’t make them a business. Countless non-profits advertise and they aren’t businesses, right? > [@](#): > > makes distinctions between itself and its competitors What distinctions do the UMC, ECA, and ELCA make between themselves and their competitors? > [@](#): > > has local and regional salespeople Who are the local and regional salespeople for the UMC, ECA, and ELCA? > [@](#): > > and solicits payment in exchange for its product. Where’s the evidence that the UMC, the ECA, and the ELCA do this? ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/46 "2014-02-03T17:24:55Z")
Well, there’s a certain amount of wiggle room, but professionals certainly try to avoid that as much as possible. I can say “our organization provides services such as free trips to the moon for homeless parrots”, and spend your donation on new cages in the Parrot Rehabilitation Center, or to pay for Mike’s salary who does nothing all day, or really anything - because I said “services such as”, and made no promise as to what the donation was actually for. But if I said, “your donation \*\*will \*\*pay for 3 homeless parrots to go to the Moon”, I’ll need to be able to prove that at some point, or get a slap on the wrist from the IRS should you report me. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/47 "2014-02-03T17:26:16Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > What do religions promise to provide in return for money, and what do they provide in practice? > [@cns21](#): > > Salvation. Empty promises. Though I’m sure there are others, the main example I know of, of organized religion promising spiritual benefit in return for money, is the medieval Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences—reduced time in Purgatory in exchange for a donation to the Church. If you want to nail up your theses protesting that, you’re a little bit late. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/48 "2014-02-03T17:30:59Z")
> [@Keeve](#): > > 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. Plus you have a standing problem. I suppose if you could find a person who is dead and is currently in hell after donating money to a church who solicited his donations by an advertisement which guaranteed salvation in return for his donation, he might have standing. Then again, a dead person isn’t a person according to the law so he cannot be a party in court. Seriously, though, unless you can find a court that will declare that what a religion preaches is, as a matter of law, false then you might have something. The first amendment protects religious expression so it’s a non-starter for that reason alone. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/49 "2014-02-03T17:42:38Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Because selling tobacco is commercial activity. It also has proven side effects. I don’t know of any religions that have been proven to increase your probability of emphysema or lung cancer. Maybe it’s like those headache pills I was prescribed, once. The student health center had a Physician’s Desk Reference next to the pharmacy window. My Rx was taking a long time to fill, so I looked the pill up. Listed under possible adverse side effects was: may give a false sense of well-being. Now, when I got the bottle of pills, there was no warning label on it about that or any other possible side effect. The warning labels on cigarettes are there because of direct legislation. The warning labels on Rx bottles tend to be things like “take with food”, “may cause drowsiness”, or “do not mix with alchohol.” Sermons may cause drowsiness, but it’s not a scientifically proven effect and you’re fairly unlikely to be driving or operating farm machinery while under the effect of one. Now that I’m thinking about it, I remember one mail order church operated by a husband and wife team who went to jail on a charge of fraud. This would have been in the late eighties or early nineties. In exchange for cash “donations” of a specified amount, they were providing naked pictures of the angels who would be attending to the donees in heaven. The fraud relied on the fact that the women in the pictures were identifiable human women, who had posed for a fee of which there was a record, and not angels. I remember thinking that if they’d just drawn the pictures in a fit of revelation, instead of taking photos, authorities might have had a hard time proving fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/50 "2014-02-03T17:48:37Z")
The real answer is because the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits not only government sanctioning of religion, but government _interference_ with religion. In other words, the FTCA’s reach is limited not only by its own terms but by Congress’ lack of authority to regulate religious promises. > [@Alessan](#): > > In my experience, they offer the \*possibility \*of salvation. They never guarantee it. Sort of like a lottery ticket: you are guaranteed only a _chance_ of winning something. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/51 "2014-02-03T18:16:04Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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. Only on the SDMB gentlemen - logic and reason is a harsh mistress - the exact same argument we use for ‘why’ we don’t believe in such things works to prove why you cannot say they were not ‘fullfilled’ - there is simply no evidence either way. The thing religion ‘sells’ the most of is ‘faith’ - which is belief in things _ **without** _ evidence - and if you’re buying, that isn’t on anyone but the purchaser. