How much money does the state give the Catholic Church?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

But does ISS lose money? If board members contribute a 'reasonable amount' to ensure expenses are covered then it would be breaking even, no?

In accounting terms, they're directors loans, so no, the ISS is not breaking even - it's losing money.

PDN wrote: »

I've already referred to that point - which has nothing (zilch, nada, zero) to do with your second point comparing the small amount handled by ISS to the larger amounts handled by even the smallest of churches.

I was simply pointing out that in comparison to the churches, the ISS is run on the slenderest of shoestrings. Still, I'd imagine that in terms of euro-of-turnover per number-of-people-who've-heard-of-it, the ISS is probably far more efficient than most (dare I say all?) evangelical churches. The truth will out and all that!

However, that point is quite irrelevant to the principles of the issue, of which there are two -- different, and both very simple -- and which I carefully labelled to try to avoid the thread descending to the degree of one-sided confusion where it now rests.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

However, that point is quite irrelevant to the principles of the issue, of which there are two -- different, and both very simple -- and which I carefully labelled to try to avoid the thread descending to the degree of one-sided confusion where it now rests.

Then let's address those issues.

1. You personally prefer one ideology to another. Do you understand why, in a secular democracy rather than an Empire of Robin, this is an overly subjective criteria to apply when determining whether an organisation is charitable or not?

2. The ISS receives less money from its donors than do Protestant churches. Maybe you could expand on this for us. Is your objection that a real charity should only have a small number of donors, in which case any causes that are popular could be denied charitable status? Or is your objection that real charities should only receive small donations, and that there is something wrong with someone making large donations to a charity?

Can you not see that a better system would be to remove subjective value judgments altogether and rather to simply designate any entity as for-profit or non-profit? That would appear to me to be more secular and less of a Soviet-style approach.

philologos

To be honest with you I would support tax-exemption for non-profit tiddlywinks clubs let alone churches, or secular / skeptics societies.

robindch is happy for the Government to give Irish Skeptics a tax exemption while taxing churches. Quite a funny situation no?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The ISS receives less money from its donors than do Protestant churches. Maybe you could expand on this for us. Is your objection that a real charity should only have a small number of donors, in which case any causes that are popular could be denied charitable status?

As I said above, you must read what I write with your head, not with your heart! I was simply pointing out -- though obviously not simply enough -- that the ISS runs at a loss since its relatively few members pay very little money. This was in response to you asking if it did run at a loss. I trust you're not offended by my answering a question you asked, and explaining the reason why the answer is the way it is!

PDN wrote: »

You personally prefer one ideology to another.

Unlike religion, skepticism is not an ideology, a "what to think", but a "how to think". I can certainly understand that you might perceive the latter as a threat to your churches and the way in which they're marketed, but that's beside the point -- skepticism is still not an ideology.

PDN wrote: »

Can you not see that a better system would be to remove subjective value judgments altogether and rather to simply designate any entity as for-profit or non-profit?

Profit and non-profit is a useful first step in breaking down organizations. However, it doesn't go far enough and there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations.

The ISS is there to expound the benefits of rational thought and to question the various extraordinary claims of various people, some of whom (like homeopaths) do real damage to vulnerable people. This, I trust, you believe is a useful thing to do.

Your organization on the other hand, is there primarily to expand itself in line with the Great Commission.

That's a rather selfish aim, don't you think?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch is happy for the Government to give Irish Skeptics a tax exemption while taxing churches. Quite a funny situation no?

Hello, hello? hello?

Five posts I think I've said that the ISS makes a loss.

Which quite ignores the central point about the usefulness of the non-profit.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Hello, hello? hello?

Five posts I think I've said that the ISS makes a loss.

Which quite ignores the central point about the usefulness of the non-profit.

Members / ISS board put money into ISS to keep it afloat.
Members put money into churches to keep them afloat.

What's the issue?

PDN: I shouldn't be surprised, it seems as if robindch wants the state to enforce his opinion in respect to non-profit organisations.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Unlike religion, skepticism is not an ideology, a "what to think", but a "how to think". I can certainly understand that you might perceive the latter as a threat to your churches and the way in which they're marketed, but that's beside the point -- skepticism is still not an ideology.Profit and non-profit is a useful first step in breaking down organizations. However, it doesn't go far enough and there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations.

You appear to misunderstand what I mean by 'ideology'. I do not define 'ideology' as 'something that is a threat'. I would see an ideology as a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. Skepticism, as a worldview, fits that bill.

Sorry, I didn't think I had to make that clear. I thought we all understood what an 'ideology' is. My bad.

Profit and non-profit is a useful first step in breaking down organizations. However, it doesn't go far enough and there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations.

Useful if you would like to use the law as a hammer against those who disagree with you. Not so useful if you are committed to equality for religious and non-religious alike in a secular society.

