system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Religion should have stricter boundaries or regulation

A little about me, I grew up in a very Evangelical home in Texas. My mom and pretty much everyone around me was on the far right. Democrats were effectively in league with the devil and pretty much anything that wasn't explicitly Christian was of the devil. In 2004, pastors told us you were not a strong Christian if you didn't vote for Bush. I would like to include that this wasn't a small cult meeting in a strip mall. When I left the church, it was at about 12,000 members (I think it's north of 20,000 now). Southern Baptists in Texas are pretty fucking bizarre.

I went to private schools most of my life, not because the education was better but because they didn't teach you about things like sex and evolution. I left the religion and see myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't know that I can say with 100% certainty that there isn't some kind of higher power out there or what the nature of it is. However, I believe all religions on Earth are man-made and not divine in the least. 

I just wanted to set the stage on where I am coming from. So I fully believe in the freedom of religion and believe that people should be free to practice. That being said, I feel that in the USA, we tend to give carte blanche to religions, especially Christianity. They are allowed to act in misinformation campaigns to prop up their religion. 

&#x200B;

For example, they are against pre-marital sex. One common tactic they use is to lie about biology. They may tell you that you can only get an STI if you have sex outside of marriage and God will protect those who have sex with only their spouse. While technically true (if both you and your partner have only ever had sex with each other, chances of having an STI is slim) it is built on the idea that you are guaranteed to get an STI if you have sex. They even tell you that condoms don't work and safe sex is a myth where medical science wholly disagrees. The key is to have a realistic discussion around sex and proper contraceptive use but instead, abstinence only is their approach backed up by fear tactics. 

&#x200B;

Let's talk a bit about televangelists. I don't see how they are any different than any other scam. "Give me your last dollar and you'll receive ten times the blessing." If you don't get the blessing, well it's just not your time. Keep the faith and keep sending me money. 

&#x200B;

Let's also talk about how they prey on people with mental health issues. Many televangelists and pastors talk about demons as if they are real things and they pose a real threat. If you are a sane human being, you will likely say "what the hell is this dude talking about?" I do think they prey on people with some form (if not mild) of psychosis. These people should get some kind of assistance to improve their life and not be preyed upon. The church has had a terrible history with mental health. While they are SLOWLY changing their tune, many pastors will tell you that therapy is a waste of money, get your heart right with God (things I was literally told growing up). 

Gay conversion therapy. Now this one is different as many states are finally stepping up but many are not. We are allowed to essentially torture people because they don't fit a religious definition of acceptable. Medical exemptions such as those with blood transfusions and vaccines. these effect lives. These are just a few examples of the stuff we allow religion to get away with. 

Now while this is a can of worms, I fully believe that there should be a line (or set of lines) that religion can't cross without legal repercussion. Basically when the religion can cause public or self harm, you should get in trouble. While it won't completely stop the problem, it will discourage con-artist pastors from engaging in misinformation campaigns and otherwise harming vulnerable people. It is fine to believe in Jesus or whoever and components of teachings but using the religion as a way to harm people is wrong.
gpt
Tax exempt status should not be determined by what anyone in the church **says** (this is debatable, and the whole bringing politics to the pulpit is another matter). Primarily though, it should be dependent on what they **do** with the tithing. 

Other secular non profit organizations can get the same tax exempt status that churches do. 

The difference is that non religious groups must open up their financial books to review by the IRS in order to get that tax exempt status. 

Religions, on the other hand, get a "free pass". It's assumed outright that because they are a religion, they are doing good. And so, churches do NOT need to open up their financial books to the IRS. 

That is what needs to change. If the churches want that tax exemption, demonstrate that they are actually doing good with the money. This would go a long way to weeding out the televangelists and the mega church pastors who collect tithes that go towards the "pastors" 2nd yacht, instead of going to help people, like it should. If the church actually is doing good with their income, fine, they can keep their tax exemption. We just need to level the playing field and eliminate these little "perks" that religious groups get without question.