Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Greatest I am
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am »

PsYcHo wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:43 am So how much money and resources should go into determining whether a church is lying about another church? Or just in general, if a "religion" is fraudulent?

I think everyone on this thread agrees that intentionally lying for any of the reasons a church/religion may do so is wrong, but there is a vast divide on what should be done about it, plus a divide on whether its occurrence is intentional.

Do we need church police sitting in all congregations, asking to see a full explanation of all sermons to be filed in case of legal challenges, complete with biblical footnotes?

Should infractions start with a fine, and eventually lead to higher fines up to and including incarceration?

How would we legislate such laws across differing religions? Muslims have many differing views. If one mosque preaches tolerance and declares another mosque to not be following the teachings of the Prophet, but the "intolerant" mosque is found to have more closely followed the Koran, what fines/penalties should be imposed upon the tolerant mosque?; they were the fraudulent ones in this scenario.

What about Hinduism? Their religion is vast, with differing deities, and they have been arguing for thousands of years. How should the government solve conflicts between followers of Vishnu making claims about followers of Ganesha, who in turn make claims against followers of Brahma?


Government intervention is not a solution to this problem.
Do you not trust the judgement of your fellow citizens and yourself to know good from evil?

It is easy to tell when a society profits or not. Is Inquisitions and Jihads good or evil?

Your justice and governments have much expertise in judging good from evil.

Your answer shows you know good from evil. So do your neighbors.

If not, the intelligential and oligarchs who run the real world from within the masses will soon buy a new reality.

All that mouthful aside for the moment.

You said you see a huge divide.

Where you see division I see unity and the first intervention is just coercion to not say whatever offended in the same way. This would benefit the churches as they would have to provide a clear ideology.

Religions have a need to hate. The secular side of us need to know who represents which Gods.

Win, win, win.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Greatest I am
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am »

PsYcHo wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:43 am So how much money and resources should go into determining whether a church is lying about another church? Or just in general, if a "religion" is fraudulent?
We know that the majority are liars as they all point the fingers at each other and make that accusation of having the supreme God. That being said, let them pay for their own judgements and weeding out poor religious laws that they created themselves. That is how you improve the moral sense of a person or nation.

Yearly, --- churches and other openly fraudulent con operations, --- cost the victims hundreds of billions in the U.S. alone. That includes about 85 billion directly to lying churches.

Separation of church and state. Get your hands out of non-believer pockets.

Regards
DL
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Whether they secretly do, or tacitly do, or in effect by way of not condemning it, those are opinions.
But as to whether that is the church's actual public position is a matter of fact.
Stating that a church supports homosexuality isn't claiming that is the position the church says that they have.
Secretly or tacitly, sure. Or even in effect based on the "with us or against us" mentality. But not overtly.

This kind of stuff is established already in court precedent. It just doesn't apply to religions.
"Overtly" is subjective.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by EquALLity »

Greatest I Am wrote:What is wrong with just asking.

You will find a % of yes and no answers. The number are irrelevant to this moral issue.

The church has not provided a just cause for it's discrimination and denigration of gays and women.

Homophobes = bullies at heart.

If you support discrimination against gays and women, you support discrimination without a just cause.
I don't support discrimination, and FYI I am female. Why would I support discrimination about myself?

Just because I think a church should be allowed to say that another church supports homosexuality doesn't mean I believe in discrimination against gay people.
IOW, should slander laws be enforced? Yes, but they are not.

We currently allow the open fraud of the general population by religions and on the take politicians, so I doubt that you will get movement on slander enforcement.

Enforcement would have to admit their own incompetence and failings and they are not about to recognize their own noble lie.

Regards
DL
If slander laws aren't really enforced, it would be unfair to use them to target religions.
A self evident lie, as well as true.

You state an opinion on opinions and speak as a judge.

You cannot speak for the legal system my friend.

Law is opinion and thus cannot be absolute. It, like our species must evolve. We do this naturally and that is why the world is getting more moral.

Regards
DL

P.S One think at a time is sometimes best.
? I am sorry, but it's hard for me to follow what you are saying.