Your organization on the other hand, is there primarily to expand itself in line with the Great Commission.

Nice attempt to deflect us down a rabbit trail that will lead us away from exploring your extraordinarily subjective and intolerant views on charities.

Your statement is false btw. The Great Commission is about encouraging people to develop a relationship with God, not to expand a Charitable Trust based in Ireland.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Hello, hello? hello?

Five posts I think I've said that the ISS makes a loss.

Which quite ignores the central point about the usefulness of the non-profit.

There’s two separate points here:

The ISS makes a loss: Fine; loss-making entities don’t pay a tax which is calculated on profits, because they don’t have any profits.

But I think if we stop there we have two corollaries:

First, if the ISS were ever to make a profit/surplus (oh, happy day!) it ought to be taxed.

Secondly, a church which makes no profit/surplus ought not to be taxed.

The mere fact that a particular church has a large income doesn’t mean that it makes a profit, since its expenditure may be commensurately large. And, in fact, it typically will be; churches don’t have shareholders who demand dividends; all they can do with their income, ultimately, is to spend it in furtherance of their mission. (A bit like the ISS, really.) [Yes, churches with a large income can spend it on inflated salaries for hierarchs. But those, of course, are taxed.]

In short, pointing out that the ISS pays no tax because it makes no profit does nothing to establish that churches should be taxed. If anything, it tends the other way. Most churches also make no profits, for pretty much the same reason that the ISS makes no profits. And, if that’s a reason for the ISS to pay no tax, it looks a lot like a reason for those churches to pay no tax.

Which brings us to your second point: the usefulness of the non-profit. You need to rely on this to argue that churches which generate a surplus should be taxed on them, if at the same time you are going to argue that the ISS should not be, even if it generates a surplus.

But I don’t see that you have really answered PDN’s point; why should your subjective assessment of the social utility of the respective missions of the ISS and a church form the basis a public policy which treats one more favourably than the other?

And, apart from the implict elitism, there’s a practical danger here. Your view seems to be a minority one, given the relative success of the ISS and the churches at persuading people that their respective missions are important enough to be worth donating money to. If there were to be a public debate about which organisation served the more useful social function, ISS would be very unlikely to win it. From a purely self-interested point of view, ISS should favour a regime in which all non-profits are free of tax, since they are unlikely to do well if the regime only exempts non-profits whose activities meet with someone’s approval.

Not that I would urge you to act out of selfishness, but there is a wider point here. If public policy is going to be based on judgments about whose activities are worthwhile, the mainstream, established, conservative non-profits are likely to do well and those with novel, unpopular, radical, progressive, challenging viewpoints will not. Is that really a tax regime that would serve the country well?

The more I think about PDN’s suggestion of uniform tax treatment for all non-profits, the more I like it.

Newaglish

Non-profit? My office is run for profit and it ain't this nice:



Also 3 pages and no play on the word prophet? Disappointing.

Tim Robbins

PDN and Robin - I remember a time when I used to be accused of derailing threads.

The ISS does not employ people in the same way the Church does. Other than that the only difference is in scale and it looks like PDN has snared you Robin.

philologos

All paid members of churches pay PAYE and PRSI in this State so its irrelevant to this argument.

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

All paid members of churches pay PAYE and PRSI in this State so its irrelevant to this argument.

tax and the catholic church,the catholic church ran laundries[magdalene] which made money,they did not pay tax on them,in fact the laundries were supported by the irish tax payer,also in 2001 the tax payer had to put his hand in his pocket to pay for the mobilisation of the irish army to escort alleged ;sacred relics; around the country,at the behest of the church.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

What's the issue?

Er, tax is.

And has been for the last 31 posts.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Er, tax is.

And has been for the last 31 posts.

Unless you can explain why Irish Skeptics should get tax breaks we can't continue though. It is supported much in the same way as a church is, donations / contributions from its members (board members are still members).

I agree with PDN that all non-profits should receive tax exemption. From a tiddlywinks club to a philosophical society.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I do not define 'ideology' as 'something that is a threat'.

Excellent. Neither do I. I was simply pointing out that the goals of the ISS are incompatible with religion.

PDN wrote: »

I would see an ideology as a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. Skepticism, as a worldview, fits that bill.

You can certainly define it that way if you like, but to coin a phrase, skepticism is not an "ism". As above, it tells you how to think, not what to think.

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't think I had to make that clear.

No problem, most people don't understand it. You should attend more skeptics' talks and you might gain a better understanding of what constitutes skepticism. You could certainly describe it as a meta-ideology.

PDN wrote: »

Nice attempt to deflect us down a rabbit trail that will lead us away from exploring your extraordinarily subjective and intolerant views on charities.

