Is it right to use somebody else's name to promote your ideas?

A person objected to my sharing it saying that he didn't want  to be a tacit party to misrepresentation of facts. 

The article facts were correct. Only the name of the author 's the controversial subject. So I gave this reply to him:

  "Right. I do agree with you and understand your concern. But I am not bothered about the author. And I couldn't delete the unwanted part of this message about the author as I just forwarded it. In science we don't give importance to people - only ideas.  If somebody used justice R's name ( who 's not alive now) to propagate scientific temperament just because he 's famous, that 's wrong in one way but when ends justify means and if the message gets through that is more important.  Many people use Einstein's name to propagate good ideas in science. This is because nobody listens to some x,y,z's ideas. Here the message is more important than the person to me. Even if Justice R 's not the author, this happens on the social media very frequently, I wanted to convey the message, and that 's my intention in sharing it. Then I should have mentioned about the author's controversy, which I didn't. My apologies. Now forget about the author and concentrate on the content."

To which the person agreed.

This is completely opposite to plagiarism. Here you are not copying somebody else's work. You are giving credit to somebody else even though he is not the person who deserves credit. But you are using a famous name without their consent.  The famous person might or might not agree with you and your ideas. Taking the permission of the person is important, if he is alive. If the person is not alive, most people use a dead person's name, is it right to do that? 

Then  the words 'didn't want  to be a tacit party to misrepresentation of facts' don't make sense to me in most cases. Here I want to mention an important thing. 

People who practice any religion and believe in God do just that!

Religious texts say several things. And they say "God said this and God said that'' to promote moral values. People never question this. Has anybody bothered to  check whether God really said those things?  Isn't this a misrepresentation of facts? Then why do people blindly accept the religious texts and follow them? Why don't they question the texts? Did Lord Krishna actually say all that he 's alleged to have said in Geetha? Or did Vyasa or somebody else used His name to propagate their  ideas? Who knows?

Then who wrote (or gave) the ten commandments really? The God? Has anyone questioned this? 

Isn't it double standards when people question only a few things and accept others blindly?

But why don't people reject religious texts on this ground? Is it because of this 

Hmmm! What is right and what is wrong? Can anybody tell?

I think each case should be dealt with and analysed  separately.  We cannot generalise things and moral values. Situations and people demand   individual treatments. 

But I never give undue credit to anybody when I am promoting my ideas. I  attach only my name to my own ideas. 

And if somebody uses my name to promote their ideas, I feel they should take my consent to do that. 

But if they do that after my death, well I will leave it to their judgement -  but if it is for the good of mankind in general, they have my permission to do that.