Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[tjakey]

Good point except, who is the guilty? Where ever the line gets drawn is going to be an arbitrary decision. Most would agree that insider trading on wall street and corporations making fraudulent claims about their products or services would quality. (Current administration and the current Republican party excepted. They apparently thing that such fraud is both good business and good governing.)

How about "Prosperity Doctrine" preachers? Clearly fraud, and they are clearly profiting from that fraud while enjoying tax except status. I think they qualify as well but I'm an atheist so, to be honest, don't have a dog in that fight. (Except for the "tax except" part). Writing a law that makes those Preachers criminals is okay with me but, what if the Prosperity Doctrine preacher actually believes his shtick? After all, it worked for him or her? She (he) is rich, lives in a mansion, and flies around first class on or a personal jet; walking proof that god has blessed them. I don't know any Prosperity Doctrine preachers personally, so I can't say if they are true believers or aware of their con. But I do know other clergy and they all believe that what they teach is true. From my point of view their ideology is no less fraudulent that than of the prosperity preacher, so are they guilty as well? Should anyone raised in a church and payed their tithe, maybe for a decade or more, before they abandoned a religion they found to be false, be allowed to sue to get their money back?

Like I said, anywhere you draw the line is going to be arbitrary.

Fraud. A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury...Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

Seems rather straight forward to me.  I guess the only question occurs if one is proposing that we extend the definition of fraud such that it covers certain religious claims.  Is that what you are suggesting?

Extending the definition of fraud to cover religious claims would appear to be one way that the government could deter religious confidence schemes. But I'm not suggesting it is a good idea. When it comes to religion, so long as the government doesn't sanction one over the others, I think it best to leave it alone. For most people, most of the time, religion doesn't really do much actual harm.