Ah, but you're still missing the point that the main beneficiary of religious charities, is, well, the religions themselves. That's not charity, that's greed. For myself, I'm inclined to think that the state should not be in the business of encouraging greed. Your opinion, as somebody who makes their living from the sale of religious beliefs, is understandably different.

PDN wrote: »

Your statement is false btw. The Great Commission is about encouraging people to develop a relationship with God, not to expand a Charitable Trust based in Ireland.

An artless strawman - you've done much better in the past!

The Great Commission is Jesus' instruction to his disciples that it was their job (and that of their successors) to do one's best to ensure that every human being holds the same religious ideas. It's in Matthew 28:18-20. There's nothing directly in the text about "encouraging people to develop a relationship with god".

Matthew wrote:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Given that this ideological uniformity is, or should be, the aim of all christians, you can understand why I view this religion as selfish. And that's quite apart from any other useless or counterproductivene ideas that religion will use within its memeplex.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Unless you can explain why Irish Skeptics should get tax breaks [...]

Read this post again:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71211402&postcount=35

robindch wrote:

[...] there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations. The ISS is there to expound the benefits of rational thought and to question the various extraordinary claims of various people, some of whom (like homeopaths) do real damage to vulnerable people. This, I trust, you believe is a useful thing to do.

Your organization on the other hand, is there primarily to expand itself in line with the Great Commission.

That's a rather selfish aim, don't you think?

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

PDN and Robin - I remember a time when I used to be accused of derailing threads.

I'd have said that a discussion concerning the ethics of churches paying taxes was failry on-topic for a thread labelled "How much money does the state give the Catholic Church?"

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The ISS does not employ people in the same way the Church does. Other than that the only difference is in scale and it looks like PDN has snared you Robin.

Whether or not our respective organizationns employ people is irrelevant.

What is at issue is whether the state should help fund selfish orgnizations. I'm inclined to believe it probably shouldn't, while jakkass and PDN who believe (I'd imagine) that their religion's excessive interest in itself is fine and consequently, can't see what the fuss is all about.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Read this post again:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71211402&postcount=35

Indeed, you're claiming that faith is harmful. Alas in a pluralist society your atheistic perspective should have no consequence in respect to this.

I don't believe the Great Commission is "selfish" at all. In fact completely the opposite from a Christian point of view it is to attempt to bring people to salvation. Personally I don't see why societies / groups which promote themselves to the public (which is what it is in a secular sense) should be taxed if they are non-profit. Indeed, you promote your events at Irish Skeptics to the general public?

As far as I see it, you haven't a leg to stand on in respect of your argument.

Truley

In principle I can't see a difference between a religious organisation and an organisation like The Irish Skeptics. They both serve to peddle an ideology. People will argue that one ideology is more valid than another, but from what I can see, and as another poster pointed out, the only real difference is scale and popularity.

On a pragmatic level, every club/organisation/institution in the world has the same ultimate goal, to preserve or advance that club/organisation/institution. I find claims that one person's organisation is any less self motivated than another quite laughable.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, you're claiming that faith is harmful.

Where did I say that "faith is harmful"?

I said that propagating irrational and anti-social beliefs is harmful to society. If you wish to redefine "faith" as "irrational and anti-social beliefs", then we're, er, singing from the same hymnsheet.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe the Great Commission is "selfish" at all. In fact completely the opposite from a Christian point of view it is to attempt to bring people to salvation.

Yes, from a christian point of view, that's correct. From the external POV from which I'm looking, it's entirely selfish -- it invents a problem, then prescribes itself as the only solution. Most religions do this, and christianity is no different.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I don't see why societies / groups which promote themselves to the public (which is what it is in a secular sense) should be taxed if they are non-profit. [...] As far as I see it, you haven't a leg to stand on in respect of your argument.

I'm very well aware that you don't see the point of my argument

In brief, the distinction is between, on the one hand, unselfish memes whose aim is to provide some benefit to social structures other than themselves (art galleries, subbotniki, walking clubs, scho ols, hospitals etc). And on the other hand, selfish memes (religion, trade unions, armies, political parties etc) whose aim is to benefit themselves.

This distinction is one that a lot of people have a hard time getting a handle on, and it's certainly not one that I think has ever been heard in the corridors of power, but it's a useful one to consider when trying to figure out if the organization is being charitable to society at large (a good thing) or whether it's being charitable to itself (a bad thing).

This argument will never make sense to you unless you understand this distinction.

robindch

Truley wrote: »

In principle I can't see a difference between a religious organisation and an organisation like The Irish Skeptics. [...] from what I can see, and as another poster pointed out, the only real difference is scale and popularity.

You're not taking into account the notion that one organization is "selfish", and the other one isn't -- as I said to Jakkass above, none of what I'm writing here will make sense if you don't get this distinction.

