Mormon whistleblower says his church is a “clandestine hedge fund”(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
Mormon whistleblower says his church is a “clandestine hedge fund”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mormon-whistleblower-ensign-peak-church-investment-fund-allegations-60-minutes-transcript-2023-05-14/
302 comments
"encouraged to pay tithing before all other expenses" is an understatement
> - obviously, hiding behind shell companies. I expect this from businesses, not from the church who asks their members if they are “honest in their dealings with their fellow man” regularly.
The logical conclusion is that the people controlling the church don't consider anyone outside the inner circle to be "their fellow man".
The logical conclusion is that the people controlling the church don't consider anyone outside the inner circle to be "their fellow man".
“ they claim to be saving money for the Second Coming” - care to back up this statement?
Looks it comes from the whistleblower. It's entirely possible that it's not official though.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/02/10/sec-rep....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/02/10/sec-rep....
they are a bunch of hypocrites is what you're saying? o.O
Your complaints are moral and subjective. They don't seem to fall under the category of "huge problem". All Churches endeavor to "hoards". Not one doesn't. For a variety of good reasons. That being said, your moral complaints are valid for you. I hope that you can reconcile them or find a community that better meets you where your values are.
I would come at this from a different angle in that this is just a subset of the hugely problematic tax free status of most charities, universities and churches, rather than a thing unique to mormons. Amassing a large pot of tax free money is not good for society no matter who is doing it for very obvious reasons.
When it comes to a church, all complaints are moral. If you claim to have the power of God on earth, you should expect every action you take to be viewed through that lens.
I do concede that they are subjective though. And obviously many Mormons are aware of the facts and come to different conclusions than me, and I'm ok with that.
I do concede that they are subjective though. And obviously many Mormons are aware of the facts and come to different conclusions than me, and I'm ok with that.
I would love to hear your description and explanation of "good reasons" for religious organizations to hoard money [when they are supposed to be spiritually focused].
I mean I volunteer for a church that does a huge amount of philanthropy, and as what we do comes in waves, we store up funds when we don't have a lot of community needs. Looking at the US economy I would actually expect needs to increase for some time so I think we should be saving more than we are at the moment in anticipation. I don't trust the government to personally bail me out very well and I don't trust them to do anything better with tax revenue.
Even this $100B hedge fund could be completely spent by the federal government in 6 days and a lot of that would just be servicing debt I've never agreed with carrying in the first place, or funding a military that I don't think makes the world a better place any better than my church does.
Even this $100B hedge fund could be completely spent by the federal government in 6 days and a lot of that would just be servicing debt I've never agreed with carrying in the first place, or funding a military that I don't think makes the world a better place any better than my church does.
This is definitely one place where it gets morally tricky. The church has facilities and programs to run, and needs protection against economic downturn. And it's not financially wise to have a bunch of liquid cash on-hand. For me the points in my original comment push it into immoral territory.
My main issue isn't the fact that the church is hoarding money and keeping, it is with the fact that the US government makes exemptions for them. What is the reasoning behind the tax-exemption and the exemption to reveal all financial information? Level the playing field and let the church be about its own business.
Tax exemption should be a non-issue. Churches shouldn't be for-profit businesses, they should be associations with members contributing to a common, partly charitable goal (although honestly it's also just a club). That's what they conceptually are, and that's how they should work.
They should be treated as charitable organisations at best, and then also held to those standards. Any church run as a business should not be considered a church at all.
(Disclaimer: I'm a member of a Dutch church, and I have no idea what our tax situation is.)
They should be treated as charitable organisations at best, and then also held to those standards. Any church run as a business should not be considered a church at all.
(Disclaimer: I'm a member of a Dutch church, and I have no idea what our tax situation is.)
Due to separation of church and state, churches aren’t supposed to participate in political speech either but the largest ones pretty unanimously do every major election. Legally that’s supposed to trigger taxation but it’s political suicide for anyone to go after them for this.
Separation of church and state is a restriction on the state from being religious, not the church from being political.
The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the state by very definition.
The bill of rights is a list of restrictions on the state by very definition.
There's a double standard here, though.
Tax-exempt charities are prohibited from using tax-exempt funds to engage in certain kinds of political speech. Those that do electioneer or conduct lobbying, for example, have separate non-tax-exempt branches that handle it, with their own funds and strict financial firewalls separating them from the rest of the organization.
Churches, on the other hand, get to flout those rules all the time. And I do mean churches; other religions don't tend to enjoy quite the same latitude.
And that selective enforcement by the government is a separation of church and state issue.
Tax-exempt charities are prohibited from using tax-exempt funds to engage in certain kinds of political speech. Those that do electioneer or conduct lobbying, for example, have separate non-tax-exempt branches that handle it, with their own funds and strict financial firewalls separating them from the rest of the organization.
Churches, on the other hand, get to flout those rules all the time. And I do mean churches; other religions don't tend to enjoy quite the same latitude.
And that selective enforcement by the government is a separation of church and state issue.
Didn’t America have churches before tax exempt laws? Tax laws came later. Your problem is with taxes and government spending. Remove taxes churches are exempt from and raise sales tax.
Sales tax is very regressive. I'd rather see income tax raised. But honestly, property tax does make a lot of sense. I'd suggest a property tax exemption for all properties that are used for community gatherings, which includes open church services, but also other clubs and organisations that bring people together. I think that's justifiable, and it frees churches from their most unavoidable tax costs.
A church that engages in direct political advocacy for a specific politician can and will lose its tax exemption. Like PACs, they can only advocate ideas, not people.
Some skirt that line very closely.
Some skirt that line very closely.
In theory yes but nobody would apply the rules to a major religion
I don’t see the difference. When a religious person is being political their activity is making the state religious. The state is not a football for religious games and it undermines people’s freedom to encourage this behavior. Religions use the state to beat up other religions by changing laws, rules, school resources, and public staff.
> The state is not a football for religious games
The state should reflect the ethics of the people. Religious morality is a type of speech.
This is immaterial but just in case anyone assumes anything: I'm not personally religious.
The state should reflect the ethics of the people. Religious morality is a type of speech.
This is immaterial but just in case anyone assumes anything: I'm not personally religious.
Separation of church and state doesn't mean churches can't voice their opinion or run political campaigns, it just means they shouldn't be involved in actually running the state, and that the state shouldn't be involved in religion either. I believe there are some limitations on churches as a precondition to their tax-exempt status, but those don't really flow from separation of church and state.
MLK was a Baptist minister.
MLK was a Baptist minister.
> Separation of church and state doesn't mean churches can't voice their opinion or run political campaigns...
You are mixing up three things as if they are the same. Opinions are fine.
But no, churches cannot run political campaigns. They are exempt as a religious organization, and in the U.S., religious organizations, like charitable organizations, exempt from income tax cannot participate in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was an American citizen capable of supporting any candidate he liked. His church was not. His church was, however, as all churches are today, able to lobby. Lobbying is not campaigning. Also, they were and are able to speak out for or against executive actions of the government. Doing so is neither lobbying nor campaigning; office holders are neither legislators nor campaigners; they are actually in office.
You are mixing up three things as if they are the same. Opinions are fine.
But no, churches cannot run political campaigns. They are exempt as a religious organization, and in the U.S., religious organizations, like charitable organizations, exempt from income tax cannot participate in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate for public office.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was an American citizen capable of supporting any candidate he liked. His church was not. His church was, however, as all churches are today, able to lobby. Lobbying is not campaigning. Also, they were and are able to speak out for or against executive actions of the government. Doing so is neither lobbying nor campaigning; office holders are neither legislators nor campaigners; they are actually in office.
I meant "campaign" in the general sense, rather than the more specific "political campaign". As in "MLK's campaign for civil rights". I should have been clearer, sorry.
[deleted]
Churches absolutely cannot run political campaigns for elected office, or endorse any candidate, or oppose any candidate.
They actually can.
The only thing that prevents them from doing that is that they are a 501(c)(3). The Johnson amendment requires they not be politically active.
However, if a church decides to register as a 501(c)(4) they absolutely can endorse or condemn candidates tax free.
So why aren't they 501(c)(4)s? 501(c)(3) allows you to deduct contributions to such and organization from your taxes. 4 only gives a break to the organization, not their donors.
The only thing that prevents them from doing that is that they are a 501(c)(3). The Johnson amendment requires they not be politically active.
However, if a church decides to register as a 501(c)(4) they absolutely can endorse or condemn candidates tax free.
So why aren't they 501(c)(4)s? 501(c)(3) allows you to deduct contributions to such and organization from your taxes. 4 only gives a break to the organization, not their donors.
[deleted]
> churches aren’t supposed to participate in political speech
You either misunderstand or misstated. The entire reason they are protected is because of their political speech. They aren't supposed to be actively endorsing, funding, or participating in campaigning for a politician. Most everything else is fair game.
You either misunderstand or misstated. The entire reason they are protected is because of their political speech. They aren't supposed to be actively endorsing, funding, or participating in campaigning for a politician. Most everything else is fair game.
No representation without taxation :)
Is that an accurate statement? I have never heard that included in the definition of separation of church and state. Sounds wrong.
It's kind of true? It's stated a little awkwardly but there is truth there.
If you are funding a political campaign (not just any political speech, but an actual campaign) you have to be set up as a political campaign rather than a church.
> 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics....
In practice, churches are given quite a bit of leeway to engage in what any reasonable person would call political campaigning.
If you are funding a political campaign (not just any political speech, but an actual campaign) you have to be set up as a political campaign rather than a church.
> 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics....
In practice, churches are given quite a bit of leeway to engage in what any reasonable person would call political campaigning.
There’s a big gap between engaging in political speech and funding a campaign
501.3.C non profits aren’t allowed to endorse candidates. It’s a blanket restriction across all of them which includes most churches.
The statement is correct there but it’s not a constitutional thing it’s an IRS thing.
The statement is correct there but it’s not a constitutional thing it’s an IRS thing.
Interesting. Never heard that before
[deleted]
People should still report to the relevant authorities when churches do political speech.
If nothing else it would keep them from actually saying "You must vote for X" and diplaying electoral posters.
It could even happen that somebody high in a decision chain ends up claiming "we don't care they can do whatever they want" which could be a minor scalndal.
If nothing else it would keep them from actually saying "You must vote for X" and diplaying electoral posters.
It could even happen that somebody high in a decision chain ends up claiming "we don't care they can do whatever they want" which could be a minor scalndal.
Everything is political. Absolutely everything.
From the size of a parking lot to whether a browser can be included in an OS. To express an opinion on such things is an act of political activism.
Abortion, gun contol, vim. Which one is not political? Which one is not a matter of religion?
From the size of a parking lot to whether a browser can be included in an OS. To express an opinion on such things is an act of political activism.
Abortion, gun contol, vim. Which one is not political? Which one is not a matter of religion?
You're not wrong. It's also why this is an excellent argument for the private practice of religion. And taxing them if they want real estate and monetary income.
I'm open to a discussion about this. It just so happens that I have recently witnessed many very generous people give out 100,000s of dollars in scholarships to local high schoolers. I'm willing to consider that those donations should also be taxed.
I'm also open to discussions of a flat tax and abolishing food tax and lots of other tax ideas. Including allowing tax deductions for charitable giving and tax exemptions for lots of things. I'm ok with allowing some, but I see the room for abuse. We'll never eliminate all abuse and we'll never get everything exactly fair. But we can keep making tweaks in the never-ending pursuit.
I'm also open to discussions of a flat tax and abolishing food tax and lots of other tax ideas. Including allowing tax deductions for charitable giving and tax exemptions for lots of things. I'm ok with allowing some, but I see the room for abuse. We'll never eliminate all abuse and we'll never get everything exactly fair. But we can keep making tweaks in the never-ending pursuit.
What if the authorities don't mind the churches doing so? It seems like, especially leading up to elections, you see videos of this almost every day. How can someone actually make sure that some consequences happen?
> How can someone actually make sure that some consequences happen?
You can’t, because the IRS steadfastly refuses to pursue these violations. I’m an active lifetime member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; and through our organization these near-constant occurrences of political endorsement by churches have been reported numerous times. To no avail.
To make matters worse, clergy in the U.S. often receive a large portion of their income as a housing allowance which is not taxable, as I understand it. But the majority of course still take their mortgage interest deduction. It’s a racket.
You can’t, because the IRS steadfastly refuses to pursue these violations. I’m an active lifetime member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation; and through our organization these near-constant occurrences of political endorsement by churches have been reported numerous times. To no avail.
To make matters worse, clergy in the U.S. often receive a large portion of their income as a housing allowance which is not taxable, as I understand it. But the majority of course still take their mortgage interest deduction. It’s a racket.
I know several church ministers. They work hard and get paid very little. Maybe the tax payer should not be subsidizing them but to say it's a racket is not fair. Some celebrity church leaders live lives of luxury but the average needs the tax breaks just to survive.
> the average needs the tax breaks just to survive.
The question becomes: Are the umbrella organizations paying the ministers just the bare minimum to keep them on? So if the tax breaks are stopped, will the church organization cover the new difference, or lose the ministers?
It might still be a racket where the ministers are also getting screwed. The benefit of the tax breaks may not go to the minister who receives the tax break, but instead benefit the archdiocese/convention/council/conference/synod/assembly/convocation/etc who pays
The question becomes: Are the umbrella organizations paying the ministers just the bare minimum to keep them on? So if the tax breaks are stopped, will the church organization cover the new difference, or lose the ministers?
It might still be a racket where the ministers are also getting screwed. The benefit of the tax breaks may not go to the minister who receives the tax break, but instead benefit the archdiocese/convention/council/conference/synod/assembly/convocation/etc who pays
For those outside the USA they may be surprised just how many churches in the USA are effectively independent franchises with no real central authority. People think of “Catholic Church” as the large multinational agency, but when you hear people talking about churches in the USA it’s often small Protestant churches.
(Some Protestant churches do have national structures, true, but you’re not often hearing about Lutherans doing things)
(Some Protestant churches do have national structures, true, but you’re not often hearing about Lutherans doing things)
[deleted]
I don't think that there is any chance[0] that the autorities will go after the churches for things like these.
But even if everyone tollerates the authorities turning a blind eye to the issue many would not tollerate the autorities making it an official policy or slipping up and saying stuff like "a church could run for office for all I care".
The state is protecting churches in ways it should not; you likely cannot defeat this protection, but you can put pressure on the state so that it will be harder/riskier to keep doing it.[1]
[0] at a trend level, or at least for the well connected churches with armies of lawyers.
[1] I must warn that this is close to declaring a war (on a very small scale) and as such you could come out in a worse position than when you started.
But even if everyone tollerates the authorities turning a blind eye to the issue many would not tollerate the autorities making it an official policy or slipping up and saying stuff like "a church could run for office for all I care".
