Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[Greatest I am]

I don't think so, because what is fraudulent is subjective. In the opinion of Christians, Judaism is fraudulent. In the opinion of Jewish people, Christianity is fraudulent. The government cannot regulate speech based on its validity, because people disagree about what is valid, which means that whoever is in power will determine what is classified as fraudulent. If the far right is in power, and they believe that religious opinions besides Christianity are fraudulent, then they will regulate those.

Also, many countries have laws that prevent regulation of religion. For example, the United States has separation of Church and State in the Constitution, which prevents the government from favoring or disfavoring religious beliefs. Regulating fraudulent religions would violate this. To change this, you would need to amend the Constitution, which is possible, but very difficult.

So, I disagree that religious speech should be regulated in that sense. However, I agree that religious people who try to cheat people out of money, such as televangelists, for a false promise, are doing something very unethical.

If your constitution allow for flagrant fraud, and the profiteering from your weakest and most gullible people, and the preaching of discrimination of gays and women without a just cause, thus creating second class citizens, then your constitution is garbage.

To your main points.

I hear you and your fears are talking points but you have to remember that it is the courts who would decide which are fraudulent religions based on what is brought before it.

If you do not trust your political and legal system, which presently decide to move against religions or not, then you should be against my proposal out of fear of abuse.

If you do trust your governing and legal systems, then you should be for the proposition as you would trust their judgements.

Your systems are supposed to have checks and balances built into them and regardless of the changing political and religious conditions, should be able to keep thing clean and honest. If not, that means a break down of laws and order and I have no idea what that would lead to.

Progress is only one step at a time and what I propose seems like the most altruistic move I can think of to end the homophobia and misogyny that the mainstream religions preach for and create. If those who have power like religions do cannot preach the law of the land, they should be removed or replaced with religions that are as moral as your secular law.

Polygamy was outlawed because of the law of the land and a better moral position and I think that thinking should be applied to the protection of the weakest and most gullible minds in your country. The ones who have been brainwashed from youth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I don't think so, because what is fraudulent is subjective. In the opinion of Christians, Judaism is fraudulent. In the opinion of Jewish people, Christianity is fraudulent.

The courts, like science, deals in facts, evidence and proofs. It is not interested in beliefs. It cares only for facts. The fact is that most religions claim to be the only true religion with the only true version of God.

That should tell any judge that the majority of religions and or their clergy are lying even if he assumes one of them is correct. If the liars only spoke of their beliefs, then it would not be fraud. That is not the case as they claim that God is real and that lie is fraudulent.

Think of a murder case when the witness says, I believe he killed him as compared to he killed him. A huge difference.

If most are lying as he would have to conclude, then it is to him to judge the morality of the religions as he should also assume that God would be present in the most moral.

That most moral religion will not be our mainstream religions.

All that is required is to start the process by laying a charge.

I do not know if that logic is objective evidence, but I think a good lawyer could make a case with it.

Know any pro-bono lawyers with a moral altruistic sense?

If not, North America might follow Europe in not knowing how to bring religions into the present instead of the distant barbaric past, which just might hand Europe to Islam.

In a sense, I would prefer reform of what we have, but if they will not, then we should outlaw them as a threat to our security and social order. We owe it to gays and women who seek equality.

Regards
DL

[EquALLity]

If your constitution allow for flagrant fraud, and the profiteering from your weakest and most gullible people, and the preaching of discrimination of gays and women without a just cause, thus creating second class citizens, then your constitution is garbage.

Just because you think something is a fragrant fraud doesn't mean everyone agrees with you, so you cannot legislate based on that.

We cannot stop people from profiteering from the weak and gullible. Do you support capitalism? If you do, you support corporations profiting often paying their workers low wages that make it hard for them to support their families. That is preying on the weak. You can try to prevent that from happening as much as possible with regulations, but it's always going to happen.

The preaching of discrimination has to be allowed unless you want to give the government the power to regulate any speech it doesn't like. If you disagree with speech, then use your free speech to argue against it.

I hear you and your fears are talking points but you have to remember that it is the courts who would decide which are fraudulent religions based on what is brought before it.

Yes, the courts, which are groups of people randomly selected citizens who have different religious beliefs... And most people are religious.

If you do not trust your political and legal system, which presently decide to move against religions or not, then you should be against my proposal out of fear of abuse.

I don't trust the government, because it changes constantly, so what speech is banned will just be determined by what group is in power at that point in time.

Your systems are supposed to have checks and balances built into them and regardless of the changing political and religious conditions, should be able to keep thing clean and honest. If not, that means a break down of laws and order and I have no idea what that would lead to.

Checks and balances cannot stop a government from changing election to election.

Progress is only one step at a time and what I propose seems like the most altruistic move I can think of to end the homophobia and misogyny that the mainstream religions preach for and create. If those who have power like religions do cannot preach the law of the land, they should be removed or replaced with religions that are as moral as your secular law.

