Bartholomew has a terrific post at Talk2Action about those who preach the prosperity gospel and the controversy it's creating even in the evangelical community. Last weekend while we were on our way to the Vinx show, Dan and I were talking about religious frauds like that and whether they could or should be covered under conventional anti-fraud laws. He's thinking about writing a law review article on the subject and I'm not aware of any serious scholarship on the question (if anyone here knows of any, please point me to it). The question is fairly obvious: can a minister be charged with making false representations for some of the claims made in this regard?
When some preacher/huckster promises that if you send him $100, it will be returned to you ten-fold (or a hundred fold, or a thousand, or whatever their line is today), is that really any different from the sorts of promises made in advertisements that are subject to fraud laws? If someone talked you into an investment with a promise of returns like that and didn't deliver, you might well have grounds for a civil suit at the very least. Does the fact that the representation in this case is made in religious terms insulate it from the reach of such laws? It's an interesting question.
- Log in to post comments
Any info on the proportion of old grannies having their life savings hoovered up by these fraudsters might make things more interesting too.
Presumably the consequences would be worse if they could be shown to be systematically targetting the most vulnerable sectors of society, which I am making the (potentially rash) assumption that they do.
Hey, if the money doesn't come back to you ten-fold all the preacher has to do is blame your actions for the missing returns. "See my son, if you commit sin your bounty will continue to be outside your grasp!"
Of course, if someone submits the money and by some (miraculous?) coincidental event they get a "return" on their "investment" they will attribute the cause of this fortune to the $100 they gave the church. (SIGH)
Why do I get a feeling that some church leader will be screaming about the First Amendment before this is over?
I believe that there was a case a few years ago in Nevada (?), in which some old ladies sued a preacher who promised them that Jesus was going to return on a specific date. When Jesus didn't return, they sued him for fraud because they'd spent their life savings on the promise that Jesus was a-coming. Last time I heard, the court ruled in favor of the women.
Ed - That's certainly a minefield, but religious fraud has got to be one of the most common sorts of fraud.
I think advancing the case that there should be laws addressing this class of fraud would depend on PR - on showcasing endless cases of people who had been bilked out of their homes and life savings. In other words, to put a face on the victims.
There's a difference between the preaching of mail-order scams like St. Matthew's Church and hucksters like Rev. Ike--at least Rev. Ike held "services" in a real building. And yes, in the case of St. Matthew's, the solicitated sucker is warned that Jesus is watching, so be generous!
I think that if an idiot is foolish enough to tell someone that they will recieve back what they give a hundredfold, they deserve to get sued. I mean, I give money to my church when I have it - I do so because I like my church and want to do my part to keep it afloat - difficult enough when my meager income is a median among the parishners there. But I have never once heard my pastor say anything more than God will bless us for it.
I believe that there was a case a few years ago in Nevada (?), in which some old ladies sued a preacher who promised them that Jesus was going to return on a specific date. When Jesus didn't return, they sued him for fraud because they'd spent their life savings on the promise that Jesus was a-coming. Last time I heard, the court ruled in favor of the women.
I hadn't heard about a lawsuit stemming from that but there were a hell of a lot of folks who made good and sure they spent everything they had before Jesus was supposed to come back. I feel for those who deswtroyed their lives over this but I also think it was somewhat appropriate justice for their greed.
The irony of the 100-fold blessing scam is that many of those who perpertate it have been ensnared in investment scams and lost millions of dollars themselves. Of course, in those cases the perpertrators are usually caught and prosecuted, while the religious scammers get away scot free.
The 100-fold blessing scam is especially insidious because when people do not get the 100-fold return they are expecting they are led to believe that they are the ones to blame. They must have displeased God in some way, or they are simply unworthy of the blessing. This works well for the scammers since, even after repeated failures, people are very reluctant to accuse them of fraudulent behaviour--they are men of God, after all, so they must be trustworthy.
Surely existing law already covers this, like it does other crimes committed by religious people/people claiming to act in the name of religion. If I make a company called God Corp all about praising the great sky fairy, it ain't going to help me one jot when I file fraudulent SEC forms.
If someone solicits money on the promise that it will be returned 100 fold, unless he knows it will he's obtaining money under false pretences. And the "I believed with all my sinful heart" crap won't wash after the first time.
Usually I'm in favor of the government's role in protecting people from fraud. However, in this case, I'm not so sure.
Although I think Ginger Yellow is correct when saying, "If someone solicits money on the promise that it will be returned 100 fold, unless he knows it will, he's obtaining money under false pretences," I also think that if someone's dumb enough to have faith that it's true, it's not my job to protect them.
There are many instances of televangelists/preachers saying that giving money to the church will get you into heaven. Do they "know" this is true. If not, is it fraud?
If not, then why is it then fraud when the reward is financial?
My heart says that too, but then my head says: "What about the poor kids of the schmuck who throws his/her money away? It's bad enough they've got a moron for a parent."
If I, as a person who is unaffiliated with any church, knocks on a stranger's door and tells them if they give me $1,000 right now, if they have enough faith in God they will soon reap a 100-fold reward, am I doing something fraudulent and illegal?
If so, then why would the prosperity gospel ministries be any different? I couched my promise in religious terms too--sort of like the "for entertainment purposes only" get out clause in tiny, unreadable print at the bottom of ads for psychics.
This concisely illustrates the problem with religious exemption from laws. As long as you exempt hucksters who peddle tickets to heaven from laws and regulation (and taxes), you leave the door wide open for any huckster to raise a completely valid - at least valid in a logical and rational sense, if not necessarily in a legal sense - claim to legal immunity for near enough anything.
- JS