The state is protecting churches in ways it should not; you likely cannot defeat this protection, but you can put pressure on the state so that it will be harder/riskier to keep doing it.[1]
[0] at a trend level, or at least for the well connected churches with armies of lawyers.
[1] I must warn that this is close to declaring a war (on a very small scale) and as such you could come out in a worse position than when you started.
It seems like some kind of transparent federal oversight is desperately needed. As you say any kind of change will be interpreted incredibly negatively, so any local approach will be suppressed.
Has anyone ever actually seen this happen? I feel like this is some boogeyman worry floating around the internet.
I grew up in the south and have been in different churches for most of my life. Outside of supporting soldiers and an occasional American flag in church I’ve only seen a preacher get political once in my entire life. Even that was roundabout too.
I grew up in the south and have been in different churches for most of my life. Outside of supporting soldiers and an occasional American flag in church I’ve only seen a preacher get political once in my entire life. Even that was roundabout too.
> Has anyone ever actually seen this happen?
Yep.
Anti-Trump Example #1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtrxQyf4XrM
Anti-Trump Example #2 (church leader was correctly fired for this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h098Z6g6pCE
Anti-Democrat Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1AlrvZr95k (Threatens to exile people who vote Democrat from the church)
Anti-Biden/Harris Example: https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-greg-locke-says-biden-demon-...
Pro-Trump/Pence Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d24BfefW8M
Local politics example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAcHN-dqpSc
I picked a variety for illustrative purposes. But there's a bit more to the stories: https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/29320-ffrf-sues-tru... This type of "using the official church to endorse/condemn specific candidates and parties" happens all the time, and isn't limited to national politics.
Yep.
Anti-Trump Example #1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtrxQyf4XrM
Anti-Trump Example #2 (church leader was correctly fired for this): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h098Z6g6pCE
Anti-Democrat Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1AlrvZr95k (Threatens to exile people who vote Democrat from the church)
Anti-Biden/Harris Example: https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-greg-locke-says-biden-demon-...
Pro-Trump/Pence Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d24BfefW8M
Local politics example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAcHN-dqpSc
I picked a variety for illustrative purposes. But there's a bit more to the stories: https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/29320-ffrf-sues-tru... This type of "using the official church to endorse/condemn specific candidates and parties" happens all the time, and isn't limited to national politics.
Apparently I'm in the wrong churches (or the right ones).
“Separation of church and state” doesn’t require that at all. It’s required by churches’ non-profit status, the same as non-religious non-profits. But non-religious non-profits also get involved in political speech in every election.
This is the same thing as where people fail to distinguish the First Amendment from free speech as a principle.
If we are talking about law, you are right - the US limits on religious groups getting involved in politics are in the tax code, not in the establishment clause. If they are willing to give up their taxation privileges, they are allowed to participate in politics as much as they like. And, since the tax code is just a statute, Congress could change it to allow them to meddle in politics without losing those tax privileges, and I doubt such a tax law change would be held to violate the establishment clause.
However, “separation of church and state” is also an extralegal principle. And, maybe, too much involvement of religions in politics violates that extralegal principle even when it doesn’t violate the letter of the law.
If we are talking about law, you are right - the US limits on religious groups getting involved in politics are in the tax code, not in the establishment clause. If they are willing to give up their taxation privileges, they are allowed to participate in politics as much as they like. And, since the tax code is just a statute, Congress could change it to allow them to meddle in politics without losing those tax privileges, and I doubt such a tax law change would be held to violate the establishment clause.
However, “separation of church and state” is also an extralegal principle. And, maybe, too much involvement of religions in politics violates that extralegal principle even when it doesn’t violate the letter of the law.
[deleted]
I'm not religious as an adult but I was raised so. I attended Catholic school and went to church twice a week during the school year. In addition, I attended several churches in the region for different events over the years growing up. Never once did the church become political while I was there and I had substantial time there. In addition, it was a major denomination. I can assure you just because someone goes to church does not mean they belong to one political party either.
Read the last sentence of your comment, then read your comment. (Edit: they edited out the last sentence, a line about not judging and reading carefully)
Then read OPs comment. compare the general, nonuniversal statement they made about political advocacy vis a vis tax status laws in the United States, to the judgements you envisioned of religious people and yourself and your religion.
Then read OPs comment. compare the general, nonuniversal statement they made about political advocacy vis a vis tax status laws in the United States, to the judgements you envisioned of religious people and yourself and your religion.
Update 2: thanks for the reply actually. I went back through the entire thread and realized somehow my comment replied to the parent comment. I was not trying to respond this the parent comment. I was trying to respond to a sub comment on the parent comment that someone said the major denominations all engage in political activity during elections. I realize my comment looked extreme now because it was out of context. This was not my intent. Thanks for responding. And you were absolutely correct.
I deleted it immediately because it did jump to a conclusion that wasn't there and I recognized it and corrected it. But regardless, the rest stands true. The most political it got during election was "please pray for our elected officials to guide us". Which is completely fair.
[deleted]
Two edged sword here. If the government confined itself to the Enumerated Powers, your argument would be strong.
The government setting itself up as "god" and interfering with religious liberty is a bit of a Rubicon.
The government setting itself up as "god" and interfering with religious liberty is a bit of a Rubicon.
How would taxing churches the same as everyone else interfere with religious liberty?
I agree with you. The way things are setup now, religion gets all sorts of special dispensations. To do this, government has to determine what is a real religion and what is not, which sounds to me like it goes directly against the separation between church and state. Religion should be treated the same as any other belief structure.
I realize this doesn’t apply directly to taxation but we defer to religion in multiple ways in the law.
I realize this doesn’t apply directly to taxation but we defer to religion in multiple ways in the law.
"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy"
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?re...
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?re...
That is not an answer to my question.
Such power will be abused, if recent history is any guide.
Even if that were more than a meaningless platitude, why do churches need to be protected against that more than everyone else?
Churches/Mosques/Synagogues/Temples are the source of moral glue holding society together.
The ongoing societal cratering about us will only be hastened by levying taxes on them.
But perhaps that's the goal?
The ongoing societal cratering about us will only be hastened by levying taxes on them.
But perhaps that's the goal?
The "ongoing societal cratering" is led by the most vocally religious people.
Religious institutions may be some kind of glue, but certainly not a moral one.
Religious institutions may be some kind of glue, but certainly not a moral one.
Separation of Church and state isn’t even in the Constitution. The right to religious freedom is. And religious freedom absolutely includes moral teaching for adherents, including teaching that supporting this or that immoral policy by voting for a politician who supports it is sinful.
> Any church run as a business should not be considered a church at all.
Virtually every nonprofit is run nearly the same way as a regular business. They still make profits, the only differences are restrictions around distributing income to owners and some mild accountability in how funds are spent.
Virtually every nonprofit is run nearly the same way as a regular business. They still make profits, the only differences are restrictions around distributing income to owners and some mild accountability in how funds are spent.
There's often a crucial difference in the nature of "revenue": With nonprofits it's often a voluntary contribution ("donation"). Or non profits can rightly claim that the contribution is of a capital nature in which case it's equivalent to an equity raise for a business (share issue even though the shares will never pay dividends).
Donations and equity raises are not taxable income.
Donations and equity raises are not taxable income.
Many large non-profits actually make most of their money as returns from investments. The Mormon church is not at all unusual in this way - most large universities also make most of their money from investments. As an example, when I reviewed the Universty of Texas finances in 2019 I think it was, they could have charged zero tuition for every student across every campus and still would have had a positive net income for the year. Massive endowments are useful for this exact purpose - allowing operations even without any outside contributions.
You're probably thinking of one type of nonprofit but there are several. The church in this case is operate for any more like a non-profit Hospital or business. You can run Starbucks or Apple as a non-profit. As long as you don't return profit to the individual owners and keep it in the business, you can qualify
The Guardian newspaper in the UK is owned by a non-profit (Scott Trust). Its founder was concerned that his family would lose control of the newspaper after his death, being forced to sell a large chunk of it in order to pay estate taxes. So he set up a trust, more recently converted to a not-for-profit company, to control it. The company’s constitution says it cannot pay dividends, that its stock has no voting rights and cannot be transferred without the board’s consent, and that it cannot be acquired by any for-profit entity. The board is self-perpetuating, appointing its own future members. I believe the board members are issued stock upon joining the board, but are legally required to return it upon leaving. The actual media business is run by a 100% owned for-profit subsidiary. There’s no reason in principle why a business in any other industry could not adopt the same ownership model, although it does make it harder to raise capital.
> There’s no reason in principle why a business in any other industry could not adopt the same ownership model, although it does make it harder to raise capital.
Yes, it would make attracting capital harder. It would also make it implausible to ever consider leaving that business and doing something else if you're one of the owners.
Yes, it would make attracting capital harder. It would also make it implausible to ever consider leaving that business and doing something else if you're one of the owners.
> Tax exemption should be a non-issue.
> Any church run as a business should not be considered a church at all.
Churches are always businesses. It takes a lot of money to own and operate large buildings, pay people to work for the church, and operate events for churchgoers. Eventually they need to accumulate funds to expand and build new churches. It’s a business, like it or not.
The issue is that some of these churches have taken the original intent of the business supporting the church and turned it into a questionable structure where it appears the church supports the business. Having millions of “customers” worldwide who are obligated to give you 10% of their income every year and to allocate years of their life to traveling the world and convincing other people to join is one lucrative business model.
We can’t really go out and tell people what their religion can or cannot do (within the bounds of the law) but we can, and should, set some limits on the tax breaks we give to these religion-businesses.
The easiest way is obviously to set some limits or thresholds. “Tax exempt up to $1 billion in funds” is hard to argue with and would easily solve this problem.
> Any church run as a business should not be considered a church at all.
Churches are always businesses. It takes a lot of money to own and operate large buildings, pay people to work for the church, and operate events for churchgoers. Eventually they need to accumulate funds to expand and build new churches. It’s a business, like it or not.
The issue is that some of these churches have taken the original intent of the business supporting the church and turned it into a questionable structure where it appears the church supports the business. Having millions of “customers” worldwide who are obligated to give you 10% of their income every year and to allocate years of their life to traveling the world and convincing other people to join is one lucrative business model.
We can’t really go out and tell people what their religion can or cannot do (within the bounds of the law) but we can, and should, set some limits on the tax breaks we give to these religion-businesses.
The easiest way is obviously to set some limits or thresholds. “Tax exempt up to $1 billion in funds” is hard to argue with and would easily solve this problem.
No, they're a mix of an association and a charity. But mostly association. They've got members, the members vote for leaders, they contribute funds to rent a building and hire someone to lead the service. There's nothing business about a normal church.
For limits and thresholds, I'd suggest "No property tax for congregation/worship space up to $X per Y members, no payroll taxes for 1 person involved in services or charity work per Z members".
Most churches don't have millions of members. Mine has about 200. It's part of a larger denomination, but membership is through the local congregation. I suppose religions should have some freedom in how to structure this sort of thing (not all have their leaders chosen by their members, for example, and some are more top-down organised), but I also think it's fair to have some restrictions on the more business-like organisations in order to prevent abuse. And if people really do want a big, monolithic, top-down business-like organisation, they can always just pay their taxes.
For limits and thresholds, I'd suggest "No property tax for congregation/worship space up to $X per Y members, no payroll taxes for 1 person involved in services or charity work per Z members".
Most churches don't have millions of members. Mine has about 200. It's part of a larger denomination, but membership is through the local congregation. I suppose religions should have some freedom in how to structure this sort of thing (not all have their leaders chosen by their members, for example, and some are more top-down organised), but I also think it's fair to have some restrictions on the more business-like organisations in order to prevent abuse. And if people really do want a big, monolithic, top-down business-like organisation, they can always just pay their taxes.
Many churches are legally classified as non-profits-which is a broader category than charities-the local bridge club is likely to be a non-profit but not a charity. It depends on the country, but in many countries the majority of the tax exemptions religions get are just the general exemptions to which all non-profits are entitled. To deny those non-profit tax exemptions to a church, while allowing them to the local bridge club, would be a form of state discrimination against religion, which (in many countries) would be unconstitutional, and may even violate international human rights law
I think that’s a pretty limited view based on your view on religion. Don’t force your religion on others. I am not religious, but I think religion being free to take whatever form it sees fit is core to religious freedom.
Exactly. Scientology is not a religion. Its barely a business dressed as a religion. The standard for tax exemption should be charitable non-profit.
Dutch churches are exempt from most taxes, such as income/profit taxes and estate taxes. And they do own a lot of estate.
Some do. Some don't. Lots of churches rent their building.
Churches were social security centuries ago: You contribute a tenth of your income and in exchange the church will look after you if you when disaster strikes (illness, crop failure)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe_barns_in_Europe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe_barns_in_Europe
The problem is, the Church, on a macro scale, has largely abandoned the notion that they will look after you in hard times. We've had some relatively hard times in this country in my lifetime, and not once have I seen the Mormon Church step up in any noticeable* way, even to help tithing members.
I define "noticeable" as a measure of the Church's proportional amount of donations relative to its income or supposed amount of cash reserves.
At the same time, the Mormon Church spent 3.6 million dollars (6.7 million in today's dollars) in 2000 to lobby the state of California against LGBTQ protections. While that is clearly pennies (or less) for a fund that supposedly is over $100 billion, the point still stands.
If the Mormon Church stepped up during COVID, any Hurricane/Wildfire/Storm or similar times of need to the tune of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and a lot of that went to non-members, the Church would be shouting it from the rooftops "look how charitable we are! we help non-tithing members! we help the outside community!" but that didn't happen, did it?
I define "noticeable" as a measure of the Church's proportional amount of donations relative to its income or supposed amount of cash reserves.
At the same time, the Mormon Church spent 3.6 million dollars (6.7 million in today's dollars) in 2000 to lobby the state of California against LGBTQ protections. While that is clearly pennies (or less) for a fund that supposedly is over $100 billion, the point still stands.
If the Mormon Church stepped up during COVID, any Hurricane/Wildfire/Storm or similar times of need to the tune of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, and a lot of that went to non-members, the Church would be shouting it from the rooftops "look how charitable we are! we help non-tithing members! we help the outside community!" but that didn't happen, did it?
Indeed, the disestablishmentarian State has usurped many functions that used to pertain to the Church. It was the Catholic Church who founded the university system as we know it today, and the hospital system we depend on.
When colonists made it to the New World, who was there to educate the children? The Catholic missionaries and religious institutes founded schools and created whole districts to educate children (yes, even Native and Indigenous children such as we vilify them for in Canada.)
Parents would often have at least one child set aside to dedicate to the Church, as a priest and/or a professed religious. Children would enter the seminary, monastery, or convent. In return, those insitutions would care for the underprivileged and the powerless. Many monasteries provided services to the Church and to the general public: brewing beer, cultivating gardens, baking bread, you name it.
