Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[Greatest I am]

Just because something results in exploitation doesn't mean it isn't the best option.

Honestly.

I think if your unfortunate enough to be the victim of fraud by anyone, to the point of losing a significant amount of money, then that's your cross to bear, is like telling those neighbors of yours, that even if they he calls the authorities, nothing would be done to look into the theft.

I hope your neighbors do not tell you that my friend. If they are such poor citizens, give me a call and I will see if I can help.

Regards
DL

It's not the same though, because they made the choice to give televangelists their money with access to information about televangelists not giving what they promise.

Really?

Watch again for the first time and tell me about brainwashed choices.

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

Regards
DL

[respuestasveganas]

I think that religions should be regulated and outside the public institutions of the State.

Religions are usually based on obedience, not on material reality or logical reality (A = A).

[brimstoneSalad]

But in their opinion, that church is promoting homosexuality by not being overtly against it.

Then they can say that Church A is in their view tacitly promoting it by not condemning it, and they have no material proof but they think that church A is secretly trying to get people to go gay (cue conspiracy theories).

To avoid slander, they need to be specific that they're representing an opinion, not a fact about what Church A is actually saying.

From a perspective of someone who is an avowed agnostic atheist, Church A doesn't truly teach what the Bible says, and they are using sloppy reasoning to explain how "oh, it says this, but what it means is that...

Nobody teaches what the Bible says, because it contains multiple authors and contradictions. Doing so would result in the person's brain exploding.

If we are going to prosecute people for misrepresenting religion,

It's not for misrepresenting the "one true Christianity", which does not exist, it's for misrepresenting what a particular group claims.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not the same though, because they made the choice to give televangelists their money with access to information about televangelists not giving what they promise.

When an old lady loses her life's savings to a fraudulent Nigerian Prince, she also had access to information about the Nigerian Prince fraud. Therefore there's nothing wrong with it?

[EquALLity]

Then they can say that Church A is in their view tacitly promoting it by not condemning it, and they have no material proof but they think that church A is secretly trying to get people to go gay (cue conspiracy theories).

To avoid slander, they need to be specific that they're representing an opinion, not a fact about what Church A is actually saying.

I disagree. No matter how they say it, it is their opinion. Forcing them to say it in a certain way restricts their freedom of speech.

When an old lady loses her life's savings to a fraudulent Nigerian Prince, she also had access to information about the Nigerian Prince fraud. Therefore there's nothing wrong with it?

Did that happen? If so, what is the context?

I don't think it matters if it is an old lady and how much money it is.

[PsYcHo]

When an old lady loses her life's savings to a fraudulent Nigerian Prince, she also had access to information about the Nigerian Prince fraud. Therefore there's nothing wrong with it?

Hey, I think I have a chance to use one of those debating terms I've learned! False equivalency, maybe? The "Nigerian Prince" is definitely lying. Nigeria doesn't even have a king or princes.

You've said yourself the no one teaches what the bible says, since it has so many contradictions, so who is to determine what group is lying about what they believe?

[brimstoneSalad]

Forcing them to say it in a certain way restricts their freedom of speech.

The same is true with all existing libel and slander laws. Do you oppose these?
Forcing salesmen to say honest things about their products (as the FTC does) restricts freedom of speech. Do you oppose that?
Forcing scammers not to scam people our of their money restricts freedom of speech. Do you oppose that?
Forcing bank robbers not to walk into a bank and say "I have a gun under my jacket, give me the money or I'll kill you" restricts their freedom of speech.

Where do you draw the line?

I'm saying we should apply the SAME standards we do elsewhere about advertising and slander to churches.
Pretty simple.

Now saying they shouldn't be allowed to say people will go to hell for learning about other religions or questioning, THAT goes beyond what we expect elsewhere.

I don't think it matters if it is an old lady and how much money it is.

I don't think it matters if it's a false Nigerian Prince or a church.

[EquALLity]

Forcing salesmen to say honest things about their products (as the FTC does) restricts freedom of speech. Do you oppose that?

No, and that is different from a church stating its opinion that another church promotes homosexuality.

Forcing scammers not to scam people our of their money restricts freedom of speech. Do you oppose that?

What specifically do you mean here?

Forcing bank robbers not to walk into a bank and say "I have a gun under my jacket, give me the money or I'll kill you" restricts their freedom of speech.

That is a threat of violence.

Where do you draw the line?

At an expression of an opinion.

I'm saying we should apply the SAME standards we do elsewhere about advertising and slander to churches.
Pretty simple.

They are different situations, though.

Now saying they shouldn't be allowed to say people will go to hell for learning about other religions or questioning, THAT goes beyond what we expect elsewhere.

Both do.

I don't think it matters if it's a false Nigerian Prince or a church.

I honestly don't know enough about the Nigerian Prince topic.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hey, I think I have a chance to use one of those debating terms I've learned! False equivalency, maybe? The "Nigerian Prince" is definitely lying. Nigeria doesn't even have a king or princes.

The church is also definitely lying when they make false claims about what the other church says.
They can speculate all they want on hidden motivations; libel law addresses that. The claim has to be of a factual nature which can be false, not opinion.

You've said yourself the no one teaches what the bible says, since it has so many contradictions, so who is to determine what group is lying about what they believe?

Not worried about people lying about their own beliefs, or even making conspiratorial claims about the secret beliefs of others, more about provable things.

I would go so far as to require them to provide footnote style references and declaimers like secular companies have to do when they make claims.

For example, if they say "the Bible says X*" they should have to follow with "*Based on our interpretation of John 6:12" just as a secular organization has to say "*based on some studies which suggest more people X than Y" or whatever.
Then people can fact check it themselves and understand fully the claim being made.

[brimstoneSalad]

No, and that is different from a church stating its opinion that another church promotes homosexuality.

It's not. A company can not slander another and say false things about its products either.
The key is statements of provable fact.

What specifically do you mean here?

Any number of scams. None use force.
They tell you they'll give you X in exchange for your money, and they take it and don't give you X because they don't even have X.

That is a threat of violence.

So is hell.

And don't say it's a third party so it's OK.
If I go into a bank and say
"I don't have a gun or anything, but my boss is undercover in this bank with a bomb strapped to his body under his clothes, he's watching us and he will kill you all if you don't give me money", that's a threat too.

I would go to jail for that if I did that. How about the same standards for religions extorting money from people under threat?

At an expression of an opinion.

Well, legally provable facts don't count. You should look into libel law.

They are different situations, though.

I don't think they are. They're both selling products. One happens to be a protection racket.