Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:
Suppressing a study to protect your profits is obviously bad, but I can't even imagine the lack of empathy or morality that would allow someone to do what the church leadership did.

The 'we're under attack from all sides' crying the victim mentality at work me thinks. The fear that any negative press in these 'modern anti-Christian' times will ruin the Church. So they try to hide it, and of course had I been in the room I'd have said "have none of you ever watched a movie? This never works!" But I wasn't there

Also, let's not forget that "you're bad too!" isn't a valid argument.

It's not valid as a justification for the act itself, but if someone is singling out one group for their crimes while ignoring the others, then its perfectly valid to say so. No one here however is saying that 'other people do bad things too so we should ignore what the Church did' they're saying 'other people do bad things too so why are we singling out the Church for this treatment.' Punishing those directly involved in the crime is exactly what would happen to anyone else.

So why then for the Church should we take the extra step of revoking they're tax status? Especially when child molestation has little relevance to taxes. Corruption and misusing funds is its own crime and people get punished for that stuff all the time. The organization itself is rarely a target unless its sole purpose is corruption but you'd have a hard time convincing anyone the Church exists solely to cover up child molestation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:
Not every leader in the organization was involved though, and I believe only 1 Bishop has been convicted in secular law. Thats enough to bring the whole thing down?

Of course very few people have been convicted, that's what happens when you have an organization as big and powerful as the Catholic Church doing their best to hide all of the evidence. It's not at all a surprise that it would be very hard to meet the required burden of proof in a criminal case at this point.

Find an account of law enforcement complaining about obstruction of justice from Church leadership.

 Peregrine wrote:

And yes, bring the whole thing down. There is strong evidence that the abuse and coverup were widespread in church leadership, and enough of that organizational structure is guilty that trying to single out the few people responsible isn't possible. Burn it down and salt the earth as a lesson to any organization that might consider doing the same thing.

In what world does it work that way? Enough of the leadership was guilty? What nebulous amount is "enough"?

This thread is about the Catholic Church, and you mentioned involvement in political meddling as being one part of why the Catholic Church should have its charitable tax status revoked.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sigh. Read the comment I was replying to again. It clearly referred to churches and tax exemption in general, not any specific church.
Sigh. The churches that are blatantly violating laws are not the Catholic Church.
The laws on tax exemption and politics are too limited and should be much stricter. New laws should be passed that enforce a stricter barrier between supposed charitable organizations and political activism, and the Catholic Church should have its tax-exempt status revoked under those new laws if it continues to do what it does now.

You can sigh all you want, but you are the one that listed the Catholic Church as the prime offender of what you yourself listed.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, let's pretend that the Church's wealth is all an integral part of its religious beliefs and not an attempt to provide a life of luxury to its top officials...

And if you want pretend that they live lives of luxury, sure.

 Peregrine wrote:
So where exactly are the little leagues that are making obscene amounts of money and then using it to do things like protect priests who rape children, blatantly break the laws about tax-exempt organizations participating in politics, or just buy lots of expensive palaces/works of art/etc for their highest officials to enjoy? There are religious organizations that deserve their tax exemption, but there are plenty of them that need to lose it. And we can start with the Catholic Church.

No, not for profit status doesn't depend on whether you like the organisation and what it does. It depends on the purpose of the thing and how it makes its money. When you raise funds from members, either through subscriptions or donations or whatever, and then spends those funds on stuff for the members or charitable works, then taxing that organisation makes no damn sense because it isn't making actual profit.

 Peregrine wrote:

I think this may be the most dishonest post I've seen in a while. Of course I'm concerned with coaches that rape children, and the absurd glorification of sports that lets them get away with it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Then why did you mention Little League in a dismissive manner?

I mean yeah, Little League has nowhere near the annual operating budget of the Catholic Church, but there are plenty of instances in which chartered organizations have used their influence to cover up sexual abuse.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yeah, because the only reason anyone could be in favor of enforcing laws that exist for very good reason is some kind of petty grudge...

Oh, it certainly isn't the only reason but, in your case, it is the most likely reason.

 dogma wrote:
Then why did you mention Little League in a dismissive manner?

