Religious believers--too stupid to be protected by law?

(Cross posted at God is for Suckers!)

This is not a thesis I am inclined to advocate, but I wonder if many people--even and especially people who claim themselves to be believers--intuitively accept it on some level. What got me thinking about this was that yesterday, Ed Brayton had a post advocating that a ban on fortune telling be lifted. Interesting stuff, but then the day before that Ed was not so confident when he examined the question of whether preachers of the prosperity gospel--"give me money and God will make you rich"--should be prosecuted. Certainly, people like James Randi have occasionally suggested that spirit mediums should be prosecuted.

This immediately brought to mind David Hume's incisive observation on religious beliefs from his Natural History of Religion: "Hear the verbal protestations of all men: nothing so certain as their religious tenets. Examine their lives: you will scarcely think that they repose the smallest confidence in them." Similar observations have been made by Bertrand Russell and, most recently, Daniel Dennett with his comments about believing in belief. People may claim to belief in the doctrines of a religion, but they would never seriously rely upon them in any practical matter. Do they further think to themselves that anyone foolish enough to do so doesn't deserve legal protection against fraud? It's one way of explaining reluctance to prosecute the likes of Benny Hinn.