Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?


Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?…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?



Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental rights of a democratic society.

The government is not allowed to be a judge of what is and is not fraudulent, because it is what people believe in.


We live in oligarchies, not democratic nations.

The law enforcer are indeed charged with deciding what is fraud in all other parts of society and freedom of religion does not mean that religions are above the law of the land or free from secular law.

Religions are controlled by governments, they do not control governments.

What the mainstream religious believe has led to homophobia, misogyny and inequality so I do not know why you would want to just let them continue discriminating without a just cause against better than half the population.

There is no real freedom of religion as is apparent with actions against Branch Dividians and other entity like Christian bakers who refused to bake cakes for gays.





Sure, if the people want to.



I never implied they should control governments, I just said they have afreedom to exist.

Only in certain societies.


How would you go about getting them the choice to decide?

Such a proposal would have to begin in court before getting to the political arena.

That is the hard part if you are not a lawyer willing to put in a lot of pro-bono hours.



True, but mostly where our mainstream religions are.

Yes Bruh.

Here is a pot calling the kettle black.

If you can find one country not run by their oligarchs let me know.



Probably leave it up to the representatives in the legislator. I honestly don’t care. Sure we can regulate Jews, Muslims, Christians, Mormons, Scientologists, etc. but I don’t really have a hand to play in the discussion. Round them up and send them to camps for all I care, but the idea you present is paramount in which religion will reign supreme for our future generations; which is why it is a bad subject to get onto legislation, I’ve honestly adopted the idea of separation of church and state as a whole.


That would be the ideal if religions were not doing so much damage to society.

Ask any gay or woman in your family if they think the homophobic and misogynous religions should be left alone to continue pushing the policies that would make then second class citizens.

If as you say, you have no hand to play, then you are not much of a moral man as you are allowing those in your own family to be victimized.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing. Or not play their hand.

Note that I do not hold my fist or opinion out of play.



You aren’t very good at addressing your audience, are you? The moral argument here doesn’t fit on my moral compass (as you so righteously stated) so maybe the moral argument isn’t for me. I am a Fascist who cares for two things, the preservation of the family unit and the preservation of the State cohesion. Tell me, how does regulation of the churches further stabilize the economy, culture, and State as a whole?


Secular =/= atheist . You can have a secular government without forcing atheism on the population. Freedom of belief is a core factor of our political system


What is better for a culture and state?
To have religions based on lies or to have religions based on the truth?



It has been said that knowing more than one language makes communicating a bit more difficult. I am French who speaks English and Franglais.

Are you volunteering to proof read and amend what I put?



I have no problem with freedom of belief.

I do have a problem with the freedom of religious fraudsters who damage not only those they fleece, but also those who are victimized by the beliefs preached to create a homophobic and misogynous sheeple.

Do you care about the half of the population that is discriminated against without a just cause by religious fraudsters?



I’m asking you to explain. What do they offer to the culture and state?


I answered with a question and assumed you would say truth over lies.

To answer what you should have picked up, truth instead of lies.



What does this have to offer to the State?


Good grief. Is a state better to work with facts or with lies or fiction?

Do you as a member of a state like to base your decisions on facts or lies and fictions?



But to restrict people from lying seems like a violation of freedom of speech to me, is it not?