4 ms·

I am responding primarily to "Churches should go back to being churches. No reason a religious organization needs a 100 billion warchest." Presumably, the pers

by abnry 7y ago

I am responding primarily to "Churches should go back to being churches. No reason a religious organization needs a 100 billion warchest." Presumably, the person who wrote this is against religion/mormonism/christianity. If that is they case, they are an outsider and don't really have a valid say in what an organized religion should want. So it comes off as what I wrote in my comment, which is backed up by what they wrote in their next sentence, which is in essence, "organization I don't like has a lot of money, and I think they shouldn't have a lot of money." Your criticisms about how the Mormon church spends its money is irrelevant to how much money they have (and the $100B figure in the article). Your criticisms about how they got the money are relevant though. Although I can't really judge how much of an issue manipulation is, as it is both subjective and rampant in the almost any exchange of money (sales, advertising, and arguably taxes), and as you also mentioned people freely give to the Mormon church.

mythrwy 7y ago
You could respond to me directly and I could clarify my position so there aren't mistaken presumptions. I'm not religious, yes, about that you would be right. I presume you are religious but it makes no difference. Where you fall off though is in assuming I'm anti-Mormon or anti-Christian. Not at all. I have friends that are religious and respect the right to be so 100%. This is very different from a church with apocalyptic teachings or teachings that at some point the church will become government or political teaching amassing a 100 billion+ warchest tax free. That is flat out fucking dangerous and wrong should not be permitted. Really no other way to put it. My other comments on this thread clarify my position if you care. I'm not in favor of confiscation.
- abnry 7y ago
  You may not be rabid in opposition to religion or caustic towards personal adherents--that's not what I had in mind--but your second paragraph to me clearly reads as anti-religion. Apocalyptic teachings or teachings that the church will become part of a world government are part of religion. (I happen to disagree with these things, if you are referring to what I think of). What you still seem to be saying is that those beliefs disqualify them from being allowed to amass wealth. You aren't saying it is ill-gotten wealth. You are saying their beliefs disqualify them from having wealth. I refer to my original point.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what is a dangerous apocalyptic cult and what is a legitimate congregation of spiritual seekers. (Some non-US governments do exactly this incidentally). But dangerous apocalyptic cults do exist. They harm adherents and harm society at large. So yes, it can and it does happen. The ability to accumulate massive wealth is not needed for spiritual practice, provides severe moral hazards (often contrary to the stated purposes of the religion) and provides means to carry out social agendas which affect non-adherents. So the simple and common sense solution is to legally prevent this accumulation. There are already restrictions on freedom of religion (and speech, and firearms etc). You can't slap a "Church" label on a prostitution ring and have it fly (this actually has happened). Nor in my estimation should you be able to slap a Church label on a business or real estate company and have it fly. You are one or the other, you get to chose for tax purposes and amount of wealth the organization is allowed to accumulate. A bit off topic but for the record, I think it is manifestly dangerous to allow individuals or corporations too much power (financial or otherwise) also. But religions have a history of behaving much more irrationally because it is such a personal emotional issue and is less regulated by rational self interest. Thus it can be more dangerous. Keep churches churches and they will be better churches. Make them businesses (or even worse governments) and everyone is screwed. Also someone downvoted you because they apparently don't agree. For whatever it's worth I'm reversing that because I think your points are worth considering.

by abnry 7y ago

mythrwy 7y ago

You could respond to me directly and I could clarify my position so there aren't mistaken presumptions. I'm not religious, yes, about that you would be right. I presume you are religious but it makes no difference. Where you fall off though is in assuming I'm anti-Mormon or anti-Christian. Not at all. I have friends that are religious and respect the right to be so 100%. This is very different from a church with apocalyptic teachings or teachings that at some point the church will become government or political teaching amassing a 100 billion+ warchest tax free. That is flat out fucking dangerous and wrong should not be permitted. Really no other way to put it. My other comments on this thread clarify my position if you care. I'm not in favor of confiscation.

abnry 7y ago
You may not be rabid in opposition to religion or caustic towards personal adherents--that's not what I had in mind--but your second paragraph to me clearly reads as anti-religion. Apocalyptic teachings or teachings that the church will become part of a world government are part of religion. (I happen to disagree with these things, if you are referring to what I think of). What you still seem to be saying is that those beliefs disqualify them from being allowed to amass wealth. You aren't saying it is ill-gotten wealth. You are saying their beliefs disqualify them from having wealth. I refer to my original point.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  The government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what is a dangerous apocalyptic cult and what is a legitimate congregation of spiritual seekers. (Some non-US governments do exactly this incidentally). But dangerous apocalyptic cults do exist. They harm adherents and harm society at large. So yes, it can and it does happen. The ability to accumulate massive wealth is not needed for spiritual practice, provides severe moral hazards (often contrary to the stated purposes of the religion) and provides means to carry out social agendas which affect non-adherents. So the simple and common sense solution is to legally prevent this accumulation. There are already restrictions on freedom of religion (and speech, and firearms etc). You can't slap a "Church" label on a prostitution ring and have it fly (this actually has happened). Nor in my estimation should you be able to slap a Church label on a business or real estate company and have it fly. You are one or the other, you get to chose for tax purposes and amount of wealth the organization is allowed to accumulate. A bit off topic but for the record, I think it is manifestly dangerous to allow individuals or corporations too much power (financial or otherwise) also. But religions have a history of behaving much more irrationally because it is such a personal emotional issue and is less regulated by rational self interest. Thus it can be more dangerous. Keep churches churches and they will be better churches. Make them businesses (or even worse governments) and everyone is screwed. Also someone downvoted you because they apparently don't agree. For whatever it's worth I'm reversing that because I think your points are worth considering.