0
1

[–] brotoes 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Alright, how would a law go that bans this, but leaves freedom of religion intact?

1
-1

[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

That's pretty easy. It's called common sense. A church should truly not be able to profit. That includes million dollar mansions, private jets, and every other ridiculous thing that televangelists have. If a church cannot use every cent it can ring out of its congregation, they will stop being predatory and maybe then they will just focus on their doctrine.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
1

[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Great, a whole other can of worms. You're totally right though.

0
1

[–] newoldwave 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If people are dumb enough to send their money, then that's their problem.

1
-1

[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Yes, there is that. But American protects me against lead in my paint and asbestos in my ceiling, I would hope that it could protect those likely to give more than they can afford for false promises.

0
0

[–] lord_nougat ago 

Why the hell not? Fleecing rubes should be encouraged!

0
2

[–] SilentMaster [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I don't know, maybe I'm having a momentary episode of weakness. Obviously this shit doesn't affect me. Even when I was going to church on Sundays we were not sending money off to mega-churches. Honestly I think we were donating about $5 a week to the offering plate. That is not 10% of my salary, so I was looking after number 1 in no uncertain terms. However, watching the John Oliver piece just made me made and think there should be something in place to protect the rubes. Maybe the current system is actually the best one after all.

0
1

[–] lord_nougat 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Wow, back in my going to church days, I'd throw some change in, or maybe a dollar. That was over 30 years ago though, maybe money was worth more back then.

0
1

[–] GropeForLuna 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

To be honest, Zoloft (and other antidepressants) weren't the best example you could have given because they are less than honest about the effects of their drug, to put it mildly.

But to answer your question, I guess it's purely for historical reasons. Certain religions have been accepted for so long, and to many people, that in itself gives it credibility. Crazy, I know. This is one of the reasons that the books of Scientology and the like need to be totally debunked, so that in hundreds of years they are not in a similar position to more traditional religions, who have this "historical credibility".

1
-1

[–] SilentMaster [S] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Yeah, I've all but given up on our generation. Hopefully in a few hundred years society will have figured this shit out. We'll see.