Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[Brian37]

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.

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.

[vorlon13]

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.

[tjakey]

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?

The question is not the protection of the innocent but the conviction of the guilty.  Once a fraud has occurred, the damage has been done, and the only debate is what consequences should follow for the perpetrator of that fraud.  Perhaps instead you're asking whether we should take steps to deter the occurrence of fraud.  I don't see how you can answer that in anything but the affirmative.

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.

[Angrboda]

The question is not the protection of the innocent but the conviction of the guilty.  Once a fraud has occurred, the damage has been done, and the only debate is what consequences should follow for the perpetrator of that fraud.  Perhaps instead you're asking whether we should take steps to deter the occurrence of fraud.  I don't see how you can answer that in anything but the affirmative.

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?

[Ravenshire]

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.

There must be divisions within even the one true (according to them) church. When I was there, the "sabbath" was sunset Friday until sunset on Saturday and that church, to the best of my knowledge, still teaches that.

I always thought it was a cheat on their part to have a holy day where you couldn't do stuff you would normally do, then spread it out over two days so that you still could anyway.

Your description of White is off having her as only the founder of the church. She's also, according to them, a modern day prophet.

[brewer]

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

One more exception, if there is a threat to human life or child endangerment. (oh holy shit, shut them down, shut them all down)

[chimp3]

Peter Popoff is marketing vials of "Miracle Water" on TV. 

https://www.reference.com/food/ingredien...015bd0f63a

The water is captured from a source near Chernobyl and he boasts of miraculous cures and financial gains if you buy a vial of this H2O. Seems this might be a testable claim.

[Succubus]

Peter Popoff is marketing vials of "Miracle Water" on TV. 

https://www.reference.com/food/ingredien...015bd0f63a

The water is captured from a source near Chernobyl and he boasts of miraculous cures and financial gains if you buy a vial of this H2O. Seems this might be a testable claim.

Remember James Randi's takedown of this arsehole.
The fact that Popoff still rakes in money tells you everything you need to know about the devoutly religious, they deserve every shafting they get. It's also a pretty good indicator that attempting to regulate what the wilfully ignorant can and can not believe is an utterly futile proposition.


[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff#Investigation_by_James_Randi][/url]

[AFTT47]

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.

There must be divisions within even the one true (according to them) church. When I was there, the "sabbath" was sunset Friday until sunset on Saturday and that church, to the best of my knowledge, still teaches that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk

[Greatest I am]

Those that do not lie of course.

That would be the religions that push knowledge and wisdom [...]

Name one.

Buddhism, Karaite Jews and Gnostic Christians.

Those three put man above God where we belong.

I chose Gnostic Christianity because of it's esoteric ecumenist leanings.
 
Regards
DL