I agree, this is all over the place. Let's discuss one thing at a time.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
Greatest I am
Senior Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:24 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by Greatest I am »

EquALLity wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:30 am A self evident lie, as well as true.

You state an opinion on opinions and speak as a judge.

You cannot speak for the legal system my friend.

Law is opinion and thus cannot be absolute. It, like our species must evolve. We do this naturally and that is why the world is getting more moral.

Regards
DL

P.S One think at a time is sometimes best.
? I am sorry, but it's hard for me to follow what you are saying.

I agree, this is all over the place. Let's discuss one thing at a time.
[/quote]

I have been doing that in previous replies.

Which part of what I put needs clarification?

Regards
DL
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:22 am Stating that a church supports homosexuality isn't claiming that is the position the church says that they have.
It suggests that, if the church is not trying to say that then they need to be more clear when they say that so as not to commit slander.
They can make the defense that they only meant that the implication of the Church's policy is supportive. They can Bill Clinton all over the stand if they want, but it's up to a jury to decide if a normal person would interpret what they're saying that way or not.

Is it true that less popular religions have to read a little more carefully than more popular ones that have public sympathy? Maybe. But the process of Jury selection for bias is pretty well established too. You're not going to get Jurors who are *members* of the religion being charged, or who are members of a rival sect. You'll end up with mostly agnostics and third party religious affiliation that wouldn't necessarily care about the outcome.

The chances of an unfair verdict are low, and worth the people saved from abuse.
EquALLity wrote: Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:22 am"Overtly" is subjective.
No it isn't.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/overt

Is the church's official public policy that it promotes and encourages people to go gay? It not, then it's not overt.
What is overt is VERY clear, NOT hidden or merely implicit.

Some people misuse "overt" in the same way people misuse "ironic"; by way of exaggeration they call something overt when it is not.
For example, often when people say, "That's overt racism!" No, it's usually not, it's often subtext.
The KKK is overtly racist, even Donald Trump is not overtly racist.

My position is pretty simple: that the laws the already exist against slander be applied to religious institutions.
If you don't know how the laws work, or don't agree with existing laws, that's a completely different issue.
The legal system, as it is, works. I'm not advocating anything particularly revolutionary. It's much the same as saying churches should be taxed like anybody else.
I'd also say the same about existing laws against false advertising, etc.
The same with threats from god; god should not be treated differently from any other person/organization and should not receive special treatment and immunity from the law.

Churches treated like any other company. Simple.

If you think churches deserve special treatment, that's your position to argue. If you think those laws should be struck down for everybody, that's your position to argue.

If you don't know how the legal system works, then you need to read up on it some more because I can't explain every detail of jurisprudence on slander right now. If an individual or secular organization making the secular equivalent claim would be innocent, so should the church. If either of them would be guilty, then so should the church.

If you want to argue jurisprudence, I think Greatest I am is equipped to do that.
But to put it simply I'm just saying apply the same standards to religion as we do elsewhere.
Sorry, but I need to deal with the Ask Yourself stuff.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:It suggests that, if the church is not trying to say that then they need to be more clear when they say that so as not to commit slander.
They can make the defense that they only meant that the implication of the Church's policy is supportive. They can Bill Clinton all over the stand if they want, but it's up to a jury to decide if a normal person would interpret what they're saying that way or not.

Is it true that less popular religions have to read a little more carefully than more popular ones that have public sympathy? Maybe. But the process of Jury selection for bias is pretty well established too. You're not going to get Jurors who are *members* of the religion being charged, or who are members of a rival sect. You'll end up with mostly agnostics and third party religious affiliation that wouldn't necessarily care about the outcome.

The chances of an unfair verdict are low, and worth the people saved from abuse.
I don't see why they need to be more clear. If slander is extremely obvious, then there should be no dispute regarding whether or not it is slander... If a church claims that another church "promotes homosexuality", but that is not the public position of the church, then it's not slander. That can reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways. If a church claim that another church "holds the public position that homosexuality is good", when it doesn't, that would be slander.

