In a recent thread Cagey Drifter said that all religions are fraudulent money-making schemes. Many posters challenged him on that point and he made no attempt to defend the claim. Hence I would have let the point drop except that so many other people make simialr claims. I think all these claims are false. I will take the example of the Methodist Church since it’s the one I know best.
The Methodist Church is not fradulent. A fraudulent organization is one that charges money for a good or service and does not deliver what they promised. The Methodist Church does not charge money for anything and therefore cannot commit fraud.
The Methodist church is not a money-making organization, as evidenced by the fact that they make no money. They are a non-profit organization. End of story. (One could, I suppose, try to justify the “money-making” claim by pointing at those in the church who earn a salary, but they earn very little money. My pastor, for instance, earns thirty thousand dollars a year while living in one of the most expensive parts of the country, on top of which she is often expected to dip into her personal income to help people in need.)
The Methodist Church is not a scheme. To call something a scheme implies something concealed or underhanded about their operation, but everything about the Methodist Church’s operation is open to public view and knowledge. Every last dollar that my church takes in is allocated at the semi-annual budget meeting, which is open to the public, so there cannot be any reasonable charge that anything is hidden.
So how about it? Can anyone justify Cagey Drifter’s attack, or is this just another case of attacking Christianity based on blatant untruths?
Insofar as different religions make different and incompatible claims about how the Universe is (in its spiritual aspects), no more than one religion can be the true one and all others must be “fraudulent” in the sense of being false; but not, I think, in the sense of being dishonest. Intentional frauds like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith are very rare among religion-founders. I think Mohammed believed everything he said about God; it was just a bonus that he elevated himself thereby to the status of a prophet-king. Even most televangelists probably believe what they preach.
Being a non-profit does not mean that you are not a money-making organization. It means that the way you deal with the money you make qualifies you under the tax code for non-profit status.
A church can make shed loads of money, but as long as it uses it for certain specific purposes, it is still a non-profit. Similarly, a for-profit organization can lose money on a regular basis.
I do not believe that the phrase Cagey used is incorrect:
Fraud doesn’t require payment. I can defraud you if I promise that you will receive some intangible reward in exchange for you working as my cook for your entire life. In a similar vein, a church could defraud you of both your time and money if the reward they promise does not exist (be it eternal life, monetary rewards in this life, clearing of your thetans…). Some are clearly more fraudulent than others to the extent that they sometimes know that what they are promising is not real.
villa already nailed this. You can be “money-making” and “non-profit”. The Morman church has loads of money, and I believe the Catholic church is the largest land-owning entity in the world.
Scheme. This is mere semantics - you are using your own connotation of “scheme” to claim that a church is not a scheme. The most basic applicable definition of scheme is “a plan or program of action” (from M-W). Most organized religions would fall under this definition.
Clearly, the only contentious point is #1. Whether the promises of organized religion are attainable or not cannot be absolutely determined, so whether or not they are a fraud is dependent on your own religious beliefs (a Christian would likely consider Hindu promises to be fraudulent, for example).
I agree with most of what others have said. We need to distinguish from intentionally fraudulent actions and unintentional ones. The founder of a pyramid scheme is intentional, a poor sucker in it might actually believe in it. He’s still engaging in fraudulent actions, but with good intentions.
There is also the question of how the money gets used. One church might get money from members in return for a promise of salvation and use the money to feed the hungry. Another might use the money to buy hookers and blow for the rev. Both might just tell the suckers that the money is going for good works. But there is a difference.
I have seen a few churches which largely were money-making schemes, or for that matter status hierarchies intended to give power to members or the preachers. But certainly not all of them.
I would also note the “Prosperitry Theology”, though it’s called by different names. It feeds on people’s unjustified sense of karma, and that by giving a lot they can get a lot. Some of these churches are most aggressive about doing good works, and yet their reasons for doing so are a little suspect. I have no problem with people doing good in the hope of reward with God - but doing so because you expect God to send you a better job, wealth, and comforts is something I can’t agree with, and is definitely not supported in the Bible, or any other well-established Christian text. Is this fraud?
[Off-Topic]To be fair about it, and noting that I do beleive in both God and his prophets, I don’t think that Joesph Smith was a fraud. It seems to me that he was crazy off his arse, and his successor Brigam Young was one nasty conning sonofagun, but Smith was probably honest. L. Ron HUbbard, though, he was definitely a bastard.
I’ve always been split on Muhammed. I know for a damn fact nhe perverted his teachings to exploit or build his power (his depiction of Jews had a damn lot to do with how much money they loaned him :rolleyes:). He was also clearly working from an iffy translation of the Bible. On the other hand, he may have been chosen at some point by God, even if I think he failed in his mission.[/Off-Topic]
Smith might have sincerely believed he had a special revelation from God, perhaps one justifying a “pious fraud”. But nobody in the world who is not a Mormon believes Joseph Smith ever found those golden tablets, or that the Book of Mormon is anyone’s work but his.
