Should there be a law against public institutions that lie for money?

Just by way of example, are you prepared to point to any particular church official and demonstrate that he does not believe whatever it is that he is offering to his flock.Because quite obvious, the fact that what he says disagrees with what GIA believes is at most evidence that one of the two of you is a fool. It is not evidence that either person is lying.Further, although on EvC we may talk mostly about the Establishment Clause, but the Free Expression Clause surely prevents the state from inquiring into the details of the tenets of a religion. I kind like that state of affairs. Accordingly, I am willing to tolerate the existences of church whose beliefs are contrary to my own or to the expectations of GIA.Your mileage may vary. Not available in all states. Some limitations apply. etc.

Well, no. Even if a priest accepted that most will sin, the priest might well believe that the few who will not are worth waiting to see. But that's just one possible thought process. The priest might also believe that killing prior to sin is evil. Doubtlessly there are other thoughts and scenarios under which a priest might not advocate killing. Perhaps the priest simply thinks that the 10 commandments are valid and that advocating killing is immoral.In any event, this is yet another thread in which your loony logic fails and with that failure comes the meaningless of the entire thread. I surely wish that more time was spent vetting this nonsense before approval. Sigh. It is also the case that the Dover trial did not involve any determination of whether any theology was correct or incorrect. In fact the state is prevented from making such judgments. Instead the issue was whether there was an attempt to insert religion into a science class. Now if you can show me a ruling that prevents the same teaching from being offered in Sunday School, then perhaps you have an example for which we can establish precedence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Probably still requires an intent to deceive if you want to do anything more than simply make the person stop nroviding the information. Fraud requires an intent to deceive about something material to the transaction.

It turns out that the Constitution prevents the state from making such determinations. Further you haven't even come close to establishing that the religious believers as well as the leaders do not believe every word of what they say and claim to know.I accept that you believe that they are liars. But I also accept that you don't care all that much about the First Amendment. So, no I don't think the law ought to be as you suggest. If you really believe your own stance is superior, perhaps you'll need to convince us with the merits rather than have the IRS do your work for you.Again this is among the weakest of a collection of weak threads of yours. You don't even seem to be trying this time.

Yet another in a line of inane arguments. Plonk.