I disagree that it is the most altruistic move based on the potential consequences. It will establish a precedent that speech can be banned for being "fraudulent", which can be used to ban good speech by saying it's fraudulent.

Polygamy was outlawed because of the law of the land and a better moral position and I think that thinking should be applied to the protection of the weakest and most gullible minds in your country. The ones who have been brainwashed from youth.

Why should polygamy be illegal?

[PsYcHo]

What religion has not infringed on the rights of gays and women?

Thus my point, any religion, either considered mainstream or even something as fringe as scientology, should be free to do as they wish- unless they infringe upon the rights of others.

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you support capitalism? If you do, you support corporations profiting often paying their workers low wages that make it hard for them to support their families.

Ideally there is competition between employers. Employees don't literally think they're going to hell if they leave their job.

That is preying on the weak. You can try to prevent that from happening as much as possible with regulations, but it's always going to happen.

This is why the affordable care act was SO important. Before that, people could literally die if they changed jobs and had a preexisting condition.
The same level of regulation on religion would be good.

[EquALLity]

Ideally there is competition between employers. Employees don't literally think they're going to hell if they leave their job.

There is competition. For example, there are many different fast food chains. There's McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc., but they all have very low wages that would be hard to support a family with. Things that lead to unethical things can still be the best option. While it's not true that you'll go to Hell if you're not a Christian, it's better to allow people to say you will than to restrict freedom of speech.

This is why the affordable care act was SO important. Before that, people could literally die if they changed jobs and had a preexisting condition.
The same level of regulation on religion would be good.

I'm not sure what you mean by the same level of regulation of religion. How do you translate regulation of the healthcare industry to regulation of speech?

[brimstoneSalad]

Even if all of the options are terrible, it at least provides for competition which means if one is extraordinarily terrible (more so than the market dictates) employees can move to another.

Now that they can get preexisting conditions covered under a new insurance, that's possible for jobs.

The things that impede horizontal transfer between religions need to be tackled. The easiest thing to tackle would probably be to forbid lying about other religions by misrepresenting them and their beliefs.
For example, an anti-gay church couldn't misrepresent another church as promoting homosexuality if they are officially neutral on it.

Another thing is doctrine that claims even learning about other religions is sinful.

I'd support measures much more strict than that, but that would be a start. It would at least allow people to gain correct information to make up their own minds.

[PsYcHo]

The easiest thing to tackle would probably be to forbid lying about other religions by misrepresenting them and their beliefs.

I think this would be the hardest thing to tackle. Just look at all the incarnations of Christianity- Same book, several differing interpretations.

How would you be able to decide which person is "lying", and which person truly believes what they are saying?

Leviticus alone has several differing interpretations, and this is a very contentious point among differing Christian sects (since it concerns homosexuality). Even in Genesis, Onan's "spilling of his seed" on the ground has been interpreted quite differently. Some factions see it as a mandate against masturbation, some see it as simply a warning to those who would disobey God.

[EquALLity]

Even if all of the options are terrible, it at least provides for competition which means if one is extraordinarily terrible (more so than the market dictates) employees can move to another.

Now that they can get preexisting conditions covered under a new insurance, that's possible for jobs.

Yes, but it still will result in exploitation. Just because something results in exploitation doesn't mean it isn't the best option.

The things that impede horizontal transfer between religions need to be tackled. The easiest thing to tackle would probably be to forbid lying about other religions by misrepresenting them and their beliefs.
For example, an anti-gay church couldn't misrepresent another church as promoting homosexuality if they are officially neutral on it.

Is this a major issue in society?

I don't think you can restrict that speech either, because that's their opinion. Making an expression of an opinion illegal opens the door to government making expression of other opinions illegal.

Another thing is doctrine that claims even learning about other religions is sinful.

That is another opinion.

I'd support measures much more strict than that, but that would be a start. It would at least allow people to gain correct information to make up their own minds.

People have the ability to gain that information currently. The Internet gives people access to unlimited information, and they can use that information to make up their minds.

[brimstoneSalad]

Church A: Homosexuality is not a virtue or a sin, it's neutral. Do whatever you want, we do not condemn or promote any sexual orientation.

Church B: Church A is promoting homosexuality! They're trying to make you go gay!

Church B is clearly engaging in slander/libel against Church A, but under current law could not be prosecuted for it. It's not opinion, it's overt misrepresentation.

Church B can say gay is a sin as much as they want, and they can say Church A is wrong about the bible (their opinion), but the line is drawn at misrepresenting what others are actually saying and promoting.

Doctrine claiming learning is sinful is harder to enforce against. But people are NOT free to read for themselves on the internet if they're convinced they will go to hell for doing so. They are under duress as surely as you held a gun to their heads (which unknown to them was a toy gun), and they are not being allowed even to learn that they are being abused. This is the practice of cults, it should be outlawed.