I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else claiming that taxing churches should be about as controversial as taxing the local little league.

I mean yeah, Little League has nowhere near the annual operating budget of the Catholic Church, but there are plenty of instances in which chartered organizations have used their influence to cover up sexual abuse.

And those should be punished as well. For example, Penn State should have received a permanent ban from football as a lesson to anyone thinking of trying a similar coverup to protect their winning record, not just a slight one-year inconvenience.

Oh, it certainly isn't the only reason but, in your case, it is the most likely reason.

So now you're resorting to accusing me of arguing in bad faith? I'm glad we can have such a constructive discussion...

 Seaward wrote:
Cute, but unfortunately we're obliged to conclude that any institution that teaches the Catholic church exists solely to judge is going to be considerably inferior to one that doesn't, no matter what the Brits might think.

People may or may not care what the British think, but everyone in universities cares about the academic rankings of universities put out by Shanghai Jiao Tong, which is all the Time article is repeating. Every university will have listed somewhere in its core performance indicators that it wants to reach a certain place on that list, and moving up that list will bring in lots more research dollars. It's a big fething deal.

Though actually, I do agree with you; arguing about who has the best history degree is like arguing who has the best one-legged dog.

Good line, and I think everyone can hopefully agree that e-penis measuring by university ranking is stupid, but history is one of the places where it really does matter. Do commerce or IT and you're set for a job no matter what uni you went to, but do history and you better make sure its from one of the best universities in the world, because that's the only way you're getting a job out of it.

Not that the list compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong is the means of measuring specific courses anyway - you wouldn't go to MIT for humanities and expect everyone to treat you as if you went to the fourth best humanities school in the world.

 sebster wrote:
No, not for profit status doesn't depend on whether you like the organisation and what it does. It depends on the purpose of the thing and how it makes its money. When you raise funds from members, either through subscriptions or donations or whatever, and then spends those funds on stuff for the members or charitable works, then taxing that organisation makes no damn sense because it isn't making actual profit.

But that's not how we define tax exemption (or at least this kind of tax exemption). For example, a political party raises funds from its members and then spends those funds on stuff for its members, but we very clearly do not grant them the same tax exemption that we grant a church.

 Peregrine wrote:
And those should be punished as well. For example, Penn State should have received a permanent ban from football as a lesson to anyone thinking of trying a similar coverup to protect their winning record, not just a slight one-year inconvenience.

Do you really believe that, though? Such an action would have a massive negative effect on thousands of people who did absolutely nothing wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, because that 4% represents the leadership of the organization, and it's pretty clear that the problem of shielding rapists was widespread in that leadership. It's just like how if a corporation's management decide to commit crimes we don't refuse to shut it down because the poor janitor would lose their job.

Society as a whole, nor government, decided to start the Catholic Church, and they really have no place in deciding to shut it down. If people want to stop being Catholic then there will no longer be a Catholic Church, but if people still want to be Catholic, well then there's going to continue being a Catholic Church.

Now, I agree with you that where laws were broken the full force of the law should be brought against the paedophiles and those who covered up their crimes, and I think that understanding has finally worked its way through the church and society at large*. But whether (or more realistically how) the church comes through this is basically up to the church and its members, not the rest of us.





*Previously it seemed there was an explicit understanding within the church that they governed themselves, and an unstated assumption in the public at large that the Church might not have immunity, but somehow could expect some kind of special treatment.

 NELS1031 wrote:
Find an account of law enforcement complaining about obstruction of justice from Church leadership.

Wait, are you seriously disputing that church officials blocked investigation into rapes committed by other church officials?

In what world does it work that way? Enough of the leadership was guilty? What nebulous amount is "enough"?

It works that way in a world where even if you throw everyone who has been clearly proven guilty in prison you are almost guaranteeing that the organizational structure that committed the crimes remains intact. Punishing a scapegoat or two doesn't force any meaningful changes, if you want to stop future offenses you need to punish the organization as a whole.

You can sigh all you want, but you are the one that listed the Catholic Church as the prime offender of what you yourself listed.