But as all these services and more are privatized and nationalized, it sort of makes the Church redundant, an NGO without purpose, if you're on the outside looking in. So why perpetuate non-profit status of these mere charities when the State can provide entitlements far beyond what meager donations can provide? It's definitely a Sophie's choice, when you get right down to it.
When colonists made it to the New World, who was there to educate the children? The Catholic missionaries and religious institutes founded schools and created whole districts to educate children (yes, even Native and Indigenous children such as we vilify them for in Canada.)
Parents would often have at least one child set aside to dedicate to the Church, as a priest and/or a professed religious. Children would enter the seminary, monastery, or convent. In return, those insitutions would care for the underprivileged and the powerless. Many monasteries provided services to the Church and to the general public: brewing beer, cultivating gardens, baking bread, you name it.
But as all these services and more are privatized and nationalized, it sort of makes the Church redundant, an NGO without purpose, if you're on the outside looking in. So why perpetuate non-profit status of these mere charities when the State can provide entitlements far beyond what meager donations can provide? It's definitely a Sophie's choice, when you get right down to it.
Catholic Universities are still thriving. The Catholic Churches globally hoard around $100 billion and could absolutely create a world-class endowment for a huge university if they prioritized that.
It’s not the states’ fault they choose not to.
It’s not the states’ fault they choose not to.
More like 30 billion dollars, and a large swath of that is tied up in completely illiquid assets like churches or gold in reliquia [1].
[1] https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/05/24/the-finances-behi...
[1] https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/05/24/the-finances-behi...
That source is garbage. It cites a study estimating the worth of the Church in Australia at A$30bn, uses that number as the global number (though now in US dollars, for no obvious reason), and then spends the rest of the article talking about the finances of the Holy See. And on that matter, it attributes the Vatican's budget deficit to "falling gold prices", as if the Church's main asset was a gold mine that produced a set amount of gold each year - not to mention that gold is up about 50% over the time period they consider, 2013-2022.
I'd expect a more diligently written article from an average ten year old.
I'd expect a more diligently written article from an average ten year old.
Of course, this was just another method for social domination from the Catholic church. Education was the churches method to model the elite of the next generation so they would be catholics instead of what they are now (mostly non-religious). And "teaching" native Americans was essentially forced conversion as everyone knows.
Yes this is why church attendance collapsed in Europe. The State took over these duties. There's no materialistic reason to be a member anymore.
My understanding is that a lot of the current status quo came to be as a result of the Church of Scientology's long standing dispute with the IRS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_t...
Nobody is answering your question. Churches (cults, religion) all over the world are tax-exempted as a way to avoid "persecution". If a cult is taxed, then a particular government could persecute a particular cult by just raising their taxes. Imagine a government that is very strong on religion A, decides to raise taxes on religion B.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong. It even sounds a bit dated to me. But that's the underlying reason.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong. It even sounds a bit dated to me. But that's the underlying reason.
This doesn't track, governments could do whatever they wanted. There's no magical ruleset for governments. They could tax just you if they wanted, or they could set up a set of reasonable and airtight laws taxing the churches fairly.
I don't really see your point.
I don't really see your point.
In the US, I believe (and hope) that differentially taxing all religions except one would be found to violate the First Amendment prohibition on establishing a religion.
Right but these are rules set up and regulated by the US government. They didn't need to structure them that way in the beginning. Many countries don't.
Many countries go so far the other way that the government taxes the people and gives the money to the church.
Very true. The Netherlands never spent a single cent on the state religion so it completely collapsed when tithing dried up.
Meanwhile in Belgium the government gives money to the Catholic church so it is able to survive.
Meanwhile in Belgium the government gives money to the Catholic church so it is able to survive.
Heh makes it sound like the Catholics are entirely funded by Belgium ;)
It's honestly understandable in some of these countries, especially when you consider the deep interconnection many countries have with the church (take Rome as the quintessential example; how many of the tourist hotspots are just churches).
It's honestly understandable in some of these countries, especially when you consider the deep interconnection many countries have with the church (take Rome as the quintessential example; how many of the tourist hotspots are just churches).
This doesnt track. The US government cant write whatever laws they want. They are actually constrained by the powers granted by the states via the constitution and protected by the judiciary. A new law taxing churches they dont like would not survive.
> Churches (cults, religion) all over the world are tax-exempted
Whilst true, that doesn't negate my point.
This doesn't track. What's considered "constitutional" in the US varies as the wind blows. Such a law would not survive today, but in 50 years' time, who can say?
It does not.
Interpretation can vary but thats not the same thing.
Interpretation can vary but thats not the same thing.
https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards...
> For many Constitutional law scholars, last years' Dobbs decision on abortion rights at the Supreme Court came as a dismaying shock, because it showed conclusively that conlaw wasn't a realm of ideologically consistent intellectual foment, but rather, a matter of politics.
> Writing for Credit Slips, the finance law scholar Adam Levitin admits to feeling a bit of schadenfreude in that moment. The "blue collar" law scholars in "grubby" banking and money fields have always treated the conlaw set as "slightly clueless toffs"
> For many Constitutional law scholars, last years' Dobbs decision on abortion rights at the Supreme Court came as a dismaying shock, because it showed conclusively that conlaw wasn't a realm of ideologically consistent intellectual foment, but rather, a matter of politics.
> Writing for Credit Slips, the finance law scholar Adam Levitin admits to feeling a bit of schadenfreude in that moment. The "blue collar" law scholars in "grubby" banking and money fields have always treated the conlaw set as "slightly clueless toffs"
'can be considered "constitutional"' is a function of the persons interpretation. Is it not the case that whether a law passes is affected by the interpretations of 'can be considered "constitutional"' by the powers that can influence the outcome.
> Imagine a government that is very strong on religion A, decides to raise taxes on religion B.
Happens all day long, just a little different and that is by allowing "story A" to be declared a religion, but "story B" not.
Happens all day long, just a little different and that is by allowing "story A" to be declared a religion, but "story B" not.
In the United States, non-profit organizations are generally tax exempt, whether they are religious or not.
[deleted]
Not in the way churches are.
Generally yes they are. Churches and non profits are generally 501.3.C organizations and share the same tax regulations.
There are, of course different types of non-profit statuses but nothing special available to churches from a tax perspective.
There are, of course different types of non-profit statuses but nothing special available to churches from a tax perspective.
I'm not sure I follow, how would it be possible to raise taxes on a specific religion?
By targeting their assets?!
By targeting their assets?!
It is extremely simple once you get out of the western secular, tolerant mindset.
Just a matter of tailoring the law in the right way. For example, if you want to hurt church X which has a large following among urban population, just increase taxes on noncommercial private buildings with seating capacity over 50 in areas where population density is over some number. And make allowance for exceptions, so you can claim the law doesn't discriminate, and it's their fault that they didn't get exception.
The fact that exception is impossible to get if people asking for it adhere to some creed is secondary. Even if they get it, the process can be made costly and painful to the point where they run out of money before.
Or you can go explicit in your intentions, and make a law targeting that particular faith by name. It has been done in the past, it is happening now. Look at middle-east for examples.
And you can go for categories too. Say you don't want any foreign religions popping up. Just raise taxes on all, and give exceptions or such to faiths that have over some number of citizen adherents. The possibilities are practically limitless once you accept that law is a tool.
Just a matter of tailoring the law in the right way. For example, if you want to hurt church X which has a large following among urban population, just increase taxes on noncommercial private buildings with seating capacity over 50 in areas where population density is over some number. And make allowance for exceptions, so you can claim the law doesn't discriminate, and it's their fault that they didn't get exception.
The fact that exception is impossible to get if people asking for it adhere to some creed is secondary. Even if they get it, the process can be made costly and painful to the point where they run out of money before.
Or you can go explicit in your intentions, and make a law targeting that particular faith by name. It has been done in the past, it is happening now. Look at middle-east for examples.
And you can go for categories too. Say you don't want any foreign religions popping up. Just raise taxes on all, and give exceptions or such to faiths that have over some number of citizen adherents. The possibilities are practically limitless once you accept that law is a tool.
For better or worse, the tax system is here for everyone. Why should religions be the only institutions immune to it? Everything you said happens in America, just change religion for nationality (sanctions) or race. I don't see why religion should be different. Moreover, religions persecution also happens in the USA, but by other means. Catholics have been persecuted in the past, the same happened against jews during a period, and more recently to islam. The idea of tax exemption only happens to benefit the well entrenched religions: evangelical churches, mormonism in Utah, the Catholic church. It also helps up and coming scams such as scientologists, who take advantage of the provisions of the law.
You’d target activities specific to a religion.
Can’t think of a great example here from a religious perspective.
But there’s an interesting new bill in Florida that cedes control of very specific railways to the Florida Department of Traffic which would only affect the Disney World monorail this is part of the Florida governors battle with Disney. You could probably find similar ways to target religious buildings, businesses and other activities.
https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/florida-senate-passes-tra...
Can’t think of a great example here from a religious perspective.
But there’s an interesting new bill in Florida that cedes control of very specific railways to the Florida Department of Traffic which would only affect the Disney World monorail this is part of the Florida governors battle with Disney. You could probably find similar ways to target religious buildings, businesses and other activities.
https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/florida-senate-passes-tra...
The founders of the US didn’t want it to become like England. England gave special tax breaks for churches and churches became very, very influential parts of the State due to tax policy alone. As such, the idea was that if churches are tax exempt they would stay out of politics mostly given they don’t pay taxes in the first place.
As it stands any persistent form of power (corporate, religious, perhaps even academic) that seeks to further entrench itself will seek out forms of power such as a government or large multinational to ingratiate itself to.
Separation of state and anything else at all would probably have been the better doctrine to establish and follow, but oh well we’re screwed now
As it stands any persistent form of power (corporate, religious, perhaps even academic) that seeks to further entrench itself will seek out forms of power such as a government or large multinational to ingratiate itself to.
Separation of state and anything else at all would probably have been the better doctrine to establish and follow, but oh well we’re screwed now
Founders of the US gave tax exemption to churches because they were part of chuches themselves. It is a system that has been rotten from the core foundation. Separation of church and state is, that is correct, a result of rejection of England, because they didn't want the same English system where one church dominated the others.
You'd be surprised how many countries have tax exemptions for churches of about any denomination. There's still a tradition apparently that the business of god(s) shouldn't be investigated by man, or something.
If it were only tax exemptions. Germany pays half a billion every year to the church because of a deal from a hundred years ago. That is in addition to anything with taxes.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/germany-continues-payments-ch...
https://www.ncronline.org/news/germany-continues-payments-ch...
Is that different from a church tax? Many countries levy taxes on behalf of officially recognised churches. If you're registered as a church member, you pay an additional tax that goes to your church. You can generally opt out by deregistering as a member. I think Netherland used to have this in the past, but got rid of it at some point. Some European countries still have it.
I assume there's still some standards for how those churches can use that money though; churches are not meant to be for-profit ventures. Though some of them (older ones especially) are quite rich. Younger churches tend to be poor.
I assume there's still some standards for how those churches can use that money though; churches are not meant to be for-profit ventures. Though some of them (older ones especially) are quite rich. Younger churches tend to be poor.
As qznc started, those are separate things. One is a crazy leftover from Napoleonic days (consider the amount of changes to German statehood that thing has survived!), the other is an opt-out thing (or rather an opt-in actually, unless your parents did the "in" for you) that I actually think is super nice to have. It should be extended to the point where it's basically an API for income-scaled membership fees that's open to every org that wants to have it (and to public broadcasting, to achieve "separate from state" in a way that isn't a flat household tax)
As far as I understand the payments Germany still makes are for the properties it "bought" from the churches when the separation between church and state was declared. There have been plans to repay the remaining sum in one big payment, but those have been around for probably just as long as the agreement itself.
The "church tax" is collected independently from that and it is a "paid" service the state offers to any public organization that falls into the same broad legal definition used for churches. As far as I understand the state actually makes a profit from the cut it keeps.
The "church tax" is collected independently from that and it is a "paid" service the state offers to any public organization that falls into the same broad legal definition used for churches. As far as I understand the state actually makes a profit from the cut it keeps.
It is not related to the church tax. It comes on top.
We do not have specific tax exemption for churches in France, they are part of the non profit organizations. When you give money to such an organization you can claim tax credit on your general taxes.
And since this is France, we of course have upped the game with a special region: Alsace Moselle.
Or is on the border with Germany and has been French or German in the last centuries as wars came and went.
Church there has a special status (taxes, payment of priests, religion at school, concordate with the Vatican, ...) that is historical and nobody ever got rid of it. There are also other specificities because of that, notably social security.
And since this is France, we of course have upped the game with a special region: Alsace Moselle.
Or is on the border with Germany and has been French or German in the last centuries as wars came and went.
Church there has a special status (taxes, payment of priests, religion at school, concordate with the Vatican, ...) that is historical and nobody ever got rid of it. There are also other specificities because of that, notably social security.
No organization should be tax-exempt (not religions, not charities, not foundations), and no donations to such organizations should be tax exempt. Tax exemption takes money from the one democratic charity (our government) that supports vastly more than any other, increases undemocratic amounts of influence among the wealthy, and leads to financial shenanigans such as those we see here withe the LDS hoard. I've been in position to witness all of this via my parent's wealth distribution (almost entirely to charities, starting with 50% to LDS church).
The state is not the only means by which a society conducts charity. It needs to encourage charitable giving through various avenues.
Does the state need to encourage charitable giving, though?
Would a person stop donating $1000 of their expendable wealth to their favorite cause (e.g., hunger, cancer, cloning hitler, whatever) if that $1000 donation no longer reduced their taxes by $200 (for example)? If so, what kind of person would do that? Probably not the kind of person who ever donates to anything in the first place.
Worst case, if there were no more tax-deductible charities: that person would pay the $200 taxes and only donate $800 (instead of $1000) to their favorite cause. Best case: Megawealthy would no longer leave $20 billion to their favorite cause (be that their dog, the LDS church, their love of oil drilling, or whatever), but would pay $5 in estate taxes and only have $15 billion leftover for their love of oil drilling (or whatever be their whim).
Would a person stop donating $1000 of their expendable wealth to their favorite cause (e.g., hunger, cancer, cloning hitler, whatever) if that $1000 donation no longer reduced their taxes by $200 (for example)? If so, what kind of person would do that? Probably not the kind of person who ever donates to anything in the first place.
Worst case, if there were no more tax-deductible charities: that person would pay the $200 taxes and only donate $800 (instead of $1000) to their favorite cause. Best case: Megawealthy would no longer leave $20 billion to their favorite cause (be that their dog, the LDS church, their love of oil drilling, or whatever), but would pay $5 in estate taxes and only have $15 billion leftover for their love of oil drilling (or whatever be their whim).
