Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[mishkin]

I have not read these three pages, only the op, my apologies if someone has already mentioned that people who commit fraud (on any basis) are already persecuted in any country with a minimally mature legislation.

[Ludicus]

It comes to my mind that Paris church has introduced a contactless card payment system to collect Sunday Mass donations. It's just a donation, of course.
------
But...
...give money to the Church and save a soul from the purgatory !; better yet- buy sequential masses and save multiple souls! ("for the repose", you see)

Donations and Masses - Basilica Santa Maria sopra Minerva
-Mass Intention
Anyone who wishes can request a Mass Intention to be offered for the repose of the soul of a loved one (If you indicate a particular date, to the extent possible we will try to honor it.
Celebration of a Gregorian Series of Masses
(30 Masses for 30 consecutive days) Pope Saint Gregory the Great (from whom the Gregorian names comes) had a vision of soul who was immediately freed from Purgatory following the celebration of 30 consecutive Masses. (1) The practice of celebrating Gregorian Masses was approved by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences in 1884. For the Gregorian Series of Masses, it is customary to give a more substantial offering than for a series of sequential Masses.

I also had a vision...we need a Martin Luther take 2.

(1) It's not difficult to imagine a scenario- a mutiny of the poor souls ( the souls of the poor) on the purgatory.

[basics]

What is this purgatory and where does it come from? Once you're dead you're dead and your destination is already decided. There is nowhere in all Scripture that suggests such a place why? Because Jesus had to tell one of Israel's religious leaders that, " A man must be born again if he is to enter heaven," meaning that had to happen in this life. If one dies under condemnation one remains that way in the next. He, Jesus, emphasised that with the parable of the poor and rich men. If sin is not taken away in this life then one can never enter heaven in the next which is the very reason Jesus Christ died on a cross as the substitute for all those for whom He did die. Put it this way, if man could purchase his way into heaven then Jesus Christ died for nothing and so why pay after someone is dead rather than pay when still alive? It's the very reason that on His death, Jesus went down into the pit to witness to all them there the mistakes they had made in not seeking salvation before they did die, and also to prove to all those souls that God had indeed kept His promise of a Saviour which they had ignored. No-one there had their position changed.

[Diocle]

In my opinion, out of any hypocrisy, any religion needs funds, there is nothing wrong, bad or scandalous in this.

They need money Buddhists, they need money Lutherans, Mulims, Jews, Calvinists, Catholics, Orthodox, they need money the sects and all the small groups who believe having found their peculiar way to reach God (or the Gods), they need money as any other political/social/cultural/philosophical group traying to reach the masses with its message, they need money because sadly, on this planet, to survive and to implement any activity, you need money, when someone tells you he lives without need of money this means he's a liar!
Churches, that is, any organized forms of religion, need even more money than small sects, is there something immoral, criminal or bad in this? No, there is nothing bad.

Try not to be indecently hypocrit please! No one can prevent a group of citizens from following the path they have chosen to approach God, or do you prefer the Roman way to face the Christian issue?



.. you can still question the way chosen by a religious group to earn the money it needs to survive, but in the same way, I can question your right to consider one way better than another and to decide that the way chosen by one group is worse than onother.

[Ludicus]

In my opinion, any religion needs funds.

Diocle, O you of little faith!
----
Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. So why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; and yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.Now if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will He not much more clothe you, O you of little faith
Therefore do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?..."

--

do you prefer the Roman way to face the Christian issue?

Of course not, the lion was not paid. (j/k) - although the Forbes says that we should work for free -Why You Should Work For Free - Forbes

[basics]

Ludicus,

There was a time when man could thrive off the products that the land offered him to support himself and his family and in fact in certain countries that might still be the case but in today's over populated lands that is not always possible. At the time of Paul's missions he insisted that all men, especially Christians, should work for their bread, why? To bring God's blessings down on those for whom they owed their work.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Yes, I believe the (US) government should be able to regulate fraudulent religions. However, the extent to which a religion may be regulated must be put into a proper context. I do not believe the government will ever have any right to interfere in free practice of any religious sect, whether fraudulent or not, so long as they pose no real harm to others. By harm I generally mean physical harm. We can view this issue through two examples: The Mormon Church and Scientology. We have to first and foremost acknowledge an inherent bias everyone holds: that religions other than our own must be regarded as fraudulent on some level. After all, if my faith is correct all the others must be in error, right? This bias may lead to some bad policy.

For a great part of its history the Mormon church would have been lumped into what might be called a fraudulent religion, and they were persecuted by the federal government for their theology by proactive means and by omission, failure to protect them from mob violence. The Mormons, as it turned out, did have the courage of their convictions and they remain a thriving sect in the United States today. I don't intend to go into a detailed history of the Mormons beyond merely using them as an example of how attempted regulation (or flat out annihilation) of a popularly regarded fraudulent religion is not easily justified.

On the flip side of this we have a more recent problem involving the Church of Scientology and whether or not they should receive a tax exempt status. Here the analysis is different. Tax exemption status is a benefit offered by the government for meeting certain criteria, and after all should we not render unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Initially my feeling was that the government could easily investigate and revoke the tax exempt status. A justice on the Supreme Court once said "The Power to tax is the power to destroy." Although in a different context (the power of the state to tax a federal institution) I can't help but think this analysis holds true here. Acknowledging my own bias that the Church of Scientology is a load of crock, I'm left at a bit of an impasse here. Perhaps it is better if the government does not get involved with religious matters in any way. Now, I'm no expert on this religion either. I'd be open and interested to hear arguments about why the Scientologists are different, particularly different than the early Mormons who faced similar persecutions.