Only if you make up a strawman and claim I said it.

And if you want pretend that they live lives of luxury, sure.

Seriously? Are you going to deny that the pope and other high-ranking church officials live a life of luxury? Remember how it was a newsworthy event when the current pope made his first speech wearing only a really expensive outfit (far beyond what 99.99999% of the world will ever be able to afford) and not something obscenely expensive?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Do you really believe that, though? Such an action would have a massive negative effect on thousands of people who did absolutely nothing wrong.

Yes I believe that. In the end football is just a game, even if we've somehow managed to lose sight of that fact. Thousands of people might have to find a new team to cheer for, but that's a small price to pay for preventing other schools from letting their coaches rape children because it might hurt their chances of winning if they told the police about it.

 sebster wrote:
Society as a whole, nor government, decided to start the Catholic Church, and they really have no place in deciding to shut it down. If people want to stop being Catholic then there will no longer be a Catholic Church, but if people still want to be Catholic, well then there's going to continue being a Catholic Church.

Sure. The many people who believe in the Catholic religion are free to start a new church and continue to have those beliefs. But they can do so without the wealth and privileges earned by the criminal organization currently operating under that name.

Now, I agree with you that where laws were broken the full force of the law should be brought against the paedophiles and those who covered up their crimes, and I think that understanding has finally worked its way through the church and society at large*. But whether (or more realistically how) the church comes through this is basically up to the church and its members, not the rest of us.

The problem is that untangling who was directly responsible is impossible at this point. The damage of the coverup has been done, and the chances of convicting the people responsible are pretty much nonexistent. Meanwhile we know that the coverup was a policy of the church as a whole, not a few isolated individuals. And that's a collective guilt that can't be dealt with by throwing a scapegoat or two in prison.

 Peregrine wrote:

I didn't bring it up. I was responding to someone else claiming that taxing churches should be about as controversial as taxing the local little league.

You're correct, I apologize.

 Peregrine wrote:

So now you're resorting to accusing me of arguing in bad faith? I'm glad we can have such a constructive discussion...

When you stop being reflexively hostile to all things associated with religion, I would be glad to have a constructive discussion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Yes I believe that. In the end football is just a game, even if we've somehow managed to lose sight of that fact. Thousands of people might have to find a new team to cheer for, but that's a small price to pay for preventing other schools from letting their coaches rape children because it might hurt their chances of winning if they told the police about it.

I believe Seaward was referring to the loss of funding that would follow from the elimination of the Penn State football team.

 dogma wrote:
I believe Seaward was referring to the loss of funding that would follow from the elimination of the Penn State football team.

Which is a subject requiring extreme skepticism. The college sports industry does a good job of hiding the exact numbers, but there's a pretty good case that there's no net benefit to the schools. The football teams clearly make lots of money, but most, if not all, of that money gets invested back into football instead of helping any academic programs.

 Peregrine wrote:
But that's not how we define tax exemption (or at least this kind of tax exemption). For example, a political party raises funds from its members and then spends those funds on stuff for its members, but we very clearly do not grant them the same tax exemption that we grant a church.

It's a different section that applies to different organisations, but the effect is the same.

The tax code is full of all kinds of arbitrary sectional codes that basically end up doing the same thing, with much of the same reasoning behind them. Because trying to write laws for unknown real world situations is hard, especially when there's lots of people reading that law as literally as possible to try and scam their way around them. And then when you add the problem that accountants are a bunch of weird little pedants then you end up with even more pointless bits of redundant law. Or maybe I just really hate the structure of tax law, and American tax law in particular, and happen to think the odd moment where it's actually kind of elegant is something we shouldn't give up because some people committed crimes that have nothing to do with tax law.

On the subject of Catholic spending and tax-exemption. I don't believe that religions should necessarily be tax-exempt, unless otherwise proven to be charitable organisations *as well*. That is - they should be held to the same standards of accountability as organisations that exist as charities alone (and they probably are, I don't actually know, that's just my stance on it).

