Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?
Fraud is a broad term that refers to a variety of offenses involving dishonesty or "fraudulent acts". In essence, fraud is the intentional deception of a person or entity by another made for monetary or personal gain. Fraud offenses always include some sort of false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct.
Most governments and countries have fraud laws of some kinds. They generally interfere with religious fraudsters only when physical harm is being done to our gullible citizens yet ignore the monetary theft that the fraudsters fleece from their victims. Prosperity ministries are the most flagrant of these immoral religions, but all religions based on demonstrable lies would be included in this question.
Our governments are quite good at acting against obvious fraudsters yet seem reluctant to protect our more gullible citizens when it comes down to religions.
Religions, to me, get a free pass to lie and steal all they can from victims, especially the older citizens even when governments know about the fraud.
I begin to see the inaction of governments on these religious fraudsters as a dereliction of duty.
But the police who protect the commons are also protecting capitalist investments, which makes them agents of the state. Zizek has a few passages comparing capitalism to communism in The Fragiler Absolute: Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For?, and for the nonlaw within law, there is the janus-faced presupposition in the U.S. Constitution for "freedom of religion" rather than "freedom from religion." The nonlaw within law is also found in Bosteel's Badiou and Politics, and more delirium can be seen in Chief Justice Marshall's fascination with the concept of the deodand, whereby the ship is made to blame because it tossed a passenger overboard, in LeFebvre's Deleuze and Law. Note that the concept of the deodand was revived even in modern times.
We are inclined to follow the French model when exposing the pathologies of religion:
'The Age of European Christianity
On the ruins of the late Roman and Carolingian Empires, a new figure of subjectivity was erected in Western Europe, which can be characterized by its double articulation to:
1.) basics relatively autonomous territorial entities of an ethnic, national, religious character, which at the outset were to constitute the texture of Feudal segmentarity but which were due to remain, in different forms, down to the present day;
2.) the deterritorialized entity of subjective power borne by the Catholic Church and structured as a collective Apparatus on a Europe-wide scale.
Unlike the previous formulae for imperial power, the central figure of power here no longer has a direct, totalitarian-totalizing hold on the basic territories of the socius and subjectivity. Much more precociously than Islam, Christianity will have had to give up the constitution of an organic unity. But far from weakening the processes of the integration of subjectivity, the disappearance of a Caesar in flesh and bone and the promotion, which one might dare to call a substitution, of a deterritorialized Christ will on the contrary have reinforced them. And it seems to me that a sort of fault, a metastable equilibrium, favourable to the proliferation of other equally partial processes of autonomy may have resulted from the conjunction between the partial autonomy of the political and economic spheres proper to Feudal segmentarity and the hyper-fusional character of Christian subjectivity (manifest in the Crusades or the adoption of aristocratic codes such as the 'Paix de Dieu' described by Georges Duby).
They are found inh:
The schismatic vitality of sensibility and religious reflection characteristic of this period;
the explosion of aesthetic creativity that has been uninterrupted since;
the first big 'taking off again' of technologies and commercial exchange, characterized by historians as the 'industrial revolution of the eleventh century' and which was correlated to the appearance of new figures of urban organization.'
(Guattari F, Schizoanalytic Cartographies [translated from the French by Andrew Goffey])
Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?
Some, if not many "Governments" are fradulent religions.
I'm thinking "Nationalism"
The U.S. government in particular spouts on about their government having checks and balances.
That is shown with the inquiries of Trump as we speak.
I also recognize that all governments, are regulated by the people. If the people abdicate their responsibility and slave themselves to government, that is on them and not the government.
DL. Many governments aren't regulated by the people, or citizens (If you like that term better).
I agree and as I said above, if that is the case, it is on the citizens.
If they do not have the balls to fight for their rights, then they do not deserve better.
Aren’t all religions fraudulent?
Getting in trouble - Is Israel a democracy? It claims to be.
It seems that Nationalism is a new form of religion.
That is what happens when Muslim immigration is scaring the hell out of everyone.
I see the revealed/supernaturally based religions as fraudulent.
I do not mind the religions that are human based and not supernaturally based.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
In the United States, at least, any attempt to regulate, control, or otherwise restrain the action of organized religion by the government would be problematic at best. Meanwhile, religion's attempts to insert itself into our government and violate the de jure wall between State and Church have been repeated and frequently successful. Too often those who are supposed to represent us in our government, whether in the Legislative, Judicial, or Executive Branches, either do not respect or recognize that important separation and would have their own belief system ensconced as an integral part of it. Others have observed such behavior and have worked to oppose it, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and American Atheists.
That last organization recently filed a lawsuit which tried to level the playing ground of 501(c)(3) organizations (which include churches) by requiring churches to record and reveal their financial status, as secular 501(c)(3)s do. Sadly, that lawsuit failed, more than likely because the justices arguing the case continue to see religion as a special case, deserving special treatment. Worse, attempts have been made to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which forbids churches from endorsing or opposing political candidates.
Put bluntly, de facto religious privilege is at the core of this entire problem. It has caused normalization of practices which would otherwise be construed as unconstitutional, such as prayers before governmental meetings, even the presence of a chaplain retained and employed by the US Congress. These appurtenances are supported in large portion by fundamentalist Christian organizations who deplore the secularity of our government and seek to override it. The only way this "normal" can be altered is by the concerted effort of those of us who value religion-less government and are determined to maintain that status.
With that in mind, I heartily suggest that you fire up your word processors and get WRITING ... to your Congresspeople, state / provincial, and local representatives and make them understand in no uncertain terms that religion has no business interfering in matters of government, and that said representatives' continued positions are contingent on their respecting that fact.
If we don't do it, it doesn't get done. The weight is on us.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
A nice law, that the U.S. breaks.
A tax break is a law respecting religions.
The Noble Lie at work and that lie has to be repealed before your country of laws can walk it's talk.
Good luck with that from your bought and paid for politicians who use the religions to their benefit.
Back to Fraudulent Religions:
My understanding is England and Austrailia's national religion is Anglican. Does that make Angelic religion legitimate? Of course it does!
I don't know what's up with Canada’s official church. I understand that Quebec and other Eastern provinces are primarily Catholic. I don’t know enough about Canada.
Muslim immigration is fear based. People from predominate Muslim countries aren’t necessarily Islamic by religion but by culture - it isn’t the same.
I'll argue the cultural difference scare Protestant White Men politicians and citizens more than religion.
Official is not the same as legitimate.
The queen is the head of the church, yet show is denied the top office because she is a woman.
Is such a church legitimate? I would say no.
The problem with religion(s) is it's based on myth.
Perhaps if people understood it as myth rather than infallible truth it would help.
If the Queen of England, or the King James Bible is enforced politically as the official religion that makes it legitimate..
The same kind of thing is happening in (some) Islamic countries.