Do Healers Believe?

[Gravy]

Yes, because the pharmacutical business is a scientific enterprise, and it should be regulated by those standards.

On the other hand, I don't believe the local priest should be required to prove that Jesus walked on water, and rose from the dead, or be prevented from practicing his profession.

One does not subject a myth and metaphor based enterprise to the same standards as a scientific enterprise.

Why should someone who makes the most serious health claim of all, that he can cure chronic, life-threatening illnesses of all kinds, not be subject to the same standards? The pharmaceutical business is not regulated because it's scientific. It's regulated because it's in the business of making specific health claims.

 

[blutoski]

The knowing hucksters should be exposed. The sincere believers who can't really heal should be exposed.

The way you weed them out is to test them:

Those who can heal, aside from gaining a million dollars, will be shown to be authentic.

Those who can't, regardless of intention, should have their inability exposed to the world.

I think the problem still remains, though, that none of them are explicitly selling the 'healing' part. They're selling the 'effort' part. And they're keeping their end of the bargain, or so anybody can tell.

In the case of the retarded kid in Maple Leaf Gardens, Hinn was very cautious: "lord, please heal this kid in your own time... maybe tomorrow... maybe a year from now... maybe in heaven..." How do you test this?


And one of the things that was interesting about 'exposing' them is that it's just water off a duck's back for true believers. It doesn't impact their business.

OTOH: I think a 'vice'-type of investigation, perhaps getting a candid admission that the performer does not believe it actually works, and is only in it to fleece the believers, *might* result in a class-action suit from those who have donated money. The problem is that you'd need to get a warrant to do surveillance, which means you have to have reasonable cause for a criminal investigation. Which brings us back to square one: can we say that they're scamming until proven real?

 

[Bronze Dog]

One does not subject a myth and metaphor based enterprise to the same standards as a scientific enterprise.

And the natural response to this should always be "Why?"

Science is the study of reality. If someone makes claims about reality, they should have scientific backing.

 

[Gravy]

I think the problem still remains, though, that none of them are explicitly selling the 'healing' part. They're selling the 'effort' part. And they're keeping their end of the bargain, or so anybody can tell.

I know that they do try to invoke the Lord's healing powers, but the fact remains that they are implying that they have special powers as the conduit that make this possible. They aren't claiming that people watching at home can heal their own lung cancer through prayer.

 

[Cyphermage]

Science is the study of reality. If someone makes claims about reality, they should have scientific backing.

I seem to recall that Classic Communism tried to outlaw religion as unscientific nonsense and the equivalent of opiate addiction.

Would you happen to know how that turned out?

 

[blutoski]

I know that they do try to invoke the Lord's healing powers, but the fact remains that they are implying that they have special powers as the conduit that make this possible.

Yes, they claim to make it possible. If even one gets better, they've proven it's possible, which is frustrating if you want to test them.

They aren't claiming that people watching at home can heal their own lung cancer through prayer.

I'm not sure about that last part. I think it's a mix of claims. Some go on tour, but have TV shows where people are told just that: heal yourself with prayer, just as I heal others with my prayers.

 

[Cyphermage]

Why should someone who makes the most serious health claim of all, that he can cure chronic, life-threatening illnesses of all kinds, not be subject to the same standards? The pharmaceutical business is not regulated because it's scientific. It's regulated because it's in the business of making specific health claims.

Because the claim isn't that the performer can cure chronic life-threatening illnesses of all kinds. It is that God can cure these illnesses, and that the performer will wish real hard for this to take place.

The performer is promising to wish hard, and he is wishing hard. He is doing what he advertised he would do.

Clearly, the after-the-fact interpretation of what, if anything, God did, may vary with who is telling the story. But since it's not a double blind controlled experiment done in a laboratory which can produce only one incontrovertible result, we should hardly be surprised by this.

If you want to hear six different stories, listen to six eyewitnesses recount what they think they saw at the scene of a traffic accident.

 

[Rissask]

Do you really think Oral believes he saw a 900 foot Jesus?

Oh shoot.....newbie blunder, sorry....I was thinking of Billy Graham .... heck yeah, Oral Roberts is a crook.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

even scarier

I think worse than out-and-out frauds OR pious frauds (the deluded self-beleivers) are those who know they're lying, but believe that it's for some greater mandate.

"I'm doing God's work, so that justifies any means I think are necessary."

One shade off of this category are the willfully ignorant. They refuse to look at the evidence because they'd no longer be able to remain in blissful ignorance.

I'm not talking only about psychics and healers either.

 

[Cyphermage]

Oh shoot.....newbie blunder, sorry....I was thinking of Billy Graham .... heck yeah, Oral Roberts is a crook.

Billy Graham dedicated Oral Roberts University.

 

[SezMe]

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something.

The issue is not drugs so the FDA is irrelevant. Fraud is a crime, whether it involves the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge, some beachfront land in Florida or Hinn and his ilk promising cures.

 

[Cyphermage]

The issue is not drugs so the FDA is irrelevant. Fraud is a crime, whether it involves the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge, some beachfront land in Florida or Hinn and his ilk promising cures.

The FDA regulates claims of medical efficacy. There is no historical precedent for subjecting religious beliefs to fraud testing.

 

[SezMe]

The FDA regulates claims of medical efficacy. There is no historical precedent for subjecting religious beliefs to fraud testing.

Man, you're dense. The fraud is NOT the religious beliefs of either the healer or the victims. The fraud is the claim of medical benefits obtained as a result of attending a healing session. Try to pay attention.