After doing a little research, with all those silly hats and fancy Dorothy shoes kicking about I was expecting to find evidence of gross misspending - but I was pleasantly surprised by a few things. I'll leave these here, with two things borne in mind - one, the dates of these showing that it's not just a recent trend, but two, to counter-act that - no doubt the frilly hats and shoes still count as expenses and are taken out before calculating profit:
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/francesco-francis-francisco-24204/
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/10/local/me-54570
http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure. The many people who believe in the Catholic religion are free to start a new church and continue to have those beliefs. But they can do so without the wealth and privileges earned by the criminal organization currently operating under that name.

Individuals harmed can sue, and if between them all they win enough money so as to leave the church bankrupt well then that's one thing, but you don't just get to say 'you don't get to be an organisation anymore' and start taking their stuff.

 sebster wrote:
Individuals harmed can sue, and if between them all they win enough money so as to leave the church bankrupt well then that's one thing, but you don't just get to say 'you don't get to be an organisation anymore' and start taking their stuff.

Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*. The only reason not to do so is that our spineless politicians will never take any meaningful action against a church.


*Especially if the former owner happens to be guilty of traveling through a small town without being white, or someone we've labeled a 'terrorist'.

 Peregrine wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Individuals harmed can sue, and if between them all they win enough money so as to leave the church bankrupt well then that's one thing, but you don't just get to say 'you don't get to be an organisation anymore' and start taking their stuff.

Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*. The only reason not to do so is that our spineless politicians will never take any meaningful action against a church.


*Especially if the former owner happens to be guilty of traveling through a small town without being white, or someone we've labeled a 'terrorist'.

Your just full of hyperbole tonight aren't you?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.

If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.

Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.

The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.

Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.

 Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.

If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.

Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.

The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.

Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.

Cut him some slack for the choice unintentional humor.

 gorgon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think it's something about the polarizing effect of an institution that exists for the purpose of judging others.

If you honestly believe that's the reason the Catholic church exists, you need to go back to anyone who educated you at any point in your life and beat them senseless for how poorly they served you.

Do you honestly want to get into this debate with a guy with a history degree? Like, seriously? Whatever you might think is the purpose of the Catholic faith is one thing, but the institution of the Catholic church is absolutely social control and the accumulation of wealth, and if you truly want to get into that with me, then I'm going to request that you do a little pre-requisite reading on the history of the Catholic church and its practices, so that I need not spend hours and hours just bringing you up to speed.

The mere idea that you do not believe Catholicism is rooted in judgement of others is honestly baffling; I have no idea what kinda of Catholicism you can possibly subscribe to without recognizing that every core tenet is built upon judgement.

Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.

Cut him some slack for the choice unintentional humor.

Especially if you read the underlined part with a California Valley Girl voice

Oh no, now I can't get that accent out of my head...

You're, like, welcome

TOTES cray cray! #YOLO #SWAG

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
You're, like, welcome

Like gag me with a spoon you know like totally like come on!

Oh my god guys, like stop it! I mean totally cut it out.

You're good.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Hate to tell you this, but zero is the exact number of feths I give about where Jefferson went to school. Also, please compare #30 to #184, since your hubris demanded that you travel down this absolutely pointless and silly road.

Though actually, I do agree with you; arguing about who has the best history degree is like arguing who has the best one-legged dog.

Let the record show that:
1) Seaward and I agree on something, possibly for the first time ever on Dakka.
2) I can piss slightly farther?

Seaward wrote:No, now you're simply changing your argument. Initially it was, "the Catholic church exists only to judge." Now it is, "the Catholic church exists only to exert social control and gain wealth, and judgment is the means by which they do it." Those two statements do not become synonymous no matter how much you want them to.

As I already stated and addressed, my error was being lazy in my preposition.