I disagree. In juries for trials of a member of one race attacking a member of another race, are all jury members of either of the races involved removed?
Additionally, even if they are not of the religion, they may have a bias. For example, some atheists see Islam as a worse religion than Christianity, and may theoretically be biased if there was a dispute between a mosque and a church.
No it isn't.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/overt

Is the church's official public policy that it promotes and encourages people to go gay? It not, then it's not overt.
What is overt is VERY clear, NOT hidden or merely implicit.

Some people misuse "overt" in the same way people misuse "ironic"; by way of exaggeration they call something overt when it is not.
For example, often when people say, "That's overt racism!" No, it's usually not, it's often subtext.
The KKK is overtly racist, even Donald Trump is not overtly racist.
I know that the definition is supposed to refer to things that are clear, but what's clear is an opinion.
My position is pretty simple: that the laws the already exist against slander be applied to religious institutions.
If you don't know how the laws work, or don't agree with existing laws, that's a completely different issue.
The legal system, as it is, works. I'm not advocating anything particularly revolutionary. It's much the same as saying churches should be taxed like anybody else.
I'd also say the same about existing laws against false advertising, etc.
The same with threats from god; god should not be treated differently from any other person/organization and should not receive special treatment and immunity from the law.
Are current slander laws really enforced?
Churches treated like any other company. Simple.
Churches are not companies. Companies strictly promote their own economic interests, while churches are based on an ideology separate from economics and donate a lot of money to charity, which is not in their economic interests.
If you think churches deserve special treatment, that's your position to argue. If you think those laws should be struck down for everybody, that's your position to argue.
I didn't say churches deserve special treatment, although I don't think they are equal to companies.
If you don't know how the legal system works, then you need to read up on it some more because I can't explain every detail of jurisprudence on slander right now. If an individual or secular organization making the secular equivalent claim would be innocent, so should the church. If either of them would be guilty, then so should the church.
I agree. However, I don't think the example you gave applies.
If you want to argue jurisprudence, I think Greatest I am is equipped to do that.
But to put it simply I'm just saying apply the same standards to religion as we do elsewhere.
Sorry, but I need to deal with the Ask Yourself stuff.
I find it kind of difficult to follow what Greatest I Am is saying, sorry. However, if you are busy, it is completely fine if you take awhile to respond or don't respond at all.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Courts don't recognize race (maybe they should?), but they recognize racism. Racists would be disqualified... if they admit to it.
Religion is an -ism; it's a belief system that influences people's views on things.

You're right that some atheists are biased too, and they'd be disqualified if that were apparent.

Improving this aspect of criminal justice is important, but churches shouldn't get a pass on having to abide by the same laws as everybody else until it's fixed. The judiciary will never be perfect, but we all have to deal with that, and it's not appropriate for churches to be exempt.

Churches don't give much money to charity. Many private companies massively outdo them.
Most churches just *do* a marginal amount of superficial charity to advertise themselves. They act on their own interests, not in the public good. At best they're trying to save souls -- which don't exist.
User avatar
EquALLity
I am God
Posts: 3022
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 11:31 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: United States of Canada

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by EquALLity »

brimstoneSalad wrote:Courts don't recognize race (maybe they should?), but they recognize racism. Racists would be disqualified... if they admit to it.
Religion is an -ism; it's a belief system that influences people's views on things.
If there was a court dispute between a democrat and a republican, would they remove all democrats and republicans from the jury?
You're right that some atheists are biased too, and they'd be disqualified if that were apparent.
They might not make it apparent.
Improving this aspect of criminal justice is important, but churches shouldn't get a pass on having to abide by the same laws as everybody else until it's fixed. The judiciary will never be perfect, but we all have to deal with that, and it's not appropriate for churches to be exempt.
As I mentioned, are slander laws really enforced in the first place?

I agree that churches should have to abide by the same laws, however, I don't think the example you gave was an example of slander. Regardless, we both agree that churches should have to abide by the same laws as other institutions. However, you believe that churches should also be restricted in ways that go beyond that, such as publicly spreading their religion.
Churches don't give much money to charity. Many private companies massively outdo them.
Most churches just *do* a marginal amount of superficial charity to advertise themselves. They act on their own interests, not in the public good. At best they're trying to save souls -- which don't exist.
Actually, churches give a lot of money to charity. For example, the Catholic Church gives about $30 billion dollars to U.S. social services annually, making it a major backer of the country's safety net. Politifact's most conservative estimate found that Catholic charity accounts for 17% of the funds spent by non-profits on social services.
politifact wrote:All told, this would equal about $30 billion. So how does that slice compare to the entire pie?

