A couple of my otherwise very intelligent friends believe in the power of psychics. So much so that they’re prepared to pay upwards of £40 for a conversation on the phone with one. Finally, that’s about to change. A new law (following an EU directive) is forcing psychics to prove that their claims are true.
I’ve often wondered what it is about psychics that draws people to them? What makes people want to believe in the power of a clairvoyante, so much so that they’ll pay through the nose just to hear them say what they want to hear. And then the answer hit me reading that article:
Spiritualists are delivering a mass petition to Downing Street and complaining that a genuine religion is being discriminated against.
I would start with “it’s not a religion, it’s a con!”. But then, what really distinguishes it from say Scientology, a cult of people who pay money to hear something that will give them peace of mind? Or Catholisism (to pick a random theistic religion), who some could argue is just a similar cult that’s been around a bit longer? On the other hand, how different is it to “herbal v1agra” or St John’s wort – people pay lots of money and get peace of mind out of it, but I wouldn’t call either of them a religion.
So what’s the answer? Is the government legislating against religion, or are they just protecting gullible consumers? And if the answer is the former, do you pick and choose which religions are sacred and which can be legislated against? Where does belief in other forms of dodgy “self help” end and belief in a religion start? It’s all getting a bit messy…
April 19, 2008 at 07:21
Hmm.. Personally I don’t think it’s the government’s job to protect people against themselves. Or to tell them how to spend their money. If a person subscribes to a belief in clairvoyance, it’s not the government’s place to tell either party that this transaction can’t happen unless the government can factually prove that the psychic’s claim is wrong. Otherwise they could be infringing on a potentially true prophesy which is what the agreement is based upon in the first place.
I mean, based on the idea that there’s some chance that atheism is incorrect, if a government were to tell people they couldn’t subscribe to any atheist publications unless they can disprove the existence of God, they must cease and desist.
Based on legal theory, I would have to say that the government is violating religious freedoms (or at least the freedom to believe what you want even if there isn’t an official name for your religion or if your religion isn’t recognized by the government).
May 9, 2008 at 12:18
Nick,
Absolutely nothing to do with this post, but no other way of getting in touch. You asked me on my blog to let you know if I find out how to get in touch with N Yorks PTS. I haven’t got a contact yet, but I’m getting there – I’m currently in the process of making contact with a unit, with an aim to join.
By the sounds of it, they don’t do much PTS during the year, but over summer they do it 7 days a week, and struggle to cover it. Once I’ve sorted myself out with a unit, I’ll ask about PTS, and will get in touch again when I know about that!
Chris