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/52 "2014-02-03T19:02:56Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Seriously, though, unless you can find a court that will declare that what a religion preaches is, as a matter of law, false then you might have something. The first amendment protects religious expression so it’s a non-starter for that reason alone. Well, there is this: > [@](#): > > This decision gives a practical construction to the “toleration” clause in the state constitution, and limits its effect to a prohibition of a church establishment by the state, and of all “discrimination or preference” among the several sects and denominations in the “free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.” It does not, as interpreted by this decision, prohibit the courts or the legislature from regarding the christian religion as the religion of the people, as distinguished from the false religions of the world. This judicial interpretation has received the sanction of the constitutional convention of 1821, and of the people of the state in the ratification of that constitution, and again in adopting the constitution of 1846. Lindenmuller v. People, 1861 WL 4903 (N.Y. Gen. Term. 1861). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/53 "2014-02-03T20:05:17Z")
What I want to know is why it took about 50 posts for anyone to mention the First Amendment. Given that it is impossible to scientifically establish the truth of any religion, truth in advertising laws would only be used to exclude one set in favor of another set, and thus establish the “true” ones. ---
**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, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/54 "2014-02-03T20:15:31Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What I want to know is why it took about 50 posts for anyone to mention the First Amendment. 'Cause the FTC Act is more fun. > [@Voyager](#): > > Given that it is impossible to scientifically establish the truth of any religion, truth in advertising laws would only be used to exclude one set in favor of another set, and thus establish the “true” ones. Ah, but the OP also advocated a warning label of some kind (a “Mental Health Warning”), which wouldn’t require establishing the truth of any religious claim, only the effects of belief upon the believer. ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/55 "2014-02-03T20:23:58Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > may give a false sense of well-being. If we could reliably distinguish between a false sense of well-being and a true one, I’m think the OP’s question would be answered. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/56 "2014-02-03T20:27:38Z")
I happen to agree with the OP’s premise. Maybe someday this will actually come up in court. But let’s be practical here. What chances would such a claim (that religion prove it can provide what it promises) have in court now? About the same as if someone sued in 1940 to allow same-sex marriage, or a black man sued to be able to choose a seat in the white part of a train in 1900. Sometimes the times just ain’t ripe. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/57 "2014-02-03T20:35:13Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What I want to know is why it took about 50 posts for anyone to mention the First Amendment. I can’t be everywhere, you know. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/58 "2014-02-03T20:52:59Z")
The OP has some strange notions about how religions work. Most religions don’t advertise and most religions don’t charge for their services. And most religions don’t make factual claims for their “product”. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/59 "2014-02-03T21:05:49Z")
The thing that I think fits the closest to the OP would be prosperity theology which do promise earthly rewards for donations. I had some fun stringing along one that would send me incoherent ramblings with creative colors, CAPITALIZATION and\*\* bold fonts\*\* that listed all of the people who spontaneously got rich after sending them money. While I do believe they have morally committed fraud, and in an ideal world they would be put away, but I doubt much could be done against them. There promises are no more concrete than a self help book that suggests that your[baldness is cause by anxiety](http://www.the-secret-formula.com/baldness-emotional-cause.html). ---
**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, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417/60 "2014-02-03T21:17:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Most religions don’t advertise and most religions don’t charge for their services. And most religions don’t make factual claims for their “product”. I’m not sure if individual churches/temples/mosques/synagogues/etc count as religions (as opposed to representatives for their respective religions), but churches across the South do plenty of advertising, including TV, billboards, newspapers, flyers, door to door, etc. Several will make claims about salvation, the existence of God, and other religious matters as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-religion-exempt-from-federal-truth-in-advertising-laws/680417.md?page=4)