Since the advent of the Internet cults or coercive religious groups and fraudulent businesses have increased exponentially. After the passage of so many years – and so many warnings – it is both baffling and disturbing how many people open themselves up to being taken in by online con artists and scammers. Anyone can advertise themselves on the Internet as a “pastor,” “guru,” “self-actualization coach,” or claim to be a “professional” in any number of professions. The bottom line: If you don’t know these people, if you don’t bother to easily enough look up any kind of registration with the IRS or with their state for their “ministry,” “church,” “business,” etc., if you don’t inquire into their professed educational background, if you don’t bother to check with courts and law enforcement to see if they have any kind of civil or criminal public records then you are setting yourself up to be deceived, scammed, stalked, defamed and/or sued by an internet predator.
Furthermore, warnings have been published about the use of terms such as “Jesus” and “God” being used on Facebook as lures in order to scam people. Read this for example.
Some states’ laws require that no one can claim they are an ordained pastor unless they receive that ordination from a registered 501(c)3 religious organization/denomination and the ordained pastor registers with the state, so there are already some stepping stones for full-fledged Clergy Authentication Laws. In other states people can self-ordain and quite literally “ordain” their dog, cat, or canary. For example, such organizations as United National Ministry and The Universal Life Church do no background checks and do not require any education in religious studies whatsoever. Yet the official-looking “ordination” documentation these organizations give to people can be presented to town clerk offices to marry people, provide counseling to people, start actual or online churches or “groups,” and perform any variety of other religious interpersonal activities – without any criminal background checks, without any valid religious training from an accredited seminary or religious training institute, and without any education in counseling. Stephen Ministries based in St. Louis, Missouri operates in a similar way in that they provide certifications to people who attend a seminar in any sponsoring “church.” That certification can then be used by people designated as “Stephen Ministers” to offer personal or even, apparently, group counseling – an activity that in the hands of those with no counseling training can result in irreparable emotional damage to unsuspecting “clients.” Apparently in recent years Stephen Ministries programs require Stephen Ministers to attend ongoing training, but as a Stephen Ministries employee told me in 2022, anyone can fabricate a Stephen Ministry ID and that it is up to the Stephen Ministries program leader and other organizations to do recommended (not required) background checks.
As with any other profession that seeks public trust and offers important personal and public services – such as personal counseling and officiating at weddings and funerals – laws are needed in all states and U.S. territories to require valid training from an accredited U.S. university/seminary/religious training institution which includes ongoing professional certification and accountability for anyone using a religious leader title such as minister, pastor, reverend, rabbi, imam, guru, spirit guide, etc.
U.S. military chaplains are required to have degrees from accredited universities/seminaries and undergo extensive background checks with required references. If that’s good enough for our military personnel then every state should make that a required law for the protection of the general public. All the more is a clergy authentication law needed due to the exponential rise of cult leaders/coercive group leaders/new religious movement leaders, and due to the sexual abuse and spiritual/psychological, physical and financial abuse committed by unscrupulous religious leaders that continue to make headlines.
Our country, and most other countries, have necessary and good sense laws determining who can legally use and promote themselves with such titles as doctor, nurse, pharmacist, psychologist, airline pilot, accountant, teacher, attorney, plumber, electrician, etc. For the protection of the public, certification and licenses are required by state and federal laws to permit qualified people to use these kinds of professional titles. And because we know such laws exist – laws that were enacted to protect us from harm – we therefore place our trust in people who have certain titles because we know that certain laws exist that require people who use those titles to obtain the proper certified, accredited training.
Just as there are state and federal requirements designating who can use such titles as doctor, pharmacist, plumber, attorney, accountant, etc., there should be safeguarding regulations for the use of religious titles such as minister, pastor, rabbi, imam, etc. Religious leaders do more than give religious speeches to audiences. They interact with individuals on a very personal level, and therefore are given trust, in large part because of their religious title. Just as a doctor, accountant, or plumber would be outraged if someone used these titles when that person did not possess the proper qualifications and licensing, so too should validly ordained clergy who have spent years in schooling and even more years building a good reputation be outraged at those individuals who self-ordain and fraudulently promote themselves as titled clergy. Therefore, every validly ordained clergy member should support clergy authentication laws.
Religious titles generally evoke instantaneous trust and a sense of safety among many if not most people. Such trust and sense of safety often results in people feeling safe to donate money to those people using religious titles and cause people to seek spiritual and emotional guidance from religiously titled people. People will often freely discuss intimate details of their lives to those who use a religious title. This is where the abuse and violation of trust can begin.