There are two main tax exemptions which churches benefit from in the US. The first is that donation are tax deductible for taxpayers that itemize their deductions. The second is that any income from investments is also tax free. This is the case for any 503b non-profit organization in the US, not strictly for churches. For example, if you local youth soccer program was a 503b the interest from their bank account isn’t taxed.
If a 503B puts its money into Microsoft stock, the profits that Microsoft makes are taxed. The capital gains the 503B gets wouldn’t get taxed when the stock was sold.
The main argument in the article, not fully stated, is that the Mormon Church doesn’t do enough beneficial works to qualify as a 503b. In the US, Churches are granted 503b status without specific reviews of their societal benefit. If you want to pay someone to operate a homeless shelter or ding a bell all day to prevent the end of times, it is all the same. This is part of separation of church and state as laid out in the constitution. If there was a specific review the State could “put its thumb” on the scales and favor some churches over others in granting non-profit status.
Churches, just like the local soccer club don’t have the same distribution requirements that a donor controlled 503b would have. For example if you are a billionaire and donate $1B of your appreciated stock to your donor directed fund you need to distribute 5% per year on charitable works to keep the 503b status. The article implies that the same requirement should apply to the Mormon Church that applies to a donor directed fund. This line of reasoning is incorrect.
A donor directed fund has substantially no other affiliated activity that has to be considered. This is more like Harvard’s endowment where there is a school controls the fund. In the case of Harvard, if the fund didn’t distribute anything in a year there still would be substantial educational work and research going on. In the case of a donor directed non-profit nothing would be happening. The Mormon Church argues that it operates more like Harvard and that the whistleblower did not have access to the larger organizations finances.
All global churches right now are facing a demographic cliff as wealthy nations are increasingly secular while most religions growth is in developing countries. In most cases Churches transfer a large amount of donations from wealthy countries like the US to less wealthy ones like Nigeria. In another 50 years many of those transfers will cease to be significant unless there is a religious revival in wealthier markets or a significant deviation in the number of children religious families have relative to the overall population in these countries. It is likely that many churches will need to wind down financial activities to be more aligned with the demographics.
If a 503B puts its money into Microsoft stock, the profits that Microsoft makes are taxed. The capital gains the 503B gets wouldn’t get taxed when the stock was sold.
The main argument in the article, not fully stated, is that the Mormon Church doesn’t do enough beneficial works to qualify as a 503b. In the US, Churches are granted 503b status without specific reviews of their societal benefit. If you want to pay someone to operate a homeless shelter or ding a bell all day to prevent the end of times, it is all the same. This is part of separation of church and state as laid out in the constitution. If there was a specific review the State could “put its thumb” on the scales and favor some churches over others in granting non-profit status.
Churches, just like the local soccer club don’t have the same distribution requirements that a donor controlled 503b would have. For example if you are a billionaire and donate $1B of your appreciated stock to your donor directed fund you need to distribute 5% per year on charitable works to keep the 503b status. The article implies that the same requirement should apply to the Mormon Church that applies to a donor directed fund. This line of reasoning is incorrect.
A donor directed fund has substantially no other affiliated activity that has to be considered. This is more like Harvard’s endowment where there is a school controls the fund. In the case of Harvard, if the fund didn’t distribute anything in a year there still would be substantial educational work and research going on. In the case of a donor directed non-profit nothing would be happening. The Mormon Church argues that it operates more like Harvard and that the whistleblower did not have access to the larger organizations finances.
All global churches right now are facing a demographic cliff as wealthy nations are increasingly secular while most religions growth is in developing countries. In most cases Churches transfer a large amount of donations from wealthy countries like the US to less wealthy ones like Nigeria. In another 50 years many of those transfers will cease to be significant unless there is a religious revival in wealthier markets or a significant deviation in the number of children religious families have relative to the overall population in these countries. It is likely that many churches will need to wind down financial activities to be more aligned with the demographics.
> For example if you are a billionaire and donate $1B of your appreciated stock to your donor directed fund you need to distribute 5% per year on charitable works to keep the 503b status
This is the dirty little secret of billionaires' private foundations. That 5% has a lot of latitude and little oversight. For example, it includes administrative costs. A private foundation can pay each family member a salary (allowance) and that's a valid cost against the 5%.
As for the Mormon church (or any church for that matter) non-profits aren't meant to be politically active, as in campaigning for a particular party of candidate. We all know this happens all the time..
I'd be fine with keeping tax-deductability for contributions to complying non-profits. But why do they get to enjoy tax free status on, say, investment gains? Or income from investments (including property they own)? Get rid of that and I think a lot of problems go away.
This is the dirty little secret of billionaires' private foundations. That 5% has a lot of latitude and little oversight. For example, it includes administrative costs. A private foundation can pay each family member a salary (allowance) and that's a valid cost against the 5%.
As for the Mormon church (or any church for that matter) non-profits aren't meant to be politically active, as in campaigning for a particular party of candidate. We all know this happens all the time..
I'd be fine with keeping tax-deductability for contributions to complying non-profits. But why do they get to enjoy tax free status on, say, investment gains? Or income from investments (including property they own)? Get rid of that and I think a lot of problems go away.
In the case of religious organizations a lot of their assets weren’t purchased primarily as investments. Most religious organizations largest assets are in real estate sitting under their churches. The real estate may have appreciated over 100 years but taxing a church on “gains” when the building needs to be moved to make way for an office building isn’t generally what people think of as investment gains.
The same can be said for most charitable organizations. The community food pantry being taxed if it moves across town or simply trying to keep the rainy day fund even with inflation.
If a person is of the view that all good things come from the government then taxing charities makes a lot of sense. If, on the other hand a person believes that all good things originate from the people and that the government is just one of those good things it makes sense to allow room for other things that serve the people’s interests but don’t directly serve the governments interests.
I am certainly not saying that bad things don’t come from religious organizations, charities or the government. I am saying there is a belief in the US that power ultimately resides with the people. Actually with the people, not the government or through the government as representatives of the people.
The same can be said for most charitable organizations. The community food pantry being taxed if it moves across town or simply trying to keep the rainy day fund even with inflation.
If a person is of the view that all good things come from the government then taxing charities makes a lot of sense. If, on the other hand a person believes that all good things originate from the people and that the government is just one of those good things it makes sense to allow room for other things that serve the people’s interests but don’t directly serve the governments interests.
I am certainly not saying that bad things don’t come from religious organizations, charities or the government. I am saying there is a belief in the US that power ultimately resides with the people. Actually with the people, not the government or through the government as representatives of the people.
> This is the dirty little secret of billionaires' private foundations. That 5% has a lot of latitude and little oversight. For example, it includes administrative costs. A private foundation can pay each family member a salary (allowance) and that's a valid cost against the 5%.
Here's an example of a 503(c)(3) organisation (in politics often referred to as "dark money" organisations due to their lack of need to report the identities of individual donors) putting a family member on the payroll:
https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/29/sanders-institute-little-sho...
There's also the "buy from myself" tactic which possibly isn't that important for the Mormon Church but can certainly be used to boost apparent popularity or to change the format of money:
https://www.greenmountaindaily.com/2019/04/25/bernies-own-bo...
Here's an example of a 503(c)(3) organisation (in politics often referred to as "dark money" organisations due to their lack of need to report the identities of individual donors) putting a family member on the payroll:
https://vtdigger.org/2018/07/29/sanders-institute-little-sho...
There's also the "buy from myself" tactic which possibly isn't that important for the Mormon Church but can certainly be used to boost apparent popularity or to change the format of money:
https://www.greenmountaindaily.com/2019/04/25/bernies-own-bo...
Happens with software vendors too. A lot of groups really feel like a business but get office 365 for free and azure credits because of their status.
> David Nielsen: I thought we were gonna change the world. And we just grew the bank account.
Ahh ... Welcome to the real world. That's what I used to believe long back. Later I realized that most so called NGOs are just for lining up the pockets of the management, and to help them lead a luxurious life paid for by the NGOs 'administrative expenses'.
> David Nielsen says since it was created in 1997, the reserve fund has swelled beyond $100 billion …twice the size of Harvard's endowment or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. David Nielsen: You could solve big problems with $100 billion.
I get his point. But there is a counter argument too.
I have seen some business houses establish Trusts that own shares of various companies. The annual income of these trusts from interest, dividends and profits etc goes into various social activities.
This ensures that the organization will last for decades instead of spending all the money in one go. That allows them to take up long term projects was my understanding.
----
The real issue is that the Church claims that they are investing money in humanitarian activities and the whistleblower says that they are not. But I think that the whistleblower might not have access to those accounts as those belong to the Church, he was with the investment arm.
----
IRS might be looking to expand it's Tax base. Taxing Religious organizations can be a good rallying cry for Democratic voter base. After the rich and wealthy, go after the religions to raise more Taxes.
Ahh ... Welcome to the real world. That's what I used to believe long back. Later I realized that most so called NGOs are just for lining up the pockets of the management, and to help them lead a luxurious life paid for by the NGOs 'administrative expenses'.
> David Nielsen says since it was created in 1997, the reserve fund has swelled beyond $100 billion …twice the size of Harvard's endowment or the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. David Nielsen: You could solve big problems with $100 billion.
I get his point. But there is a counter argument too.
I have seen some business houses establish Trusts that own shares of various companies. The annual income of these trusts from interest, dividends and profits etc goes into various social activities.
This ensures that the organization will last for decades instead of spending all the money in one go. That allows them to take up long term projects was my understanding.
----
The real issue is that the Church claims that they are investing money in humanitarian activities and the whistleblower says that they are not. But I think that the whistleblower might not have access to those accounts as those belong to the Church, he was with the investment arm.
----
IRS might be looking to expand it's Tax base. Taxing Religious organizations can be a good rallying cry for Democratic voter base. After the rich and wealthy, go after the religions to raise more Taxes.
> I think that the whistleblower might not have access to those accounts as those belong to the Church, he was with the investment arm.
He does clarify that in the interview: the money coming into the fund has never been used for any of that. It’s 150B stashed vs 1B/year that’s actually being spent on “humanitarian activities”.
He does clarify that in the interview: the money coming into the fund has never been used for any of that. It’s 150B stashed vs 1B/year that’s actually being spent on “humanitarian activities”.
Exactly. But my point is that he won't have access to that data.
As that would be the Church's expense accounts.
The whistleblower was in the investment arm.
The whole issue boils down to these two statements :
>Christopher Waddell: No, because then everyone would be telling us what they wanted us to do with the money.
> Last year the church says it spent over a billion dollars on humanitarian aid, including food production.
> Christopher Waddell: In any given month you may have an average of nine transfers going from Ensign Peak back to the church to fund all church operations. All humanitarian work-- education work, all the work of the church they fund.
> David Nielsen: Money's going in and out of the cash accounts all the time. But Ensign Peak's funds were never used for any charitable purpose, as to my knowledge the whole time I was there. So there's a bit of a distinction here that's important.
I just find it funny ( from what I understood of the article ) that they don't have to give any audit the accounts and submit to IRS.
Let them not get taxed as a religious organization.
But at least the money trail is something the IRS and Government should be made aware of.
The whole issue boils down to these two statements :
>Christopher Waddell: No, because then everyone would be telling us what they wanted us to do with the money.
> Last year the church says it spent over a billion dollars on humanitarian aid, including food production.
> Christopher Waddell: In any given month you may have an average of nine transfers going from Ensign Peak back to the church to fund all church operations. All humanitarian work-- education work, all the work of the church they fund.
> David Nielsen: Money's going in and out of the cash accounts all the time. But Ensign Peak's funds were never used for any charitable purpose, as to my knowledge the whole time I was there. So there's a bit of a distinction here that's important.
I just find it funny ( from what I understood of the article ) that they don't have to give any audit the accounts and submit to IRS.
Let them not get taxed as a religious organization.
But at least the money trail is something the IRS and Government should be made aware of.
I believe the larger line of valid questions stem from the SEC. There are rules around organizations being required to disclose investments when they have over $X in assets under management.
So the SEC did what it does to hedge funds for failing to disclose, slaps them on the wrist with some fine less than 1%.
So the SEC did what it does to hedge funds for failing to disclose, slaps them on the wrist with some fine less than 1%.
> After the rich and wealthy, go after the religions ...
When you've done the rich & wealthy, you'll have already done most of the religions.
When you've done the rich & wealthy, you'll have already done most of the religions.
It worked out great in 1917 when the Bolsheviks went after the rich, then the religious, then the successful farmers who had been serfs a scant 50 years before. Eventually no one competent is left to counter balance or stand against the authoritarian government and your society is looted and gutted by high ideals co-opted by the most violent and psychopathic thugs around.
Ten years gulag for prostitution, and twenty for the much worse sin of being a nun.
Ten years gulag for prostitution, and twenty for the much worse sin of being a nun.
There is a segment in the 60 minutes piece where they clearly show a church document, which shows something like 1.3 billion dollars being invested from Ensign Peak, the church hedge fund, into City Creek, a mall in downtown SLC, that Nielsen (the whistleblower) says his boss showed him.
In Utah it was well known and a topic of conversation so to speak that the church had invested so much money into a commercial venture. There also a segment in 60 minutes about the church bailing out an insurance company they control using these funds. It can really get under your skin coming from Utah, where I saw kids from my high school go off to central Africa essentially to convince people to pay tithing to the church, which we'd ostensibly see as not so bad given that it will help people. If it is the case, and if you've ever met some rich boomer Mormon dudes I can assure you it doesn't take a lot of convincing, look how they run our legislature, that the church took people's money, made a hedge fund, and now starts businesses which benefit... only they really know the completely details of... then it does not take much to feel outraged.
But I also the think the church at the very highest echelons consists of what are probably some very distinguished people who've seen a thing or two or feel a higher calling, that also does not seem far-fetched. I'd imagine being in charge of all that money is really something, having a little bit of a persecution and chosen-people complex is also something, as usual there are interesting social dynamics with Mormons.
[0]https://youtu.be/k3_Fhq7sEHo?t=212
In Utah it was well known and a topic of conversation so to speak that the church had invested so much money into a commercial venture. There also a segment in 60 minutes about the church bailing out an insurance company they control using these funds. It can really get under your skin coming from Utah, where I saw kids from my high school go off to central Africa essentially to convince people to pay tithing to the church, which we'd ostensibly see as not so bad given that it will help people. If it is the case, and if you've ever met some rich boomer Mormon dudes I can assure you it doesn't take a lot of convincing, look how they run our legislature, that the church took people's money, made a hedge fund, and now starts businesses which benefit... only they really know the completely details of... then it does not take much to feel outraged.
But I also the think the church at the very highest echelons consists of what are probably some very distinguished people who've seen a thing or two or feel a higher calling, that also does not seem far-fetched. I'd imagine being in charge of all that money is really something, having a little bit of a persecution and chosen-people complex is also something, as usual there are interesting social dynamics with Mormons.