National Center for Charitable Statistics researchers tallied up expenditures by nonprofits in the broad category of "human services," which includes nutrition, employment assistance, legal aid, housing, disaster relief and youth development. In 2010, the most recent year available, they came up with total expenditures of $168 billion in that category.

So by our estimate, Catholic-affiliated charity amounts to 17 percent of the funds spent by nonprofits on social services -- well short of the 50 percent Keating cited. Even doubling this share to create a generous margin of error brings it to 34 percent -- still well short of half.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/19/frank-keating/does-catholic-church-provide-half-social-services-/

Churches do charity for a variety of reasons. As you mentioned, they are trying to gain converts. However, they also want to help their needy due to their religious beliefs. For example, Catholics believe in charity because Jesus healed the sick and fed the poor.
"I am not a Marxist." -Karl Marx
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

EquALLity wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pm If there was a court dispute between a democrat and a republican, would they remove all democrats and republicans from the jury?
It's not an issue of it being between two members of the party, but the parties themselves. Most of the time political affiliation wouldn't come up in a trial for murder, for example, or even typical cases of libel or slander. There may be some cases of famous politicians being tried where both their fans and detractors have to be eliminated resulting in a more or less non-partisan jury.

If the DNC was in a case against the RNC, yes, highly partisan members of the jury would have to be removed.
Research "strike for cause", which can be done for perceived ideological bent, where relevant to the case or the plaintiff or defense.
EquALLity wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pmThey might not make it apparent.
And thus is an innate problem with jury selection. It affects everybody. We just do our best to overcome it.
You can argue that our best isn't good enough yet (for example, there's probably a conservative bias to juries based on the process) but churches shouldn't be exempt from the law secular organizations have to abide by. So, probably not worth arguing about here because I think you agree: they should be held to the same standards as anybody else, flaws and all.
EquALLity wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pmAs I mentioned, are slander laws really enforced in the first place?
Yes, they are pressed as civil suits.

"The Vegan Cheetah" is being sued for it right now.

In secular matters it is very simple... but courts are reluctant to touch anything to do with churches. Case law is... complicated.
Here's a little bit of it if you're interested in reading some crazy church drama:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1731171.html
EquALLity wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pm However, you believe that churches should also be restricted in ways that go beyond that, such as publicly spreading their religion.
Companies are restricted in advertising by the FTC, they can't make false claims. Same laws.


EquALLity wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pm Actually, churches give a lot of money to charity.
Not per capita, no.
EquALLity wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pm For example, the Catholic Church gives about $30 billion dollars to U.S. social services annually, making it a major backer of the country's safety net. Politifact's most conservative estimate found that Catholic charity accounts for 17% of the funds spent by non-profits on social services.
You cherry picked the largest denomination in the U.S.

What percentage of the population does that represent? If it's less than 17% then that's an impressive contribution.
But no, it's 22% of the population, meaning they aren't even pulling their weight.

Catholics are also an outlier, running one in six hospitals. There are only a couple protestant religions big on opening hospitals.

But atheists are much better at directing their charitable donations and not wasting money on proselytism and the overhead of running churches that only benefit the members who are the very ones doing the donating-- to themselves.

Claims of increased religious philanthropy are very dubious:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

At least giving is on a positive trend:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/224378/religious-giving-down-charity-holding-steady.aspx

Atheist giving is about the same, but they're making better choices on what to give to. The only significant difference is that they aren't volunteering time at churches... which is pretty meaningless.
EquALLity wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 7:36 pmHowever, they also want to help their needy due to their religious beliefs. For example, Catholics believe in charity because Jesus healed the sick and fed the poor.
Sure, and Catholics are some of the most progressive (again, they're a bit of an outlier among churches).
But charity is still more effective when it's secular. And religious owned charity is causing problems (like denying women right to certain reproductive healthcare).
Post Reply