Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[Jackie]

[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]

[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]

[Succubus]

[AFTT47]

[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