[0]https://youtu.be/k3_Fhq7sEHo?t=212
I understand why these organizations build up big trusts, but I'd say the social infrastructure of religion is a different way of ensuring organizational longevity. I wonder if they could draw down the money and spend in service of that somehow.
They broke the law and then knew it.
Mormonism is a money and political power squiring cult. 10% tithe payments is control.
Mormonism is a money and political power squiring cult. 10% tithe payments is control.
Unlike other nonprofits, religious organizations don't have to fully disclose all financial information to the IRS
lol. What is the logic behind this? Why makes religious organizations special?
lol. What is the logic behind this? Why makes religious organizations special?
Political power.
In the democratic country going against the church means definitely loosing a lot of votes the next election.
lol. What is the logic behind this? Why makes religious organizations special?
The response to this is literally thousands of pages long. However, even reading recent, modern western/europeans history in depth (last 200 years), will give you more insight here.
As for "why is it still this way?", you would quite literally have to rip rights out of nations constitutions, re-assess endless past case history, get people to vote on it, and on and on.
There is literally no larger change you could pick, than changing the legal roles of church and state.
The response to this is literally thousands of pages long. However, even reading recent, modern western/europeans history in depth (last 200 years), will give you more insight here.
As for "why is it still this way?", you would quite literally have to rip rights out of nations constitutions, re-assess endless past case history, get people to vote on it, and on and on.
There is literally no larger change you could pick, than changing the legal roles of church and state.
Every dollar made by every person and organization needs to be accounted for, to the government. Unless you’re a mega church?
I don’t understand why asking religious organizations to report their financial activities (especially the massive orgs that have the resources to do so, unlike teeny tiny 10 member churches) would be such a big deal. But hey, I am no constitutional or government scholar. I am just a dude sick and tired of a rigged system, what do I know?
I don’t understand why asking religious organizations to report their financial activities (especially the massive orgs that have the resources to do so, unlike teeny tiny 10 member churches) would be such a big deal. But hey, I am no constitutional or government scholar. I am just a dude sick and tired of a rigged system, what do I know?
Has more to do with the country. In some European countries, all churches are required to report their income to the government.
"The first clause in the Bill of Rights states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”"
"establishment" means declaring a religion as being "the" state religion, as the Church of England is (or at least was) for the UK, or the Orthodox Church in eastern European kingdoms.
it's not about, for example, a charter for a new religion you'd like to found.
it's not about, for example, a charter for a new religion you'd like to found.
Unless you are agreeing with me, I will suspect that you don't get the point of this part of the amendment.
It's about hands off. Understand, the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws.
The church came first, not state.
Again, just describing how we got here.
It's about hands off. Understand, the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws.
The church came first, not state.
Again, just describing how we got here.
I am not an american, but I understand it as a clear intended separation of state and church. So also no privileges especially for churches.
no government interference in people's private religious choices or life, so that has been interpreted as no taxation of churches. But churches can't commit ritual murder or anything.
Technically the religious organization in question came after the US was formed and had 23 states.
> the church (legally) predates, and is not controlled by the state in western legal case history and laws.
Henry VIII would like a word.
Henry VIII would like a word.
He became the head of both church and state, they were still separate.
No they weren't! That's what the Americans were rebelling against and specifically wrote the church-state separation to prevent. The result was both Crown control over the appointment of bishops, bishops having temporal legislative power in the House of Lords, and (relevant to this story) the seizure and in some cases destruction of basically all Church property. The UK then spent hundreds more years fighting over this relationship.
People are still writing angry articles about the monarch being inextricably linked to the church in 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-t...
The Church of England is a state religion. It is part of the state (Crown), controlled by the state (King), and until the 19th century participation in it was effectively mandatory to participate in public life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts)
People are still writing angry articles about the monarch being inextricably linked to the church in 2011: https://www.businessinsider.com/why-its-absurd-for-britain-t...
The Church of England is a state religion. It is part of the state (Crown), controlled by the state (King), and until the 19th century participation in it was effectively mandatory to participate in public life. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Acts)
"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise.
Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise.
So does the prohibition of ritual murder. (Some of the more extreme Asatru for example do feel limited.)
When there are rules for everzone and only some organisations are excempt on religious grounds - then those religious organisation have an advantage over every not privileged organisation, making them effectivly state supported. Which I think should be indeed forbidden.
So the state can and should continue to support all kinds of social organisations. But on an equal and fair base.
When there are rules for everzone and only some organisations are excempt on religious grounds - then those religious organisation have an advantage over every not privileged organisation, making them effectivly state supported. Which I think should be indeed forbidden.
So the state can and should continue to support all kinds of social organisations. But on an equal and fair base.
Yes, the founding fathers had in mind a plurality of European religion, not every possible belief around the world from Africa to the Amazon. The idea you could create one government that could accommodate all those is the ridiculous contradiction. They would laugh at the suggestion there should be some equality of human sacrifice and communion.
It's cool. They were sloppy in their wording and their philosophy. We have almost 250 years of lived experience now, we can revisit the notion and not let it be a golden cow. It's going to be hard to wade through the myths and hagiographies, but we'll come out a better society on the other end.
Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government?
I agree with you that it's not a golden cow, but I typically have to question posts like this one to get that admission. Claiming authority from the constitution when you don't believe in it is a cheap rhetorical technique to appear interested in historical America when you aren't.
The main conclusion I would draw is that we have no obligation of "fairness or equality" towards every religion. Our system was built to accomodate certain kinds and those that aren't in direct conflict, it seems a pretty good compromise that's hard to work around.
I agree with you that it's not a golden cow, but I typically have to question posts like this one to get that admission. Claiming authority from the constitution when you don't believe in it is a cheap rhetorical technique to appear interested in historical America when you aren't.
The main conclusion I would draw is that we have no obligation of "fairness or equality" towards every religion. Our system was built to accomodate certain kinds and those that aren't in direct conflict, it seems a pretty good compromise that's hard to work around.
> Do you think it is possible to accommodate all those religions in one government?
I think it's possible to establish reasonable accommodation, not full accommodation, which I think your second bullet agrees with.
The bigger issue is the rank corruption done in the name of religion or other "freedoms" that abuse communities and society at large.
I think it's possible to establish reasonable accommodation, not full accommodation, which I think your second bullet agrees with.
The bigger issue is the rank corruption done in the name of religion or other "freedoms" that abuse communities and society at large.
Sounds like we are in agreement, but I would include other non profits in that same abuse.
Certainly not improbable.
Maybe (I don't know enough about your founding fathers), but humanist thinkers in europe at that time certainly had the stance of total separation from church and state. Not accommodate to any of them. Keep religion as private buisness. Not interfering with them unless total necessary.
Otherwise same rules for everyone, then you can have all the weirdest religions.
(oh and there is connection of communion and human sacrifice. In the catholic church you are eating the body of Christ. Of course metaphorical, but I think in dogma it says it actually transforms into christs body. But that's besides the point. The point is, religios freedom should not override basic laws. And if they do, but only for some religions, then they come close to being state religions)
Otherwise same rules for everyone, then you can have all the weirdest religions.
(oh and there is connection of communion and human sacrifice. In the catholic church you are eating the body of Christ. Of course metaphorical, but I think in dogma it says it actually transforms into christs body. But that's besides the point. The point is, religios freedom should not override basic laws. And if they do, but only for some religions, then they come close to being state religions)
Those thinkers I've read (Locke, Hume, Voltaire, Descartes, Leibniz) also have nothing in mind that resembles a melting pot for the world's cultures and religions. One again the historical context is being tired of endless wars between protestants and Catholics and often being a member of a tiny minority of aetheists and deists.
The brand of humanism you are associating with is a much later development.
The brand of humanism you are associating with is a much later development.
You could argue letting them hold untaxed private land in perpetuity backed by government trespassing enforcement restricts other religions and atheists and establishes them, so some taxes seem to be OK or else maybe something like allow no state enforcement of their property rights, just a free for all.
Most people and courts accept that some taxation and services and property rights are fine for religions under the establishment clause.
Most people and courts accept that some taxation and services and property rights are fine for religions under the establishment clause.
> Taxation, and subsequent compliance costs, serve as restrictions on such exercise.
My personal taxes more directly deprive me of life, liberty, or property, as protected by the 14th amendment. Even without money, people can worship (which is what I assume "free exercise [of religion]" means).
Trying to interpret the words ourselves is not useful. Throngs of lawyers and judges determine what the words actually mean, what's enforceable.
My personal taxes more directly deprive me of life, liberty, or property, as protected by the 14th amendment. Even without money, people can worship (which is what I assume "free exercise [of religion]" means).
Trying to interpret the words ourselves is not useful. Throngs of lawyers and judges determine what the words actually mean, what's enforceable.
> Even without money, people can worship (which is what I assume "free exercise [of religion]" means).
Not necessarily. Jewish prayer requires a quorum of ten, and requires communal institutions for ritual baths.
A law such as "any property whose primary purpose is for religious observance shall be subject to an additional $x million/period 'religious property' tax" would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment.
Not necessarily. Jewish prayer requires a quorum of ten, and requires communal institutions for ritual baths.
A law such as "any property whose primary purpose is for religious observance shall be subject to an additional $x million/period 'religious property' tax" would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment.
While I typically do not respond to downvotes, this is one time I should, because downvoting someone for expressing reality, shooting the messenger, is not reasonable.
This is not a case of "omg that guy supports the church!". This is a case of nation's founding documents, thousands of years of case law, court case after court case.
Even if every single (for example) American supported a change in the legal staus of churches/religions, it would take decades, for all state govenments, federal government, and hundreds of new pieces of legislation to be passed, to even get close to changing this status.
And that's with everyone on board.
And the same is true of the entire west.
This is not a case of "omg that guy supports the church!". This is a case of nation's founding documents, thousands of years of case law, court case after court case.
Even if every single (for example) American supported a change in the legal staus of churches/religions, it would take decades, for all state govenments, federal government, and hundreds of new pieces of legislation to be passed, to even get close to changing this status.
And that's with everyone on board.
And the same is true of the entire west.
> And the same is true of the entire west.
Yeah .. Nah.
Religions aren't generally exempt from taxation or immune to prosecution in Australia.
Those parts of a religions income that are used for charity can be exempt from taxation if the proper paperwork is filed and continues to operate in a transparent manner subject to audits, etc
> To access income tax exemption, a registered religious institution must be a registered charity and endorsed by us as exempt from income tax. [1]
Mind you Australia also recently and famously jailed a tier two 2iC Vatican official Cardinal George Pell so hardly a friend of the Church .. but a country generally agreed to be part of "the West" | "Global North" etc.
[1] https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/...
Yeah .. Nah.
Religions aren't generally exempt from taxation or immune to prosecution in Australia.
Those parts of a religions income that are used for charity can be exempt from taxation if the proper paperwork is filed and continues to operate in a transparent manner subject to audits, etc
> To access income tax exemption, a registered religious institution must be a registered charity and endorsed by us as exempt from income tax. [1]
Mind you Australia also recently and famously jailed a tier two 2iC Vatican official Cardinal George Pell so hardly a friend of the Church .. but a country generally agreed to be part of "the West" | "Global North" etc.
[1] https://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/Getting-started/In-detail/...
> the same is true of the entire west.
The status of churches (and especially what counts as a valid "church" or "religion", especially non-Christian ones!) varies across the Western world. There is no one approach.
The status of churches (and especially what counts as a valid "church" or "religion", especially non-Christian ones!) varies across the Western world. There is no one approach.
> There is literally no larger change you could pick, than changing the legal roles of church and state.
Sounds like yesterday was too late then. The little good that comes from church is even these days overshadowed by how much they fuck with politics literally everywhere around the globe (= distorting elections in their favor, which means less progress/reversals and less human rights at minimum, and usually they go much further). Also their moral compass is constantly fucked up, they still are covering homosexual pedophilia on truly gigantic scale, as they were so desperately doing last 100 years.
Also, does church helps all people equally including other religions, unlike lets say "mother" Teresa who, apart from stealing millions $$ in donations was by many accounts very selective to whom to provide care, based on their religion and generally favored sick to suffer as much as possible, for some properly fucked up "christian" reasons. Some saint she was...
Lets face it, religions almost unanonymously lost god/God and the original simple ideas. I look at history, since talk is very cheap but 2000 years of walking the talk has actually some weight, I mean all the weight you ever need to make an opinion. In Christianity's case its properly trivial - you have literal 10 rules and thats it, the rest are fantasies of semi-lucid humans from bronze age or right after, that would often end up in insane asylums these days. How much mental gymnastics believers have to do daily to stick with all that bureaucratic/managerial/political/financial stuff and feel righteous and above everybody else is astounding. Also tiny fact - only 1/3rd of the world is christian. So maybe 110 billions of human souls burning in hell?
I think the smarter faithful ones realize these, so they do the usual - wrap it in "its not literal" mantra while church does exactly the opposite. And then cherry-picking some rules they like and ignoring the rest (like stoning to death non-virgin women during marriage or all gays which should include all pedophile priests, I know its old testament but since its not rejected part of christianity, its still valid). But now you created completely different sect my friends, just like Jesus(TM) created completely different sect of judaism (which is a sect of X and that's the sect of Y till we get probably to zoroastroanism or something similar, who knows what beduin tribes believed in during those times).
I simply can't, with straight face, being raised without faith (thus no childhood indoctrination thats extremely hard to shed), accept modern religions any more than I can accept say greek or roman mythology. Same type of moral stories, god(s) on par with original abrahamic god (vengeful, cruel, not caring), and lets be honest - if there is any God, it certainly doesn't completely change its personality just because somebody writes another book about it every millenium or so and claims to be his son/prophet/something. There is a million small and big facts against all this, and 1/3 books written by people millenia ago for it. Very easy to pick the side.
Sounds like yesterday was too late then. The little good that comes from church is even these days overshadowed by how much they fuck with politics literally everywhere around the globe (= distorting elections in their favor, which means less progress/reversals and less human rights at minimum, and usually they go much further). Also their moral compass is constantly fucked up, they still are covering homosexual pedophilia on truly gigantic scale, as they were so desperately doing last 100 years.
Also, does church helps all people equally including other religions, unlike lets say "mother" Teresa who, apart from stealing millions $$ in donations was by many accounts very selective to whom to provide care, based on their religion and generally favored sick to suffer as much as possible, for some properly fucked up "christian" reasons. Some saint she was...