Religious leaders often have the same if not more personal contact with people, especially their congregation members or followers, as other professionals have with people in the general public. That kind of weekly or even daily interaction creates far more chances for abuse of power, especially by those who are not validly trained, ordained, and who have no accountability to any superior or governing board.
Some seminaries and religious training institutions have introduced more screening efforts to weed out those applying to their schools who may not be psychologically stable. Some seminaries and religious training institutions have also updated their courses to address problems with various forms of abuse of power. But there are too many seminaries and religious training institutions that are shamefully irresponsible when it comes to accepting and graduating people with obvious troubling personalities and behaviors. Religious institutions need to be more selective of applicants and more evaluating of those already enrolled and heading for graduation. And more needs to be done by religious institutions to revoke and void any ordination they’ve bestowed on those who use the trust granted to them as clergy to commit heinous acts against people. After all, even if the powers that be in these religious institutions choose not to have the necessary moral indignation and outrage to care about the many victims of religious leaders’ abuse – particularly abuse caused by a religious leader who graduated from their institution – they should at the very least be concerned about their own reputations.
Again, the Internet has produced a rapid escalation of dangerous cults, coercive “spiritual” groups, and new religious movements, as well as all kinds of scams. Private companies such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google have failed to enforce their own Terms of Service agreements and perform their civic duty of protecting people. In fact, such tech giants actually profit from the immense illegal, fraudulent and hazardous content posted on their sites (“religious” and otherwise). Our government has failed to protect its citizenry – we the people – from dangerous individuals who falsely advertise themselves on the Internet as trustworthy, and our government has failed to protect us from the tech giant businesses which profit from enabling and empowering these dangerous frauds. Therefore, our legislative representatives need to finally step up and truly represent our best interests by passing laws which fulfill their most basic duty: protecting people from those who are dangerous.
There are a number of states that have enacted laws specifically criminalizing sexual abuse committed by clergy members against adults, but every state needs more protective laws against clergy abuse. Every states’ attorney general office should have a division that handles complaints of sexual abuse and other crimes committed by those claiming to have or who have actually been officially ordained by an accredited religious institution. States’ attorney general offices should then investigate those credible complaints and turn over for prosecution all valid complaints of sexual abuse and other crimes committed by those using religious titles.
States’ attorney general offices and U.S. Attorney offices should also apply Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws against religious figures and/or religious organizations that have demonstrated they are using the cloak of religion to commit a variety of crimes.
Whether or not clergy authentication laws ever get proposed and enacted or other similar laws are enacted that specifically hold clergy accountable for their abuse of whatever religious titles they hold, every individual who comes into contact with someone using a religious title should inquire into the authenticity of that person’s religious title. No matter how seemingly “pious,” “insightful,” “spiritual,” scripture-quoting, and full of “good deeds” someone may appear to be, if that person does not have any degree from a valid seminary or religious institution then that person simply has no business misrepresenting themselves to others by using a self-ordained religious title. Worse, if that person denigrates religious institutions and claims to be more knowledgeable and superior than validly ordained clerics or anyone in religious institutions, that is a clear warning that such a person shows traits of being a delusional narcissistic religious fraud, and abuse of power and influence are often if not always linked with religious fraud. Every leader of a cult/coercive group/new religious movement starts as an obscure figure and typically uses dishonest means to deceive and lure in anyone they can, especially those who may be experiencing a personal trauma and are emotionally/mentally/spiritually vulnerable. Personal responsibility requires that individuals should know the traits of religious frauds so as to avoid them at all costs. Concern about the welfare of others requires that individuals should sound the alarm about religious frauds.
My brother Ken Parks promotes and advertises himself on the Internet as a “trusted” limited purpose public figure — a self-professed “pastor,” “ministries” leader of his unregistered “ministries” ETC Ministries and Simplicity of Christ Ministries/SOC Ministries, and as a “professional photographer,” (oftentimes having unregistered and unlicensed “businesses” such as “Weddings Thru the Lens” and “Fotos by Ken”). My brother Ken Parks promotes and advertises himself as a limited-purpose public figure by speaking on a variety of public interest issues in an effort to sway the public to his views. My brother Ken Parks has admitted in public record court documents to promoting and advertising himself as a “trusted” public figure seeking “public trust.” One example of this is shown below — page 10 of a publicly accessible court Complaint my brother Ken Parks filed on April 30, 2015 in his third meritless, harassing lawsuit against my husband and me in New London, Connecticut (the case, KNL-CV15-5014893-S, was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that he is legally prohibited from filing the same lawsuit against us). He was never able to produce any evidence for any of his claims in his Complaint (such as being successful in any profession), even when the court ordered him to produce proof for those claims.
Public figures, including “limited purpose” public figures, are open to constitutionally protected public scrutiny.
