Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[Greatest I am]

Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?
 
https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=wRyUWquFHcm4tQXV74XQBw&q=fraud+laws&oq=fraud+laws&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.1003.11584.0.15863.10.10.0.0.0.0.114.1040.3j7.10.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.10.1037...0i131k1.0.nCgTyqsYAOA
 
Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain. Fraud offenses always include some sort of false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct.
 
Most governments and countries have fraud laws of some kinds. They generally interfere with religious fraudsters only when physical harm is being done to our gullible citizens yet ignore the monetary theft that the fraudsters fleece from their victims. Prosperity ministries are the most flagrant of these immoral religions, but all religions based on demonstrable lies would be included in this question.
 
Our governments are quite good at acting against obvious fraudsters yet seem reluctant to protect our more gullible citizens when it comes down to religions.
 
Religions, to me, get a free pass to lie and steal all they can from victims, especially the older citizens even when governments know about the fraud.
 
I begin to see the inaction of governments on these religious fraudsters as a dereliction of duty.
 
Do you?
 
Regards
DL

This is a poorly thought out question.

1. Who gets to decide what is or is not "fraudulent"? Everyone thinks they got it right and everyone else got it wrong.

2. Even though I agree religion is not required to live life, it isn't going away, especially not by violent means.

Your question is too general and too loaded.

Governments should protect citizens equally regardless of religious beliefs. 

Regulated? Yea sure, but on a case by case basis.

Do you have the right to believe in invisible pink unicorns? Don't see the logic in that but sure. But if that pink unicorn belief lead you to deny medical care to your child and it died because you refused to take it to a doctor, NO! Your ass should put on trial.

Religion should be regulated like anything else yes, but what are you seeking to do and what regulation are you talking about?

The question isn't addressing a specific claim or idea. It is too general.

Would I like to see someone like Benny Hinn locked up and sued? Yes. But does that mean every religion can be or should be outlawed? Not realistic. 

It can only be taken as a case by case issue.

A judge generally goes case by case.

The main regulation and focus in the O.P. is outright lying to people so as to loosen the purse strings.

Fraud, IOWs.

Regards
DL

---

Those that do not lie of course.

That would be the religions that push knowledge and wisdom as compared to some supernatural entity whose existence they have to lie about.

Regards
DL

No such thing.

For your enlightenment, please see the second post above tis one.

Regards
DL

---

That's an interesting question for a democracy committed to protecting individual liberty. On the one, if the society is to survive and thrive, social institution like banking, various government entities, and the systems (like voting) that form the foundation for the democracy itself have to be protected. On the other hand just how responsible is society for protecting any individual from being had by a con? Pretty much everyone is vulnerable if the con is sophisticated enough, has enough resources, and can control people's access to information. (I'll suggest the current administration as a good example, with tens of million of Americans being had.) But are we really responsible for protecting every individual from being stupid?

Religion in America is not required. Sure there is family and social pressures, but anyone can walk away from any ideology should they choose. Many members of this forum are examples, and some have lost friends and family as a result of the choice. But do we really want some kind of official sanction of some religions while others are marked as fraud?

I would dearly love to see religions like Christianity and Islam disappear just because people walked away from the nonsense. But I don't know that trying to make that happen by a government decree that they are fundamentally con schemes is a good idea.

Why not?

Do citizens not deserve to live in reality instead of delusion?

"That's an interesting question for a democracy committed to protecting individual liberty."

Liberty is great, but not when it allows fraudsters to liberate our weakest of mind and gullible from their cash.

Our liberty, if it extends that far is not worth shit as it is a heartless liberty that does not care out our weakest and most vulnerable.

Regards
DL

---

Just what we need: the government taking steps to legitimize believers' persecution narratives.

Is that really how you see enforcing our fraud laws instead of alloeing open and flagrant fraud?

Regards
DL

---

Those that do not lie of course.

That would be the religions that push knowledge and wisdom as compared to some supernatural entity whose existence they have to lie about.

Regards
DL

Let's regulate Gnosticism first as a test subject! I am sure the Trinitarians won't mind.

For sure, but first you have to catch one of us in a lie and that is not easy as we do not need to lie as we have no supernatural beliefs to con people into believing.

As to me in a courtroom.

I would love it as then I would get a bonafide lie detector test that would show beyond a doubt that I have sudfered the apotheosis that I have claimed to have had.

There is no other proof, but even that test many would doubt, but it would be a lot more than the Trinitarians have.

Set it up and I am there for that.

That might even be enough for me to start a church. Hell, if you can set it up, I will pay for it.

Regards
DL

---

This is a poorly thought out question.

1. Who gets to decide what is or is not "fraudulent"? Everyone thinks they got it right and everyone else got it wrong.

2. Even though I agree religion is not required to live life, it isn't going away, especially not by violent means.

Your question is too general and too loaded.

Governments should protect citizens equally regardless of religious beliefs. 

Regulated? Yea sure, but on a case by case basis.

Do you have the right to believe in invisible pink unicorns? Don't see the logic in that but sure. But if that pink unicorn belief lead you to deny medical care to your child and it died because you refused to take it to a doctor, NO! Your ass should put on trial.

Religion should be regulated like anything else yes, but what are you seeking to do and what regulation are you talking about?

The question isn't addressing a specific claim or idea. It is too general.

Would I like to see someone like Benny Hinn locked up and sued? Yes. But does that mean every religion can be or should be outlawed? Not realistic. 

It can only be taken as a case by case issue.

If you have ever heard of that show "American Greed" you'd know that or government has busted con artists using religion. It isn't impossible. But you still wont get a 100% religion free society. It still is case by case.

Cons fleece people out of money with fraud without using religion too. IE the fuckface in office. 45 has stiffed contractors, and got sued for his University scam.

I think our laws need to be stronger on all financial fraud regardless of the bait used.

My goal is not a religion free country. Some local churches do a lot of good social work.

I am after the fraudsters and con schemes. Not the non-lying useful religions or atheist churches.

Regards
DL

---

7th Day Adventist might be a good test case.  Old and New Testaments both agree women cannot instruct men about matters of faith, and Ellen White who started 7DA was a woman.

Should be a slam dunk.

Additionally, their practice of at least trying (but by missing the sunset/sunset standard God set) of actually honoring the Sabbath is an embarrassment to most other faiths.  Best to just erase the 7th Day Adventist  brand.

Sounds like a good start but it might be easier to go after Scientology. Some countries have already banned them and they may be worse than the 7 day crowd.

Regards
DL

---

Other than not giving them a tax exempt status, no. Let them take the money and run.

Many say that, or that they do not have a horse in the race, but they change their tune quick when I ask them if they would have the same reply if their mama sold the farm and gave the cash to the lying con man instead of leaving it in their name as inheritor.

It is easy to ignore someone else getting screwed but it sure hurts when they are the ones getting the bat shoved up from where they were talking out of initially.

Wow. I am getting vulgar. It must be time to hang up my computer. I am less vulgar in the morning.

Regards
DL