Lets face it, religions almost unanonymously lost god/God and the original simple ideas. I look at history, since talk is very cheap but 2000 years of walking the talk has actually some weight, I mean all the weight you ever need to make an opinion. In Christianity's case its properly trivial - you have literal 10 rules and thats it, the rest are fantasies of semi-lucid humans from bronze age or right after, that would often end up in insane asylums these days. How much mental gymnastics believers have to do daily to stick with all that bureaucratic/managerial/political/financial stuff and feel righteous and above everybody else is astounding. Also tiny fact - only 1/3rd of the world is christian. So maybe 110 billions of human souls burning in hell?
I think the smarter faithful ones realize these, so they do the usual - wrap it in "its not literal" mantra while church does exactly the opposite. And then cherry-picking some rules they like and ignoring the rest (like stoning to death non-virgin women during marriage or all gays which should include all pedophile priests, I know its old testament but since its not rejected part of christianity, its still valid). But now you created completely different sect my friends, just like Jesus(TM) created completely different sect of judaism (which is a sect of X and that's the sect of Y till we get probably to zoroastroanism or something similar, who knows what beduin tribes believed in during those times).
I simply can't, with straight face, being raised without faith (thus no childhood indoctrination thats extremely hard to shed), accept modern religions any more than I can accept say greek or roman mythology. Same type of moral stories, god(s) on par with original abrahamic god (vengeful, cruel, not caring), and lets be honest - if there is any God, it certainly doesn't completely change its personality just because somebody writes another book about it every millenium or so and claims to be his son/prophet/something. There is a million small and big facts against all this, and 1/3 books written by people millenia ago for it. Very easy to pick the side.
Probably a one size fits all approach. Small religious organisations have small-scale budgets and are overseen by their members in some form or another.
But then there's megachurches which are basically hedge funds.
That bit btw doesn't bother me either, so much as lack of transparency regarding political donations etc. Not American either so meh.
But then there's megachurches which are basically hedge funds.
That bit btw doesn't bother me either, so much as lack of transparency regarding political donations etc. Not American either so meh.
influence over public opinion ;)
See my upthread response, but that has nothing to do with it.
State control over the church, and church control over the state, is a huge, massive, immense change.
Nothing comparable to any other legal change you've ever hear of.
State control over the church, and church control over the state, is a huge, massive, immense change.
Nothing comparable to any other legal change you've ever hear of.
State control over church _doctrine_, yes, that's sacred, but state control over church _finance_ is a much more temporal business. Being a church isn't like diplomatic immunity.
Allowing a church to build a huge opaque financial empire is the sort of thing that leads to theses being nailed to doors.
Allowing a church to build a huge opaque financial empire is the sort of thing that leads to theses being nailed to doors.
Why? No dispute how hard it would be, after all, the pope has a lot of tanks. But hard is not the same as immense.
Churches pay wage tax, land tax, fines, church leaders even sometimes go to jail. Churches pay purchase tax, take out insurance, although they don't cover acts of God..
Churches pay wage tax, land tax, fines, church leaders even sometimes go to jail. Churches pay purchase tax, take out insurance, although they don't cover acts of God..
> the pope has a lot of tanks
Is this a mangling of Stalin's "how many divisions has the Pope?" The Vatican has not had a significant military since the war of Italian Unification ended in 1870.
Is this a mangling of Stalin's "how many divisions has the Pope?" The Vatican has not had a significant military since the war of Italian Unification ended in 1870.
"He wants Ensign Peak Advisors to pay the taxes he says it owes on the $100 billion built from tithing. If the IRS decides Nielsen is right, he could be rewarded with up to 30% of what's collected"
I wouldn't be surprised if he got a few millions from the SEC suit against Ensign Peak already, but he would get very rich indeed if the IRS assessed back taxes on them.
That doesn't mean he's wrong! I don't believe there is much debate about the main facts in the SEC suit anyway, so we know the church owns Ensign Peak, that Ensign peak has at least tens of billions in securities and that they distributed those to a bunch of shell companies so that they wouldn't have to report their holdings, primarily so as to avoid public resentment.
That doesn't mean he's wrong! I don't believe there is much debate about the main facts in the SEC suit anyway, so we know the church owns Ensign Peak, that Ensign peak has at least tens of billions in securities and that they distributed those to a bunch of shell companies so that they wouldn't have to report their holdings, primarily so as to avoid public resentment.
Clandestine?
It's been out in the open for years. I was in SLC over a decade ago and there was this big shiny new mall that was completely owned by the Mormon Church.
I don't doubt that the Church gives some of its income towards legitimate charitable causes. But how much of that some in comparison to how much it spends on other things (like private businesses, political lobbying, land ownership for non religious purposes, etc.) is the real issue here....and I would guess the distribution skews heavily towards things that aren't exactly charitable or helpful for the poor and downtrodden.
The Mormon Church is nothing more than a social club that has a large for-profit investment arm.
It's been out in the open for years. I was in SLC over a decade ago and there was this big shiny new mall that was completely owned by the Mormon Church.
I don't doubt that the Church gives some of its income towards legitimate charitable causes. But how much of that some in comparison to how much it spends on other things (like private businesses, political lobbying, land ownership for non religious purposes, etc.) is the real issue here....and I would guess the distribution skews heavily towards things that aren't exactly charitable or helpful for the poor and downtrodden.
The Mormon Church is nothing more than a social club that has a large for-profit investment arm.
They also claim humanitarian donation on hours their members volunteer within congregations, as well as member-driven humanitarian contributions ("fast offerings".)
Meanwhile, there is a constant drive to get people off the "dole" even if they are elderly or infirmed.
External humanitarian giving up until the first time this was pointed out a few years back was on the order of $40M per year. Not counting the free-will time and internal, grassroot fast offerings given to other members at a congregation level.
It's a bit sickening.
Meanwhile, there is a constant drive to get people off the "dole" even if they are elderly or infirmed.
External humanitarian giving up until the first time this was pointed out a few years back was on the order of $40M per year. Not counting the free-will time and internal, grassroot fast offerings given to other members at a congregation level.
It's a bit sickening.
Right - so of that supposed $100 billion, they claim they spent 0.04% of that per year on humanitarian giving.
I get 0.06% in interest from my bank each year. Accounts in the billions, let alone tens or hundreds of billions probably get rates higher than 0.06%. Hypothetically, The Church donates part of the interest it earns on its account(s) and claims that money alone is enough because the pure dollar amount seems large to folks like you or I - $40 million dollars is a large amount of money and probably does help a lot of people....just not enough people that they could help but make the deliberate choice not to.
A bit sickening? This is a religious organization after all which is supposedly dedicated to improving humanity. It's more than sickening at this state - it's vomit-inducing.
I get 0.06% in interest from my bank each year. Accounts in the billions, let alone tens or hundreds of billions probably get rates higher than 0.06%. Hypothetically, The Church donates part of the interest it earns on its account(s) and claims that money alone is enough because the pure dollar amount seems large to folks like you or I - $40 million dollars is a large amount of money and probably does help a lot of people....just not enough people that they could help but make the deliberate choice not to.
A bit sickening? This is a religious organization after all which is supposedly dedicated to improving humanity. It's more than sickening at this state - it's vomit-inducing.
The same's true of even fairly innocent looking denominations in UK churches. If you're a large land/property owner (that doesn't have to pay business rates), with thousands of people willing to give you donations each week (on which you don't necessarily pay any tax) then it's hard to lose money even with dwindling congregations. The Church of England has something like £10bn of assets, but even small denominations own hundreds of both commercial and residential properties. A lot of the more liquid assets were invested in absolutely stuff like oil or tobacco companies, but most have at least attempted to move towards more ethical investments. Source: child of the manse.
Religions tend to become the opposite of what they preach.
The church of Jesus became an actual state for centuries. Buddhist monasteries founded on non-violence became fortresses populated by warrior monks. Hindu religion perpetuated the caste system. And so on. No major world religion is exempt.
The LDS church is a curious speedrun of religion’s possibilities. Should we be esoteric? A state? A hedge fund? A polygamous matchmaker? A business networking opportunity? They seem to have tried everything in less than two centuries.
The church of Jesus became an actual state for centuries. Buddhist monasteries founded on non-violence became fortresses populated by warrior monks. Hindu religion perpetuated the caste system. And so on. No major world religion is exempt.
The LDS church is a curious speedrun of religion’s possibilities. Should we be esoteric? A state? A hedge fund? A polygamous matchmaker? A business networking opportunity? They seem to have tried everything in less than two centuries.
I am not Mormon, but I am mystified why a Mormon would not understand why their church hoards money rather than giving it away. It makes complete sense to anyone who understands their peculiar doctrine.
One of those peculiarities as a religion born in America is the prophecy that when the US Constitution is hanging by a thread, the Mormon Elders will be asked to step in and save it. Saving up a ton of money for that day is in complete alignment of what they (quietly) preach. There is a prepper mindset fairly deeply attached to Mormonism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy
One of those peculiarities as a religion born in America is the prophecy that when the US Constitution is hanging by a thread, the Mormon Elders will be asked to step in and save it. Saving up a ton of money for that day is in complete alignment of what they (quietly) preach. There is a prepper mindset fairly deeply attached to Mormonism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Horse_Prophecy
Having been a seminary class president, scout, priesthood holder, just not a missionary or really active member, born and raised in Utah, I will tell you one interesting contradiction about Mormons is the extent to which they disown their past and at the same time still have many ideas from that time circulating around in a particular way. I would think it's similar to say how some Catholics may be down with the whole thing right now and yet still aren't "up-to-date" with the Catholic church's official position on things, for instance post Vatican II. Some not all.
I would doubt that this sort of prophesy is a genuine front-of-mind-concern today by the people running this operation at the church. Preparing for the second coming could be a more sincere answer coming from them, but if such an event were to occur I think it would make money worthless, so that doesn't make sense to me.
I would doubt that this sort of prophesy is a genuine front-of-mind-concern today by the people running this operation at the church. Preparing for the second coming could be a more sincere answer coming from them, but if such an event were to occur I think it would make money worthless, so that doesn't make sense to me.
> I would doubt that this sort of prophesy is a genuine front-of-mind-concern today by the people running this operation at the church.
The concern is keeping the tribe going, and doing whatever it takes to optimize the tribe’s performance. Holding contradictory thoughts is just an inconvenience that can easily be tolerated, or even serve a purpose to weed out those less committed to the tribe. Note that even within the tribe, there can be multiple tribes, for example those of the leaders and those of the followers, who might have different goals.
The concern is keeping the tribe going, and doing whatever it takes to optimize the tribe’s performance. Holding contradictory thoughts is just an inconvenience that can easily be tolerated, or even serve a purpose to weed out those less committed to the tribe. Note that even within the tribe, there can be multiple tribes, for example those of the leaders and those of the followers, who might have different goals.
> I will tell you one interesting contradiction about Mormons is the extent to which they disown their past and at the same time still have many ideas from that time circulating around in a particular way. I would think it's similar to say how some Catholics may be down with the whole thing right now and yet still aren't "up-to-date" with the Catholic church's official position on things, for instance post Vatican II.
As I don't know what you mean about the LDS in your first sentence, I don't know what you mean here. Where the Catholic Church is concerned, no change in doctrine can occur; it would invalidate the Church's claim of religious and moral authority. Doctrine can develop, of course. Analogically, I like to characterize this as something like an increase in clarity and depth of prior teachings, or deductions that follows from them, but never anything that innovates or contradicts prior comprehension. We could say that development is monotonic. However, doctrine is one thing, but things like liturgical practice and canon law are another (and still another are the private opinions of prelates, which less educated people may confuse with magisterial Church teaching). These can be adapted in changing circumstances, though obviously not with infinite flexibility.
In the case of Vatican II, it was a valid council and nothing taught in that council contracted what came before the council. Rather, historical circumstances, the cultural turmoil of that period, the resulting confusion, disorientation, corruption, etc. led to all sorts of secondary effects that seized on the fact of the Second Vatican Council. This left many people thinking the Church had changed in some essential way when it had not. Opportunists both inside and outside the Church happily used the appearance of change to promote fashionable nonsense and notions among the ignorant that were never taught by Vatican II. But from a historical perspective, one of many crises in Church history. No historically aware Catholic is freaking out, as dismayed as he may be.
As I don't know what you mean about the LDS in your first sentence, I don't know what you mean here. Where the Catholic Church is concerned, no change in doctrine can occur; it would invalidate the Church's claim of religious and moral authority. Doctrine can develop, of course. Analogically, I like to characterize this as something like an increase in clarity and depth of prior teachings, or deductions that follows from them, but never anything that innovates or contradicts prior comprehension. We could say that development is monotonic. However, doctrine is one thing, but things like liturgical practice and canon law are another (and still another are the private opinions of prelates, which less educated people may confuse with magisterial Church teaching). These can be adapted in changing circumstances, though obviously not with infinite flexibility.
In the case of Vatican II, it was a valid council and nothing taught in that council contracted what came before the council. Rather, historical circumstances, the cultural turmoil of that period, the resulting confusion, disorientation, corruption, etc. led to all sorts of secondary effects that seized on the fact of the Second Vatican Council. This left many people thinking the Church had changed in some essential way when it had not. Opportunists both inside and outside the Church happily used the appearance of change to promote fashionable nonsense and notions among the ignorant that were never taught by Vatican II. But from a historical perspective, one of many crises in Church history. No historically aware Catholic is freaking out, as dismayed as he may be.
I don't disagree. It's not a perfect analogy. The Mormon's I describe are a lot like Sedevacantists except that they aren't openly out "against" the official church.
I grew up Mormon. No Mormon I’ve talked to has any problem with the church holding onto this money. They’ll say “well of course, it’s for when the temple is built in Independence, Missouri and we’re all called to live in the Promised Land under the Law of Consecration.”
I fell on tough times a few years back and my local Bishop insisted I take some aid, they gave me food for a few months from “The Bishop’s Storehouse”, basically a food bank for members. This is despite me being an inactive Mormon for twenty years or so. They care a lot about their members, even the ones who aren’t going to church.
Mormons are very clear about how they think things are going. What’s funny is the concern people outside the church have with all this.
I fell on tough times a few years back and my local Bishop insisted I take some aid, they gave me food for a few months from “The Bishop’s Storehouse”, basically a food bank for members. This is despite me being an inactive Mormon for twenty years or so. They care a lot about their members, even the ones who aren’t going to church.
Mormons are very clear about how they think things are going. What’s funny is the concern people outside the church have with all this.
This religion was formed when a person in the 1820's discovered golden plates with ancient Egyptian inscriptions (from ~ 2000 years ago) about 300 miles inland from the Atlantic in NY State. Absolutely no evidence that anyone from Egypt or the middle east was ever roaming around what is now upstate NY.
Mystified isn't a strong enough wording to describe how people aren't rationalizing many aspects of the world's religions with all we know today.
Mystified isn't a strong enough wording to describe how people aren't rationalizing many aspects of the world's religions with all we know today.