This matter is further complicated by the fact that current American jurisprudence regarding the freedom of religion seems incompatible with this discussion. The Courts typically shy away from evaluating the content of a particular religious belief in determining its legitimacy and focus solely on the effects and motivations of particular regulations.

[basics]

In the USA where anyone can rise to whatever his or her dreams might be with hard work and great ambition comes down predominantly to the belief of the founding fathers in instituting a fair and easily recognisable constitution built on Biblical principles. These have never banned anyone from worshipping their own gods. The problem always comes down to the insistence that other religions wanting supremacy have the propensity to turn to violence to get it and this is something that is happening across the world and at home even as I write. The problem is therefore not going to go away soon but it will go away the minute the Lord Jesus Christ comes back.

[Gaidin]

Megachurch pastor arrested on charges of wire fraud and other similar charges.

[Common Soldier]

Megachurch pastor arrested on charges of wire fraud and other similar charges.

Church officials are not and should not be exempt from being accountable for fraud, any more than anyone else.

But obviouslyfraudulent behaviour by some religious officials do not translate into a fraudelent religion. The Denomination to which the church belong and the church itself did not sanction the fraud of the church officials, which was for personal gain, not the benefit of the church.

Before we can crack down on fraudulent relgions, as a group, and not just individuals within the religion, we need to clearly define what we mean by "fraudulent religion". If a relgious group expects all their memebers' money to be turned over to the group, and that money us used solely for the personal benefit of the founder, does that make it a "fradulent religion"?

[Gaidin]

Church officials are not and should not be exempt from being accountable for fraud, any more than anyone else.

But obviouslyfraudulent behaviour by some religious officials do not translate into a fraudelent religion. The Denomination to which the church belong and the church itself did not sanction the fraud of the church officials, which was for personal gain, not the benefit of the church.

Before we can crack down on fraudulent relgions, as a group, and not just individuals within the religion, we need to clearly define what we mean by "fraudulent religion". If a relgious group expects all their memebers' money to be turned over to the group, and that money us used solely for the personal benefit of the founder, does that make it a "fradulent religion"?

It's like I said earlier in the thread. Nor is it a hard thing to grasp. Does it or the actions of the leaders of the church break standing fraud law? Then yes. Deal with it.

[Diocle]

It's like I said earlier in the thread. Nor is it a hard thing to grasp. Does it or the actions of the leaders of the church break standing fraud law? Then yes. Deal with it.

The eventual crimes of a man have nothing to do with the religion he professes. Is it such a hard thing to grasp?

[Gaidin]

The eventual crimes of a man have nothing to do with the religion he professes. Is it such a hard thing to grasp?

It does if chooses to shill a religion for his own greedy purposes(means he's lying about the religion, hence, part of the fraud), but at this point that's just a theoretical reason to shut a religion down. Either change the fraud laws or execute them. As you can see, we don't have a god damn problem in the world executing them. This is a very simple damn thing to grasp.

[Aexodus]

How do you legislate on someone's thoughts, in terms of whether or not they actually believe what they are preaching. People thought Jesus was a fraud at the time, but look at him now.

[basics]

I see that what is not being said is the difference between what a preacher might preach which we call religion and what a preacher might do to enhance his or her own personal circumstances. We have to differentiate the two and deal with them. I don't mind a church becoming rich because of the giving by its adherents but what I do object to are preachers with Rolls Royces and private jets. The Gospel is quite clear that the object of giving is to bring relief to those that need it. The Gospel that I follow is free and so I don't see the need for any preacher to expect to garner in any more than is necessary for him or her to do their job. Of course in my church that comes down to the eldership backed up by all the membership.

[Gaidin]

I don't care about your religion basics. You believe it. You believe in what you are telling us. You're not using intentional deceit to push anything or convince anybody to do anything. That is, by definition, not fraud of any sort.

Are you catching on to what would be a preacher, whatever religion it is be it new or old, creating a flock of followers through intentional deceit via his preaching to fleece them of whatever he can get from them? That would be fraud. Do you smell the I am throwing at the fan when I describe this?

This is not a difficult thing to grasp. Proving it might be difficult, yes. But the difference between the two concepts is not hard to understand.

[Aexodus]

Yes, I understand what you're saying, someone knowingly creating a fake religion, but isn't that how many religions start. These just seem blasphemy laws to me that are near impossible to police. Like when the Mormons as previously pointed out were considered fraudulent by people other than it's adeherents.

[basics]

I don't care about your religion basics. You believe it. You believe in what you are telling us. You're not using intentional deceit to push anything or convince anybody to do anything. That is, by definition, not fraud of any sort.

Are you catching on to what would be a preacher, whatever religion it is be it new or old, creating a flock of followers through intentional deceit via his preaching to fleece them of whatever he can get from them? That would be fraud. Do you smell the I am throwing at the fan when I describe this?

This is not a difficult thing to grasp. Proving it might be difficult, yes. But the difference between the two concepts is not hard to understand.

Gaidin,

Of course it is a hard thing to grasp but even harder to spot until damage or perceived damage has been done so what do you do when perhaps two or three make such accusations against a preacher with anything up to twenty thousand followers behind him or her? What I am saying is that those that follow the Word personally will not be judged the same as them that do not. No amount of fancy lawyers will stand against Him on that day of the great assize. A sin is a sin and Jesus will sort that out when He comes back.

[chriscase]

Doesn't criminal fraud require some kind of actual theft? Generalizing that to the abstract concept of false dogma is both absurd and impractical. A legal system that could even contemplate criminal penalties for "wrong" ideas would be unjust to the point of tyranny.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Doesn't criminal fraud require some kind of actual theft? Generalizing that to the abstract concept of false dogma is both absurd and impractical. A legal system that could even contemplate criminal penalties for "wrong" ideas would be unjust to the point of tyranny.

In the United States? I might be able to help here.