Maybe, though it’s a little suspicious that the closer in time a religions founder is to the present, the more they seem like obvious frauds and charlatans. It certainly seems possible that we just have a much more complete “warts and all” record of contemporary prophets, and that Buddha was just in it to attract chicks, or Jesus was just hoping to ride a Zealot revolution against the Romans to secular power for himself(certainly some of his contemporaries seemed to be worried that was the case).
But in any case, even those religions where I think it’s fairly obvious that the founders were frauds aren’t really “fraudulent organizations”, since I think that a fair portion of the present day leadership believes what they preach.
Do you really need to charge money for there to be fraud? If I tell everyone that I have magical burglar hating rocks that keep all burglars away and I give them away, maybe asking for a small voluntary donation to keep making them, and people who have them are repeatedly burgled, is that not fraud?
I think the key here is this: does religion deliver what it promises? What does religion promise? What do you get from that religion that you wouldn’t get if you were not a part of it? I think we can put eternal salvation on that list. The only way to god is through me, etc. So. Do we know anyone who has eternal salvation?
Certainly. I do. It only costs $30! Eternal salvation – or triple your money back! Does Jesus offer such a guarantee?! I think not! (Actually Jesus works for us, but that’s another story.)
Hypothetical question: If a religion started as a purely fraudulent money-making power-grabbing scheme, but it evolved over the years (or centuries or millennia) into something whereby the majority of adherents and leaders genuinely believed the (false) tenets of said religion are true, would one consider that religion a “a fraudulent money-making scheme”?
Consider this thought experiment : A religion ( or some secular scam for that matter ) is created; the leaders know it’s a scam, but most people involved buy into it. Some disaster kills all the leaders while they are holding a meeting. Does the religion go from fraud to not-a-fraud overnight ? If it’s then not a fraud, what if some of the leadership later figure out it’s a pack of lies; does it then become a fraud again despite not changing otherwise ?
I think that one can argue that it’s a fraud whether or not anyone actually realizes it; that what makes it a fraud is that it’s a system designed or evolved to deceive, whether or not the people in charge know that it is. At least that definition means that it isn’t switching back and forth between fraud and not-fraud according to the probably unspoken opinions of the leaders.
I don’t believe it was solely his. There were several key founders who supposedly witnessed the golden plates. I think it was a collaboration. I’ve read the BOM and wondered where they got some of the material. I doubt they wrote it all themselves.
Paul Twitchell, who founded Eckankar in 65 borrowed much of the principle teachings from a little known branch of Indian Sufism called “The Parent Faith” {Or so I’ve read} I suspect Smith and cohorts did something similar.
I think this is an excellent question. I think personal intent has a lot to do with it. Although I think J Smith was a fraud I think a lot of sincere people join and learn and grow. I think the same principle applies over and over again.
A simplified example. A totally scamming preacher whose primary intent is to line his pockets gives powerful sermons. A sincere person listening to a sermon is deeply moved and decides to study and practice the teachings of Jesus. Love you neighbor etc etc. Real good springs from the phony preacher.
The same for religions. The Catholic church is a horror show in IMO in certain areas but they are so large that lots of people do real good.
As for the OP. People have made some excellent points. I don’t think all religion is a fraudulent money making scheme but certainly plenty are and finances can and do play a huge role. They can also be social clubs that compete for members which has a lot to do with money. So churches around here hire good musicians to play on Sunday and invest a lot in music gear. Why? Because a good music program attracts members and increases donations.
I considered ministry as a profession, but rejected it for this reason: I feel strongly that any time one’s livelihood depends upon one’s beliefs, those beliefs have become salable. Would any of us let our children go hungry if we suddenly had a crisis of faith? Or would we continue half-heartedly making the same noises we’d been making which resulted in a paycheck?
The point about power-seeking is also important. In some cases, not money but status is at stake. In some cases it is sex, or the admiration of the opposite sex. In some cases it is admiration in general. I have known two preachers who I think were actually sociopaths, compeltely depndent upon the admirationa nd sympathy of others for their self-esteem.
Even the Quaker (I think the proper name is “Society of Friends”) faith - which comes the closest of any I know to systemically routing all incentives for untruth - is vulnerable to the insecure who need to be seen as important.
But really, any organization whic i smade up of humans can fall victim to the same problems. Let’s face it, civilization is inherently corruptible.
I think in the end most churches do more good than evil, if only by giving these sick folks a limited arena in which to perform.
Perhaps, but a collaborative fraud is still a fraud.
They got it from the Bible, specifically the KJV – stylistically, that is; the content was Smith’s (and perhaps some of his followers’) invention or, if you prefer, revelation.
Different scientists make different and incompatible claims about how the Universe is (in its physical aspects). Does that mean that all but one scientist must be a fraud?
Does Jesus offer such a guarantee?! I think not! (Actually Jesus works for us, but that’s another story.)