My family is amused when I criticize the physics in a movie when a bridge collapses in an unrealistic way. Apparently I don't have any issue with the talking dog that flies across the river and uses mental telepathy to form a giant wave that catches all the pieces of the fallen bridge and pushes them back into place to restore the bridge. No, my beef is with the poor grasp of physics because of how the bridge fell down.
Joseph Smith didn't discover gold plates. He was led to them by an angel sent by God. The question of whether a decendant of inhabitants of Jerusalem could have buried some modified Egyption writings in North America 1000+ years before Joseph was born... that question is kind of small when considering if there is a God and if any such God takes a direct interest in individual people.
FWIW, I happen to believe that there is a God and that God cares very much about you.
Now, about that bridge...
Joseph Smith didn't discover gold plates. He was led to them by an angel sent by God. The question of whether a decendant of inhabitants of Jerusalem could have buried some modified Egyption writings in North America 1000+ years before Joseph was born... that question is kind of small when considering if there is a God and if any such God takes a direct interest in individual people.
FWIW, I happen to believe that there is a God and that God cares very much about you.
Now, about that bridge...
You speak about physics and how unrealistic a bridge collapse in a movie is yet want to hand wave about the physics of golden plates showing up from a civilization 5000 miles and 1500+ years away with zero evidence that the plates ever existed other than "trust me, bro".
As you go back through history, its understandable that earlier civilizations attribute things happening around them, or things they observe, to some higher power or having completely false notions of the world, like the earth is flat for example. And then humans come to a more accurate understanding via science. How many hundreds or thousands of deities/gods have humans attributed things to during our thousands of years of existence?
God or a higher being isn't the discussion point, the discussion point is how silly it is to think that something like being led to/discovering golden plates happened at that period of time.
As you go back through history, its understandable that earlier civilizations attribute things happening around them, or things they observe, to some higher power or having completely false notions of the world, like the earth is flat for example. And then humans come to a more accurate understanding via science. How many hundreds or thousands of deities/gods have humans attributed things to during our thousands of years of existence?
God or a higher being isn't the discussion point, the discussion point is how silly it is to think that something like being led to/discovering golden plates happened at that period of time.
Please read the book. One guy follows a funky compass provided by...God(?) from Jerusalem to some coast. On the coast God shows him where to mine ore to make tools. God shows him how to build a ship that can weather a long sea voyage all the way to the Americas.
The whole book has all sorts of interventions from God. Like every page is about God. If you're hung up on Egyptian writing you missed the whole point. That's the least incredulous part.
And some 18-year-old kid in the 1820s says an angel led him to these gold plates with all this modified Egyptian writing and God showed him how to translate it into English.
So this book is going to be a bunch of crazy nonsense, right? Read it. Seriously, read it. It is a better read than anything you did in your high school or college lit class. We can't have a decent critical discussion about the physics of it until you've read it.
The whole book has all sorts of interventions from God. Like every page is about God. If you're hung up on Egyptian writing you missed the whole point. That's the least incredulous part.
And some 18-year-old kid in the 1820s says an angel led him to these gold plates with all this modified Egyptian writing and God showed him how to translate it into English.
So this book is going to be a bunch of crazy nonsense, right? Read it. Seriously, read it. It is a better read than anything you did in your high school or college lit class. We can't have a decent critical discussion about the physics of it until you've read it.
I wish people would apply critical thinking to whether or not it is appropriate to permanently punish two and all of their progeny for an action they took prior to having knowledge of good and evil. Or why an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent being would need to torture a distant descendant of theirs to death before considering forgiveness for that action.
It's not surprising, humans have a thin veneer of rationality but are emotional creatures at their core.
The last 3 years events proved it beyond any doubt.
The last 3 years events proved it beyond any doubt.
[deleted]
The church in question regularly teaches that people should build up their savings against any reversal of fortune. It also teaches to be generous to those in need. It strives to set an example in both things.
Your wikipedia link is about some rumor started a half century after the founder was murdered. It's a bit like George Washington's cherry tree. It may be a well-known story, but it isn't part of the constitution or a motivation for any governing action.
I think it is entirely appropriate for the government of Sweden to build some security for a rainy day. I think it is appropriate for my neighbor to do the same. I don't see any reason why the local community church should not. So why should a multinational church be different?
I'm reading other headlines about whether US politicians will extend the debt limit in time. Wouldn't it be a relief if instead we criticized them for building too large a reserve?
Your wikipedia link is about some rumor started a half century after the founder was murdered. It's a bit like George Washington's cherry tree. It may be a well-known story, but it isn't part of the constitution or a motivation for any governing action.
I think it is entirely appropriate for the government of Sweden to build some security for a rainy day. I think it is appropriate for my neighbor to do the same. I don't see any reason why the local community church should not. So why should a multinational church be different?
I'm reading other headlines about whether US politicians will extend the debt limit in time. Wouldn't it be a relief if instead we criticized them for building too large a reserve?
r20jb(1)
I can’t speak to other religions, but Jesus did not speak against the state, or against statehood as such.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, despite all of its problems due to consisting of deeply flawed humans.
Meanwhile the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, despite all of its problems due to consisting of deeply flawed humans.
Jesus didn’t speak against the state, but saw it as something different that didn’t interest him. He spoke more against religious authorities, and against the strict enforcement of harsh religious laws. I say this because lots of people seem to be claiming the opposite and pushing for more christian influence in governance
True but he was martyred by the state. This is the core of Christian faith. God was put to death by an unjust government. It was Christ’s threat to state power that earned the execution. And tax collectors, even the disciple Matthew, were widely considered sinners during his day. The orientation people have to government power is much different before and after Christ. Political liberalism, individual freedom and many other things we take for granted are the direct result Christianity. But yes, “render unto Caesar what’s Caesar’s”
The Roman Governor famously found nothing wrong with Jesus, that is to say nothing threatening to Rome, and washed his hands symbolically to say Jesus is dying because of the demand of the crowd and the religious authorities. He was dangerous to religious order, not secular order.
> True but he was martyred by the state. This is the core of Christian faith. God was put to death by an unjust government. It was Christ’s threat to state power that earned the execution.
Actually, the Gospels make clear that Pilate found Jesus not guilty, and it was only the threat of a riot by the priests if he didn't crucify Jesus that he crucified him. It's still ultimately the religious authorities who order his death, and in this case, the state is at best acting as a tool of the religious authorities rather than in its own secular authority.
Actually, the Gospels make clear that Pilate found Jesus not guilty, and it was only the threat of a riot by the priests if he didn't crucify Jesus that he crucified him. It's still ultimately the religious authorities who order his death, and in this case, the state is at best acting as a tool of the religious authorities rather than in its own secular authority.
It kinda depends on how you define "charitable" though.
Historically, churches treat money spent on themselves as "charity." There was an interesting discussion in Christianity Today a long while back about how, on the surface, it looks like Red state residents are more charitable than folks in Blue states -- but the difference was tithing to churches, which overwhelmingly consume those funds on operating their Sunday morning social club & related programming.
If you factored out that aspect, the comparison flipped dramatically.
Historically, churches treat money spent on themselves as "charity." There was an interesting discussion in Christianity Today a long while back about how, on the surface, it looks like Red state residents are more charitable than folks in Blue states -- but the difference was tithing to churches, which overwhelmingly consume those funds on operating their Sunday morning social club & related programming.
If you factored out that aspect, the comparison flipped dramatically.
The paradox seems to be between the charity of religious people and the cruelty of religious societies. I don't have a good explanation.
The paradox being resolved that religious people aren't highly charitable in general, but people in a social club are pressured into paying dues, and mentally ill people are easily duped into giving up their money.
Catholic Church is also the largest organization in the world which openly protects pedophiles.
It was a disaster for the church and for humanity.
Ireland used to be the most Catholic nation in the world; not anymore. Their faith was obliterated by the sex abuse scandal.
Ireland used to be the most Catholic nation in the world; not anymore. Their faith was obliterated by the sex abuse scandal.
Germany has many sex abuse scandal of the church and they still try to hide them. Pope Benedict himself helped to hide them.
There is probably not a single country where the catholic church is not the best place for child sex abusers.
Well maybe Islam, as it is having Mohammed, who raped a nine year old girl, as their "Son of God".
There is probably not a single country where the catholic church is not the best place for child sex abusers.
Well maybe Islam, as it is having Mohammed, who raped a nine year old girl, as their "Son of God".
That's not really the cause. It is more like grease to ease the egress when someone already looking for the exit for other reasons needs an easy excuse. Ireland's Catholicism was already weakened by various ideological currents and social engineering that swept across the country, many facilitated by powerful, shall we say, American corporate interest and investment. Living the Catholic faith is demanding and utterly unappealing to those who've been made slaves to their deranged passions. Not so coincidentally, those who are slaves to their passions are easier to control. I leave the inference to be made here as an exercise for the reader.
The British colonization of Ireland was brutal, but it was corporeal. The spiritual colonization today, materially prosperous and comfortable, destroys the soul.
The British colonization of Ireland was brutal, but it was corporeal. The spiritual colonization today, materially prosperous and comfortable, destroys the soul.
Disaster for the victims, but taking down the unelected undemocratic Church is a silver lining.
Every religion in the West is losing adherents as quickly as 80 year olds are dying. Pederasty has nothing to do with it.
Well, it's certainly not helping with the recruiting of younger people into that particular religion... Today's 80 year olds in the church probably joined 60-75 years ago.
[deleted]
I bet it is also a hedge fund
Well, they have the official "Institute for the Works of Religion"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_R...
A proper bank, with historic ties to the Mafia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_R...
A proper bank, with historic ties to the Mafia.
Synagogues are giving the Catholics a run for their money. Ask yourself why the shorim are allowed to completely cover up all the abuse inside the orthodox community?
What? Comparing the size and scale of the Catholic church, and the centralized system of protecting known sex abusers, to a small fraction of a tiny religious group is absurd.
The jewish | christian schism is out of hand when the disagreement is over which has the more significant subgroup of sex pests and enablers.
There are over 5.9 million Orthodox in the USA alone. That's not some fringe religious group.
Yes, but it also is besides the point. People gladly attack the Catholic Church and they do so with a kind of seething hatred or blind ignorance that allows them to assign to the Church a unique status in this regard. But the fact is that child abuse[0] is or was present in all institutions that deal with children, both religious and secular. In fact, the rate of abusive priests in the Church (estimated to be about 4%) is average or below the rates elsewhere, especially public schools where it is something like 10% among staff, last I checked.
And I wonder if the parent above knows how protective these Jewish communities are of their own. They do not like to involve the state in their affairs.
So none of this is unique or even extraordinarily present in the Catholic Church.
[0] And by "child abuse", certainly in the Church, it is best described as a homosexual ephebophilia scandal. That is, 80% of abuse victims were post-pubescent teenage males.
And I wonder if the parent above knows how protective these Jewish communities are of their own. They do not like to involve the state in their affairs.
So none of this is unique or even extraordinarily present in the Catholic Church.
[0] And by "child abuse", certainly in the Church, it is best described as a homosexual ephebophilia scandal. That is, 80% of abuse victims were post-pubescent teenage males.
Do you have a source for this number?
*edit: looks like you're an order of magnitude off, the number is closer to 500k [0]
0 - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/08/26/a-portrait-o...
*edit: looks like you're an order of magnitude off, the number is closer to 500k [0]
0 - https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/08/26/a-portrait-o...
The Catholic Church is also responsible for more violence, "holy" wars, death and harm then Hitler, Mao Zedong, Stalin and whoever else you want to add to the list combined.
I searched and found this pristine answer.
It’s around 100k
Still it was for many people a horrible time and institutions that did that once should be abolished. That’s nothing anyone can come back from in a humanitarian society.
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/39443/what-was-t...
Edit: It’s not the goal of life to argue with bad institutions until they become slightly less bad . If an institution has a history of abuse of power or trying to get power trough violence it should be abolishe
https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/39443/what-was-t...
Edit: It’s not the goal of life to argue with bad institutions until they become slightly less bad . If an institution has a history of abuse of power or trying to get power trough violence it should be abolishe
The inquisition is hardly the only thing the Catholic Church was involved in.
edit: I think a poster upthread ninja-edited, making the parent look off.
edit: I think a poster upthread ninja-edited, making the parent look off.
Here's a source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/was-obama-r...
The article is written by someone on the left, whose point is served by magnifying the crimes of the Catholics (and minimizing those of the Muslims). Therefore, it's likely to have a generously large estimate of the death toll due to the Catholic Church. And it says:
The Crusaders themselves suffered; historians estimate that only one in 20 survived to even reach the Holy Land. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total.
Historians estimate that 150,000 people were put on trial by the Inquisition, with 3,000 executed.
I'm afraid that is a lot less than the usually estimated 6 million from Hitler alone, and far less than the tens of millions from Stalin and Mao.
The article is written by someone on the left, whose point is served by magnifying the crimes of the Catholics (and minimizing those of the Muslims). Therefore, it's likely to have a generously large estimate of the death toll due to the Catholic Church. And it says:
The Crusaders themselves suffered; historians estimate that only one in 20 survived to even reach the Holy Land. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total.
Historians estimate that 150,000 people were put on trial by the Inquisition, with 3,000 executed.
I'm afraid that is a lot less than the usually estimated 6 million from Hitler alone, and far less than the tens of millions from Stalin and Mao.
Or the extreme amount of death at the hands of the Mongols.
The Crusades were also in response to the caliphate conquest which conquered Roman and Persian lands in the middle east and north africa
The Crusades were also in response to the caliphate conquest which conquered Roman and Persian lands in the middle east and north africa
[deleted]
No it's not
The Inquisition alone killed an insane amount of people.
At that is just a small part of the history of the catholic church.
At that is just a small part of the history of the catholic church.
Please provide evidence for your claim.
Edit: OP originally claimed that the inquisition killed 50 million people and then edited their response instead of providing evidence. That's better than nothing, but I think still illustrates that OP might have extreme biases when discussing the Catholic church.
Edit: OP originally claimed that the inquisition killed 50 million people and then edited their response instead of providing evidence. That's better than nothing, but I think still illustrates that OP might have extreme biases when discussing the Catholic church.
Do you also need some evidence that the earth is in fact not flat or the center of the universe as your beloved church claim for so long and also killed people for saying otherwise?
Just google "inquisition" or the million other atrocious acts for the church. I don't wast my time doing the work for people who defend the most criminal organization in the world
Just google "inquisition" or the million other atrocious acts for the church. I don't wast my time doing the work for people who defend the most criminal organization in the world
As a general rule of thumb, "popular common knowledge" of the Medieval and Early Modern periods tends to be the complete opposite of the truth often enough that anyone who cites to popular knowledge for this period is very suspect in their use of sources.