Seaward wrote:Nor are either one of them correct, unless you're asserting that the entirety of the organization's leadership through hundreds upon hundreds of years has decided to completely abandon any real belief in the Catholic faith. Given some of the arguments you've come up with in the past, I'm fully capable of believing that you believe that

Pretty close.
However, "entirety" is obviously not accurate, because even amongst the leadership, there are people who legitimately have been drinking the Kool-Aid and honestly have faith that the smoke and lies are real. And that's where I don't think you've gone far enough into my mistrust and loathing of the institution of the Catholic Church (or any religious organization or person who claims to speak for the divine): your statement on the abandonment of the faith is positioned as though there was something "true" about the organization to begin with; whereas I posit that it was only ever a means of manipulating the naïve, and excusing atrocious behaviour when it suited whoever was pulling the strings at the time. Sure, sometimes something good came as a by-product of it, but that in no way excuses all the terrible things.
Billy Graham, Marchall Applewhite or John the Baptist, they're all basically the same to me; the difference is only a matter of scale.

That being said, if you want to continue this, let's do it via PM, because I think I'm already skirting the edge of impropriety on this topic, and I calculate that if we continue this discussion publicly, then this thread will get locked in a hurry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Wow thats one of the most bigoted AND WRONG statements you've made in quite awhile. Substitute some other group for Catholic Church and you would be rightly derided as the hater you are. That is bad and you should feel bad.

Feel free to substitute any group who claims to speak for the divine.

Also, in order to call me a bigot, I would have to be prejudiced.
And in order to be prejudiced, my dislike would have to be unfair.
Since my dislike is rooted in the instution's claims to speak for the divine, you must first prove that they actually do in order to call my dislike "unfair".

So good luck with that.

(perhaps the true futility of your task for the purpose of defending your statement comes from the fact that if you could actually prove it, then I would adopt the belief in a heartbeat, which thereby means I cannot be obstinately attached to my existing beliefs)

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Especially if you read the underlined part with a California Valley Girl voice

Well played, sir.

 Super Ready wrote:
On the subject of Catholic spending and tax-exemption. I don't believe that religions should necessarily be tax-exempt, unless otherwise proven to be charitable organisations *as well*. That is - they should be held to the same standards of accountability as organisations that exist as charities alone (and they probably are, I don't actually know, that's just my stance on it).

Consider that there are 100 guys, they work and they pay taxes, and they all love art, but while they're quite wealthy, individually they're nowhere near wealthy enough to buy great art by themselves. So they get together, and sign an agreement that each year they'll each contribute $10,000 to a pool, and then buy the nicest painting their $1,000,000 can afford. They're a group, and the painting is just for their own private viewing, so they certainly aren't a charity. So by your logic above the group should pay tax on the $1,000,000 the group generates.

Now consider a single guy, who also loves art, but also happens to be very, very rich. He is rich enough to spent $1,000,000 every year on a painting he loves. No-one would suggest he ought to pay tax on that money, over and above what he's already paid. Because he's just a single guy, spending his post tax dollars, same as everyone else.

So why should that change when 100 guys get together to buy art as a group? One guy buys a painting, or 100 guys as a private group buy a painting, the tax treatment should be the same. The answer is that groups assembled for a mutual purpose, funded entirely from member's dues, should not be a taxed organisation.

And now consider the Catholic Church, where there isn't even a fixed membership fee, but gives people the freedom to pay as much or as little as they please. Whether they spend that money on good works, or impressive cathedrals and paintings doesn't matter. What matters is that it's an organisation driven by member donations, spending that money per the group's overall objective. Taxing the church's takings would not make sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*.

Proceeds from crime, yeah. But St Paul's wasn't built with unpaid child labour...

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:Especially if you read the underlined part with a California Valley Girl voice

Well played, sir.

It was low hanging fruit and I couldn't resist


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Which is a subject requiring extreme skepticism. The college sports industry does a good job of hiding the exact numbers, but there's a pretty good case that there's no net benefit to the schools. The football teams clearly make lots of money, but most, if not all, of that money gets invested back into football instead of helping any academic programs.

A lot of it goes to other sports that don't attract the same funding also


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Really? Because in the US it's clearly established that you can arrest and charge the money with various crimes, seize all of it, and force the former owner to justify getting it back*.

That is not unique to the United States, especially when it comes to proceeds from crime

 Peregrine wrote:

The college sports industry does a good job of hiding the exact numbers, but there's a pretty good case that there's no net benefit to the schools.

Sure, if you assume that schools are only in the business of academic education.