 

[Cyphermage]

Man, you're dense. The fraud is NOT the religious beliefs of either the healer or the victims. The fraud is the claim of medical benefits obtained as a result of attending a healing session. Try to pay attention.

First you said that the FDA was "irrelevant", because drugs weren't involved. You were wrong. The FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims.

Next you say the "fraud" is not the religious beliefs, but instead the "claim of medical benefits." Medical benefits provided by God certainly fall under the umbrella of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, stated as such, are not actionable as fraudulent misrepresentation.

It is certainly not actionable under either criminal or civil law to represent that God can heal, or that one is going to wish real hard for God to heal someone.

If faith healers said something like "In 10 minutes, God will perform an appendectomy on you, if you give me $100" or "God has transformed this Kool-Aid into heart medicine, so you no longer need your Lanoxin" you could certainly charge them for practicing medicine without a license.

However, the claims are, as I understand them, the following.

1. God can heal sickness. This obviously follows from the definition of God as all-powerful, and able to do anything not tautologically phrased.

2. People can certainly pray to God, and one of the things they can pray about is for God to heal them of their afflictions, which he may or may not do.

3. People may pray to God to heal the afflictions of others, and according to scripture, placing their hands upon the sick person while doing so is a practice that may be employed.

4. Even through the prior doctrine is part of many religious denominations, most priests and pastors avoid the can of worms which a healing ministry entails, and limit their attempts at healing to praying and conducting religious services for people who request it

5. A very small number of priests and pastors will make touching people while praying for God to heal them a public part of their ministry.

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.

 

[Gravy]

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.

That's a good description. I agree with you.

 

[Kochanski]

If I were chronically ill, I wouldn't go to Benny Hinn. Does being entertained by a Benny Hinn performance rise to the level of probable harm that I must rush out and save sick people from him? No. Does claiming I'm just targeting Benny Hinn, and not the people who wish to recieve his entertainment services, mean I'm not interfering in their lives? No.

The point you are missing here is that people who go to faith healers are NOT seeking entertainment they are going to be healed and they are being falsely led to believe that will happen. Faith healers do not represent themselves as entertainment, they say they are healing through the power of god. Where in that statement do you see them as doing a show for entertainment purposes only? I don't see that and neither do most of the people who go to them.

Stop defending them. Face it they are lying, thieving individuals who are hiding behind the protective cloak of religion.

 

[blutoski]

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.

This means they're not practicing medicine without a licence, but that doesn't mean it's legal.

It could still be criminal fraud if it can be demonstrated that they're lying.

Hinn et al claim to have had a litany of proven healings - that's part of their credentials - and they claim to receive information from God (thus, the radio gimmick). If they were caught admitting these were lies, their followers would have a case.

Consider: there are cases where ministers get positions leading congregations, and then it is revealed that they do not have the credentials they claimed. For example, they turn out not to have been ordained, or have been excommunicated. Congregations have succesfully recovered donations in these circumstances, because fraud is fraud.

The question is not whether they can be prosecuted: they can. The questions are: "What would constitute evidence," and "How do we collect this evidence legally," and lastly, "How do we get the victims to sue?"

 

[SezMe]

First you said that the FDA was "irrelevant", because drugs weren't involved. You were wrong. The FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims.

Point taken. But faith healers, by their fraudulent claims, may come under scrutiny of both the FDA and the Department of Justice. I'm not a shark, but I would guess that both may have a role to play.

Next you say the "fraud" is not the religious beliefs, but instead the "claim of medical benefits." Medical benefits provided by God certainly fall under the umbrella of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, stated as such, are not actionable as fraudulent misrepresentation.

But there are no demonstrable "medical benefits provided by god" so your "umbrella" does not exist.

To anticipate, you might say, "How do you know there are no medical benefits provided by god?" Not my problem. Faith healers claim god provides medical miracles - it is up to them to provide evidence for this claim. It is not my responsibility to disprove such claims.

It is certainly not actionable under either criminal or civil law to represent that God can heal, or that one is going to wish real hard for God to heal someone.

Well, as stated, I'm not a shark so I don't claim to know what is "actionable" or not. Are you a lawyer with expertise in the area of consumer fraud so that you can make this statement?

That said, again, the issue is not what god can do, but what the faith healers claim that they can do. They claim to bring god's healing to us mere mortals with a head smack. That is an earthly claim that would be, I assume, subject to earhly adjudication. No?

If faith healers said something like "In 10 minutes, God will perform an appendectomy on you, if you give me $100" or "God has transformed this Kool-Aid into heart medicine, so you no longer need your Lanoxin" you could certainly charge them for practicing medicine without a license.

I take it you have never been to one of these faith healer gigs. They are well orchestrated, sophisticated productions. The music builds slowly. Various presenters talk about the power of god. The music builds some more. Saved souls testify. The music builds some more. Finally, the "star" appears and shouts "Praise Jesus, his miracles to observe." The music reaches a creshendo.

Did anyone say $100 is gonna buy you health? No. Do the bleevers think so? Yep. But the lack of an explicit statement to that effect does not mean that the implied benefit is lacking.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I seem to recall that Classic Communism tried to outlaw religion as unscientific nonsense and the equivalent of opiate addiction.

Would you happen to know how that turned out?

You say that as if I approve of the outlawing of religion. Nice little variation on the "argumentum ad Hitlerum," by the way.

 

[Cyphermage]

You say that as if I approve of the outlawing of religion. Nice little variation on the "argumentum ad Hitlerum," by the way.

You said that if someone makes a claim about reality, it should have scientific backing. I was merely citing one example of an attempt to vet religious claims for factual accuracy.