Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?


Whatever makes the State function are coolio to me. The Communists tried to make an Atheist state called the USSR and it kinda’ flopped hard in the 90s.
I want an example of an atheist state where religion is tightly regulated. Lets be real and ensure that it is first world and doesn’t harbor human rights abuses.


Lying is not the issue. Lying for money is and that is fraud.



What makes you think any state would become an atheist state if religions stopped lying for money?

Are you suggesting that without lying, all religions would die?



Of course I am, however it won’t happen. People need to not be afraid of death, and in the end of it all, religion is the answer some people chose to what happens after life.


No. The Government shouldn’t do anything apart from enforce private contracts and defend the people from aggression.


Not a fan of social services?


Only vets, old people, and orphans need social services.


What about roads and things like healthcare?


Heck I forgot about Infrastructure. But no to healthcare. It is cheaper and more efficient in a free market, because the doctors get payed more and there would be more doctors to choose from.


Yes, of course. Astute that buddy.

Every law violates the freedoms of a segment of society.
Every law demand that we discriminate against someone. Killers, thieves etc.

Think with the victim and the Golden Rule in mind.

Fraudsters should be restricted. No?



Is religious propagation of discrimination against gays and women something you would class as aggression?

Is discrimination without a just cause good? Please say no.



How is enforcing fraud laws a social service that we should not make full use of?

If you are not a fan of law enforcement, you might try to imagine it not being there for you should you be a victim of fraud.



You cannot say an institution is committing fraud or lying if you are unable to disprove them (as you cannot objectively disprove religion)


This topic is really hard to push. The idea that you can regulate a personal belief is absurd and unconstitutional. In the end people want to do what they want and how they want to. They are not robots made to follow every command logically.


True. They follow the law. Read post 30 and see how the state



The courts do not usually use reverse onus as it knows that it is to those who make claims, cry wolf, to show the tracks or crap. It is not to the others to show that the wolf was never there.



Sorry could you explain this in a more comprehensible way.

Also, what does “DL” stand for?


That is just my real initials. Force of habit.

Reverse onus is if I say you did something without evidence, and you have to prove you did not do it.

You hit my car. Prove that you did not. Usually something impossible to deny if you happen to own a car. A logical fallacy situation.



I know you’re a Frenchman however in the United States of America we literally cannot regulate religion, as stated in the First Amendment of the Constitution.



You can amend your outdated poorly written Constitution.