Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[Greatest I am]

[Succubus]

Going by the above metrics what is a non fraudulent religion?

[Greatest I am]

Going by the above metrics what is a non fraudulent religion?

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

[Homeless Nutter]

Going by the above metrics what is a non fraudulent religion?

Those that do not lie of course.

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

Name one.

[Jackie]

[Mermaid]

Going by the above metrics what is a non fraudulent religion?

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.

[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?

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.

[Crossless2.0]

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

[Angrboda]

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.

[chimp3]

Going by the above metrics what is a non fraudulent religion?

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.