John Oliver creates "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Thought Oliver was really good there.

I saw that. The prosperity preachers make me sad.

.

Yeah that too, pretty low.

Always wonder what percentage of prosperity type preachers are actually believers in it or God. Atheists fleecing the flock...

For the prosperity gospel, since it's working for them so well I wouldn't be surprised if they start to believe what they say because it's working.

In some ways i hope they do.

Peter Popoff has been back on TV for a while, I'm really frustrated that the fairly major network his commercials are on (can't remember which offhand) accepts his money. Even more bewildering is that a known charlatan still receives support from the 'flock'.

the next time someone calls you a moron, consider that God trying to heal you

That was a great segment. He kept pointing out the absurdity that none of this is illegal and I just kept wondering how that could be true. I realize that people are terrified to trample on "religious belief" in this country, but does that carry when people are basically giving fraudulent medical advice? If a doctor did this, he'd have his license revoked or worse, so how do these people can to continue with their rackets untouched?

It isn't illegal for Dr. Oz to give out bad medical advice. And that was a purely for profit thing with no (specific) religious ties at all.

So it has nothing to do with the religiosity of it, but rather that the government does not control/sanction medical advice given on TV.

Dr. Oz sat down before a senate subcommittee and gave testimony as the result of promoting that junk. Who do these people ever have to answer to?

Except that his testimony wasn't really accountability for anything. There were no real consequences to him appearing before the Senate subcommittee, which basically didn't have any authority to do anything about it. They brought him in (if I remember correctly) because the FTC went after some company and he had happened to promote one of their products on his show. But they weren't going after him in particular for anything other than the political show of it.

If some Senate subcommittee wanted to bring the televangelists in for some reason, I'm sure they can. But they still wouldn't be able to do much other than try to publicly shame them.

You don't think any good would come from hearing one of these guys have to admit that none of this stuff produces any kind of measurable results? Or have a subcommittee detail that fact by going through a number of studies?

Dr. Oz went before the subcommittee in June 2014, but he's still on TV. If you think that government involvement has any ability to get in the way of that, I think you're mistaken.

Like a subcommittee is going to really do anything like that?

There are two ways the government gets involved:

1) Tax-exempt status -- If there is some appetite to do an audit, then maybe these guys lose their tax-exempt status. But it doesn't prevent them from continuing and (as I think I stated earlier in this thread) I don't think it stops them from doing business.
2) Mail fraud/wire fraud -- This wouldn't come down through the Senate (at least, not directly), but there are cases of televangelists being charged with mail fraud.

But the most that can come out of a Senate hearing is a dog and pony show.

I overstated in saying they would go through studies, but during the time OZ was there they did call attention to the fact that there had been no scientific efficacy in what he was promoting.

In thinking a bit more about it though, I think you made an equivalence in your last post that I reject. Having no direct consequences does not necessarily equal no accountability. I would argue having to publicly admit that what they are promoting is far less effective than cancer treatments is progress of a kind, and could, in fact, change the minds of some people who hear it.

They did, and he rejected it. He still has a show, and he's still doing basically what he was doing before. Where does that leave us?

Sure. I meant accountability in the direct sense, not the indirect sense. I think the John Oliver piece makes for a form of public accountability, but doesn't do anything in the realm of direct accountability.

And you can read what was actually said during Dr. Oz's testimony. I don't know if this is the whole testimony before Senator McCaskill or just the particular exchange that drew interest. I could not find anything that was labeled as a full transcript of the entire hearing, so I don't really know how long it was or what was covered.

http://www.katwhitfield.com/dr-oz-se...ll-transcript/

I wouldn't really say that there's a lot that was admitted to, so I'm not sure that there's anything in the actual statement that counts in my mind as "accountability." But again, the public shaming is a form of indirect accountability, so if you want to count that, it's fine with me, I guess.

A little bit of a slippery slope, because regular non-tv preachers also make a living by getting their parishioners to donate money to "the church," no?

Yes, but in the same sense in which nonprofit organizations make a living by getting people to donate to their "cause." There's a significant difference in the basic structure of how the money is raised for a "normal" church and the people being criticized in the video.