It really doesn't help when you start your citation to this by comparing it to flat earth--no educated person in the Middle Ages would believe it to be flat; even the standard textbooks of the day (e.g., Ptolemy, Aristotle) would give you several proofs of its spherical nature. It's even mentioned on Wikipedia's List of Common Misconceptions, which is a clear sign you should purge it from your list of comebacks.
It really doesn't help when you start your citation to this by comparing it to flat earth--no educated person in the Middle Ages would believe it to be flat; even the standard textbooks of the day (e.g., Ptolemy, Aristotle) would give you several proofs of its spherical nature. It's even mentioned on Wikipedia's List of Common Misconceptions, which is a clear sign you should purge it from your list of comebacks.
High estimates for the number of deaths due to the Inquisition is somewhere in the thousands. Communism in its various forms is in the tens of millions.
It's a bad epistemology problem.
Trying to reverse-engineer a Matrix-transcending vision from a bunch of stories. Lacking any empirical reference or experimental method.
It's inevitably a mess.
Imagine if we did the same with science. We'd be quoting Einstein's holy scripture and illuminating circuit diagrams.
Trying to reverse-engineer a Matrix-transcending vision from a bunch of stories. Lacking any empirical reference or experimental method.
It's inevitably a mess.
Imagine if we did the same with science. We'd be quoting Einstein's holy scripture and illuminating circuit diagrams.
> . We'd be quoting Einstein's holy scripture and illuminating circuit diagrams.
We do both of those things, so that's not what the problem is. Problem would be reinterpreting phlogiston theory to show how corrext it still is.
We do both of those things, so that's not what the problem is. Problem would be reinterpreting phlogiston theory to show how corrext it still is.
I would rephrase this as: an institution most important goal is self-preservation. It is a bit the same as how a specific implementation can have security bugs, while an algorithm in abstract does not.
There is a big difference: once a bug is found in an algorithm, it is removed. But in religions, once a problem is found, they will just threaten the people who found the problem and protect the perpetrators.
An exception being Microsoft, who is forced by the US government to keep bugs in their platforms :-)
To me, the this is just a corollary of the fact that any human system is susceptible of becoming corrupt. Therefore, human systems should be created with a built-in self-destruct function, so that once they have lived past their initial purpose they collapse in the least harmful way possible so that then another newer and better system can take its place.
> then another newer and better system can take its place.
That is a strong assumption not borne out by history. Destroying a system leaves chaos, and violent people thrive in chaos.
Better systems come about by incremental reforms and forgiveness for the undeserving.
That is a strong assumption not borne out by history. Destroying a system leaves chaos, and violent people thrive in chaos.
Better systems come about by incremental reforms and forgiveness for the undeserving.
It's funny because I'm basing my statement on history, all sort of human-made institutions become corrupted, endure for longer than they should, collapse when the situation becomes unsustainable, then a new system necessarily takes over. Meanwhile, people who have to go through this process reap the suffering that comes with it.
What I'm advocating is an understanding of this process, and ensuring that systems get replaced before they collapse because our unwillingness to let them go. What I'm advocating is the opposite of chaos, it's controlled renewal.
Incremental reform is rationally a much better alternative, but in practice it doesn't always work, again, systems want to perpetuate themselves over time, so the only way in which they change is by collapsing. Also, sometimes what you need is not incremental changes but paradigm shifts. Another aspect, is that this assumes that we can always design systems on a top-down fashion, I think sometimes it's better to have an evolutionary trial-and-error process.
What I'm advocating is an understanding of this process, and ensuring that systems get replaced before they collapse because our unwillingness to let them go. What I'm advocating is the opposite of chaos, it's controlled renewal.
Incremental reform is rationally a much better alternative, but in practice it doesn't always work, again, systems want to perpetuate themselves over time, so the only way in which they change is by collapsing. Also, sometimes what you need is not incremental changes but paradigm shifts. Another aspect, is that this assumes that we can always design systems on a top-down fashion, I think sometimes it's better to have an evolutionary trial-and-error process.
This feels like a pretty modern view of the role of religion in society. For the majority of history I think it would barely be fair to consider a religion's de jure or ab initio "intent" from its de facto actions. Since it is the line to God (in the theistic traditions at least), it is always the most accurate source of its own intents, especially pre-Luther (and really, pre mass literacy).
I guess what I mean to say is I'm not sure any of those you listed had strong philosophical or textual convictions against the counterpoints you provide. And even if they did at given points, that's not enough to judge the overall shape into some particular direction of "corruption"
If anything, I assert that religion is as much reflective of the society it serves, as it is causal. It is one of the primary engines of "True Things" for people, but it also needs to react to new "True Things" from other sources, and integrates them, to provide a more powerful explanatory framework. With some consideration for its own foundational priors and axioms, but even those become malleable given enough social pressure.
So in that light how can we be surprised that modern American incarnations of "Christianity" embrace capitalism as the yardstick for Goodness?
I guess what I mean to say is I'm not sure any of those you listed had strong philosophical or textual convictions against the counterpoints you provide. And even if they did at given points, that's not enough to judge the overall shape into some particular direction of "corruption"
If anything, I assert that religion is as much reflective of the society it serves, as it is causal. It is one of the primary engines of "True Things" for people, but it also needs to react to new "True Things" from other sources, and integrates them, to provide a more powerful explanatory framework. With some consideration for its own foundational priors and axioms, but even those become malleable given enough social pressure.
So in that light how can we be surprised that modern American incarnations of "Christianity" embrace capitalism as the yardstick for Goodness?
Unprincipled hypocrisy seems to be a nearly universal feature of humanity, regardless of one's particular religion.
> Religions tend to become the opposite of what they preach.
I'm not a fan of such generalizations, not least of all because the term "religion" is itself commonly thoughtlessly applied and vague. Every human being has a religion according to a technical reading of the term because every human being takes something as the highest good to which all others goods are subordinate and to which he offers some kind of worship. So the question isn't whether someone is religious, but what they are religious about, and then, how good and true their religion is, whether their religion is the best, whether it is the true religion, etc. (Shocking perhaps to the adherents of the blandness that is moralistic therapeutic deism.)
> The church of Jesus became an actual state for centuries.
The Church never became a state (though I'm not sure what this is insinuating about the alleged teachings of Jesus). Those with authority in the Church have historically had both ecclesiastical authority and secular authority, yes, and this continues to this day (the pope is the prime example as he is both the supreme pontiff and monarch of the Holy See, and historically, has been the monarch of, e.g., the Papal States). But so what? There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that contradicts the notion of secular authority or that those in the Church might also have such authority. Indeed, it is in the teachings of Christ that we find the very distinction between and recognition of religious and secular authority and institutions in the first place (e.g., Matthew 22:21). The liberal notion of the separation of Church and State is just an exaggeration of this distinction (which is why liberalism is, quite literally, a Christian heresy). You cannot make sense of this distinction outside of the broader Christian tradition. This is probably one reason why American attempts to spread the Gospel of Liberal Democracy have generally been hamfisted failures in other civilizational contexts. In any case, the state is a natural institution according to the natural law and a necessary institution.
Here's an interesting explanation of the significance of the Holy Roman Empire that you and others might find interesting[0].
[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/12/what-was-holy-roman...
I'm not a fan of such generalizations, not least of all because the term "religion" is itself commonly thoughtlessly applied and vague. Every human being has a religion according to a technical reading of the term because every human being takes something as the highest good to which all others goods are subordinate and to which he offers some kind of worship. So the question isn't whether someone is religious, but what they are religious about, and then, how good and true their religion is, whether their religion is the best, whether it is the true religion, etc. (Shocking perhaps to the adherents of the blandness that is moralistic therapeutic deism.)
> The church of Jesus became an actual state for centuries.
The Church never became a state (though I'm not sure what this is insinuating about the alleged teachings of Jesus). Those with authority in the Church have historically had both ecclesiastical authority and secular authority, yes, and this continues to this day (the pope is the prime example as he is both the supreme pontiff and monarch of the Holy See, and historically, has been the monarch of, e.g., the Papal States). But so what? There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that contradicts the notion of secular authority or that those in the Church might also have such authority. Indeed, it is in the teachings of Christ that we find the very distinction between and recognition of religious and secular authority and institutions in the first place (e.g., Matthew 22:21). The liberal notion of the separation of Church and State is just an exaggeration of this distinction (which is why liberalism is, quite literally, a Christian heresy). You cannot make sense of this distinction outside of the broader Christian tradition. This is probably one reason why American attempts to spread the Gospel of Liberal Democracy have generally been hamfisted failures in other civilizational contexts. In any case, the state is a natural institution according to the natural law and a necessary institution.
Here's an interesting explanation of the significance of the Holy Roman Empire that you and others might find interesting[0].
[0] https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/12/what-was-holy-roman...
[deleted]
Here is a historical perspective that explains why the Church's savings make so much sense. Basically, the Church has had financial problems in the past due to spending more (on things like construction) than it received from tithing, and the strenuous efforts needed at those times. It is important to be able to continue the extensive worldwide operations even in a major downturn. The Church contributes to extensive humanitarian aid, education, construction, building maintenance, publishing, etc, and counsels its members to avoid debt and save for a rainy day, and it tries to follow that same advice.
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/5/14/23649253/cbs-60-minu...
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2023/5/14/23649253/cbs-60-minu...
FWIW, another with similar perspective:
https://www.ksl.com/article/50646052/opinion-whats-behind-am...
https://www.ksl.com/article/50646052/opinion-whats-behind-am...
the SEC has started looking into Ensign Peak Advisors and busted them at least once
https://www.christianpost.com/news/mormon-church-fined-5m-fo...
fine was only $5m, but it's on record that they're violators
https://www.christianpost.com/news/mormon-church-fined-5m-fo...
fine was only $5m, but it's on record that they're violators
Paraphrasing Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy[a]: Initially, the hedge fund was formed and run by people devoted to the goals of the church, such as dedicated missionaries. Over time, the hedge fund has been taken over by managers devoted to the goals of the hedge fund itself.
University endowments are hedge funds too -- they have universities instead of churches attached to them.
[a] https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
University endowments are hedge funds too -- they have universities instead of churches attached to them.
[a] https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
Mormons are like freemasons. They are both widely known organizations that have their secrets. The more devout you are to the organization, the more you get to know and participate in.
The funny thing about this whistleblower is that he has a twin brother named Lars. They both filed this letter about 3 years ago. The fact that it was picked up by mainstream news is actually quite surprising given I lived in Utah majority of my life and none of this stuff made headlines.
The funny thing about this whistleblower is that he has a twin brother named Lars. They both filed this letter about 3 years ago. The fact that it was picked up by mainstream news is actually quite surprising given I lived in Utah majority of my life and none of this stuff made headlines.
So is Harvard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University_endowment
And almost every other entity with more than $1B in assets.
https://thestrong.substack.com/p/can-facebook-keep-up-missin...
"In recent years, there has been a notable shift in online activity from the Social Graph, where users connect and interact with their friends and family, to the Content Graph, which emphasizes the discovery and consumption of the latest and most engaging content.
This transition has changed how people use social media, with many users prioritizing content consumption over social interactions. The focus is now on viral videos, memes, and trending news from unknown sources. No longer do we spend our days reading the personal updates and activities of friends and acquaintances."
"In recent years, there has been a notable shift in online activity from the Social Graph, where users connect and interact with their friends and family, to the Content Graph, which emphasizes the discovery and consumption of the latest and most engaging content.
This transition has changed how people use social media, with many users prioritizing content consumption over social interactions. The focus is now on viral videos, memes, and trending news from unknown sources. No longer do we spend our days reading the personal updates and activities of friends and acquaintances."
[deleted]
[deleted]
Amatures. They need to start their own country and then anything is legal. A business model that is proven by milenia.
The Mormons kind of tried that and lost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War
The Catholic Church got into this and their banking history is fascinating.
Eg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Calvi
Oh, the Catholic Church _is_ a country, in the form of the Vatican.
(It retains a highly circuitous and squiggly-line but unbroken link to the Roman Empire!)
(It retains a highly circuitous and squiggly-line but unbroken link to the Roman Empire!)
That's what they try to do in Expanse anyway. Build a generational ship to try and jet out to their own system light years away.
Yeah the irony here is getting regulated by a government that demands more, still goes into awe inspiring amounts of debt, still manages to flirt with defaulting on it, and whose leaders get even wealthier.
>Sharyn Alfonsi: What about, you know, the idea that secrecy builds mistrust?
>Christopher Waddell: Well, we don't feel it's being secret. We feel it's being confidential.
This line ROFL. Seriously, how can you listen to someone talk like this and not think they are completely deceitful?
>Christopher Waddell: Well, we don't feel it's being secret. We feel it's being confidential.
This line ROFL. Seriously, how can you listen to someone talk like this and not think they are completely deceitful?
Many universities are hedge funds or property developers with an interest in education at this point.
First thing that comes to my mind reading this article is that they are just saving it all up to build the Nauvoo from the show "The Expanse".
[deleted]
It’s their choice if they want to save their money. There’s no whistle to blow.
Yes, same as all the elite universities
Sounds a lot like Harvard, Yale, etc.
Oh? What scale? Same scale than the worldwide economy health defining blackrock and vanguard?
The golden calf.
woolcap(1)
I have always admired the modesty of Mammon temples, though.
good for them tbh, despite their weird sides they do get some peculiar aspects of life right
It was just a matter of time until the political establishment set their sights on an ideological enemy. I doubt this will be successful, but we can expect more of this.
- members are encouraged to pay tithing before all other expenses. People are out there deciding whether to pay bills or tithing, while the church sits on this hoard. That’s hard to swallow.
- the church preaches against materialism. Any Mormon can tell you about the “great and spacious building.” It’s a story from the Book of Mormon about materialism or worldliness distracting you from finding the love of God. So what does the church do with tithing? They build an expensive shopping mall right next to their sacred temple and headquarters. What? I don’t have a problem with the mall on its own, but the irony is overwhelming.
- they own, or at least during the leak they owned, tons of stock in Facebook and other big tech. They’ve earned so much against the dangers of social media, it feels really hypocritical.
- they claim to be saving money for the Second Coming. I think this is nonsensical. There are two phases to the Second Coming, calamities/Armageddon, then Jesus comes to fix everything. You don’t need money for those. By all means, hoard emergency supplies, but what are you going to do with your Facebook stock when governments have collapsed?
- obviously, hiding behind shell companies. I expect this from businesses, not from the church who asks their members if they are “honest in their dealings with their fellow man” regularly.
- there are different ways to interpret the original revelation about tithing in the church. They have chosen the maximal version. In the Doctrine and Covenants, it says “one tenth of their interest annually.” Interest is not the same as income. It’s been alternatively interpreted as 10% of any investments, or 10% after all other expenses are paid. At one point a prophet also said that the law is only for those who have means to pay. The conveniently don’t use that quote anymore.
Anyways, this is all very fresh in my mind so these are my rantings.