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

[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.

[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.

[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.