>I  wonder  if  anything  has  caused  more psychological damage to
>humans than  pseudo  concepts  such  as  "perfect",  "omnipotent",
>"omniscient",  and  other poorly defined ideas which are stretched
>to the point of being ridiculous.  My ex girlfriend seemed  to  be
>damaged  by  such  ideas,  and I wasn't a good enough therapist to
>help her dispose  of  these  notions,  which  contributed  to  our
>breakup.
>
>I'm  thinking  of  filing  a  class action lawsuit against western
>religions for all the bullcrap they've been  putting  in  peoples'
>brains.  Do you guys think I have a chance of winning?
>
>Mr. Rigor
Not a chance in the world, in my estimtion.
Your assumption that religions "put" the notion of perfection into
people's brains would be examined literally at trial, and it would
be pointed out that each person who understood that  word  already
chose  it him or herself.  No actual "putting" took place.
Okay then, what about consumer protection?
Consumers who buy products are not forced to choose them,  either.
But  the producer can still be sued for the tort of negligence, if
the product turns out to be dangerous to public health or  safety.
In  the  law of most countries, however, the notions of health and
safety are fairly narrowly drawn.  You can't argue that  a  church
was "negligent" for offering the idea of perfection, on the ground
that  people who bought it caused harm to the health and safety of
themselves or others.
Then there is the  whole  question  of  free  expression.   Ideas,
unlike  ordinary consumer products and services, are assumed to be
freely circulated.  If the government allows people to sue  others
merely for proposing an idea however erroneous it may seem, merely
on  the ground that some people who accepted the idea were damaged
in some way, there  would  be  no  effective  protection  of  free
expression.   In the United States, for example, such a suit would
be found to be an attempt of the state's courts to violate the 1st
Amendment  of  the  federal  constitution,   which   nowadays   is
incorporated  by  the  14th  Amendment  (and  thus applies against
"state action").
Related  to  this  is  the question of religious free exercise and
establishment.  In the United States, as in all secular countries,
the government may not take action against the  free  exercise  of
religion,  unless  a specific law of general secular applicability
is violated by the church of that religion (such as  laws  against
murder,  theft,  the  use  of  narcotics,  ownership of prohibited
weapons, etc).  Also the government is prohibited from making  any
law  respecting  an establishment of religion.  The government, in
short, cannot tell churches how to formulate their religions.
In the United  States,  a  civil  suit  for  a  church's  tortious
liability  in  the  mere  circulation  of  religious  ideas  would
immediately be challenged on such  grounds,  because  all  of  the
clauses  of  the  1st  Amendment  are  incorporated  by  the  14th
Amendment of the federal constitution, and, since the late  1940s,
the  use  of  a  state's  civil  courts  has  long  been  held  to
constitute "state action" in the meaning of that Amendment.   Such
a  suit  would be thrown out on appeal to a federal court, and the
decision would be confirmed up to the Supreme Court.
What  about  suing  originally in a federal district court, rather
than a state court of law and equity, in order to avoid the "state
action" defense sketched above?
Here, I think you would run into a jurisdictional problem.   While
there  are  some  kinds  of  things  for  which civil liability is
defined  in  federal  law,  federal  civil-law  coverage  is  much
narrower  than  state  coverage,  and  I  doubt that it extends to
torts.  An attempt to extend such coverage too far would be  ruled
a  violation of the 10th Amendment of the US federal constitution.
In American constitutional jurisprudence, areas of law like  torts
and  similar fall under the police power, rather than those powers
which were surrendered to the general government.
Therefore  I  really  doubt  that  federal  district  courts  have
original  jurisdiction  to  handle  tort  cases.   They  certainly
have  appellate  jurisdiction,  but  probably  not  any   original
jurisdiction.
You  would  find  it necessary to start your civil case in a state
court.
This  is  one  of  the  reasons  why  Americans  who  want  to sue
publications for damage to reputation or  hate,  such  as  Hustler
Magazine,  have  gone  to  states  like  New Hampshire, which have
so-called "long-arm statutes"--that is, statutes which enable  the
successful  litigant to collect for damages suffered in all states
of the union, notwithstanding that the suit is brought in only one
state.  Unfortunately, however, suit under such statutes puts  you
squarely  back into being turned away on the 14th Amendment "state
action" defense as applied to the provisions of the 1st Amendment.
Thus,  I  don't  see how you could possibly succeed in the lawsuit
you propose.
Bob
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------