Truley

robindch wrote: »

You're not taking into account the notion that one organization is "selfish", and the other one isn't -- as I said to Jakkass above, none of what I'm writing here will make sense if you don't get this distinction.

No I don't get the distinction. I would consider them both 'selfish' organisations.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

[...] your second point: the usefulness of the non-profit. [...] why should your subjective assessment of the social utility of the respective missions of the ISS and a church form the basis a public policy which treats one more favourably than the other?

?? It's not my subjective assessment that sets national policy -- that's the job of the government and the civil service.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, apart from the implict elitism, there’s a practical danger here. Your view seems to be a minority one, given the relative success of the ISS and the churches at persuading people that their respective missions are important enough to be worth donating money to. If there were to be a public debate about which organisation served the more useful social function, ISS would be very unlikely to win it.

It's not "elitist" (what exactly do you mean by that?) to say that religions are "selfish" -- it's an easily-demonstrable fact of life, regardless of how many people might find it upsetting (or in this case, incomprehensible).

But to turn the argument on its head -- say that Hamas set up in Dublin and attempted to infiltrate schools with a view to spreading radical islam, perhaps even attempting to recruit suicide bombers. That's a simple example of a selfish meme.

Would you fully support an application for non-profit "charitable" status on behalf of Hamas?

robindch

Truley wrote: »

No I don't get the distinction. I would consider them both 'selfish' organisations.

Unlike most religions (save weird groups like the Shakers, for example), the ISS is not primarily interested in growth. If it were, perhaps it would be a bit bigger than it is.

But if you don't get the distinction, then fair enough, you don't get it

stevejazzx

The only way religion can become truly charitable is if it seperates itself from God; by focusing on helping people on a pragmatic level. Unfortunately I have never seem this. Except in rare almost isolated cases the 'charity' of religion has a motive. Therefore Robins conclusion of selfishness seems correct.
An organisation that can create a demonstrable benefit to society should be afforded some financial leeway. So the areas of education and medicine and charities are good examples. Whether education stretches to include skepticism is arguable although it isn't difficult to find many good examples of clear cut societal benefits. For example a friend of mine who attended a lecture no longer thought it a good idea to spend all her money on feeding her sick child homeopathic pills. Another came away from one with an renewed interest in Math.
In comparison the religious system of 'charity' has a very real potential for derailing the 'common sense' of good people. From the confused preaching and ideas on contraception to the baffling notions of self punishment and judgement. Whether people are homeless, sick, poor or uneducated they need pragmatic aid; not ideology. And prefacing ideology with the facade of realistic aid is not 'charity' either. The goal should the wellbeing of the individual in the long term. And before there is a mock outrage that I have ignored all the churches great selfless charity I would ask those who are involved to compare themselves to non religious charities and note the differences.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Unlike most religions (save weird groups like the Shakers, for example), the ISS is not primarily interested in growth. If it were, perhaps it would be a bit bigger than it is.

But if you don't get the distinction, then fair enough, you don't get it

No, no, no. It's a mistake to think that all religions have the characteristics of Christianity. Judaism, for example, is not at all interested in growth. It's frankly suspicious of converts. It's not even interested in propagating a set of ideas and securing their wider acceptance in the way that, say, the ISS is. (This is indeed the whole raison d'etre of the ISS, isn't it?) Islam, equally, is not a missionary, evangelistic religion. It's very happy for people to convert to Islam, but it has no mission to seek converts in the way that Christianity does.

If "not seeking growth" is one of your criteria for tax exemption, then there's an awful lot of religions which will be tax exempt.

But its a bizarre criterion to adopt. The GAA seeks to persuade people to play Gaelic sports in preference to others; should it be denied tax exemption on that ground? Why?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

?? It's not my subjective assessment that sets national policy -- that's the job of the government and the civil service.It's not "elitist" (what exactly do you mean by that?) to say that religions are "selfish" -- it's an easily-demonstrable fact of life, regardless of how many people might find it upsetting (or in this case, incomprehensible).

Well, their subjective assessment has been made; religions are tax exempt, on the basis that they are regarded as charitable. Despite the fact that policymakers have made this assessment (and appear to have considerable popular support for this stance, if the willingness of people to donate to churches is an indicator) you are still urging a change in policy because, so far as I can see, you don't share this assessment.

robindch wrote: »

But to turn the argument on its head -- say that Hamas set up in Dublin and attempted to infiltrate schools with a view to spreading radical islam, perhaps even attempting to recruit suicide bombers. That's a simple example of a selfish meme.

Would you fully support an application for non-profit "charitable" status on behalf of Hamas?

If an organisation is engaged in Hamas-type activities, I'd be looking to restrict it through something rather more vigorous than the tax code. Something like, you know, the criminal code. Proscribed organisations, that kind of thing.

But if a non-profit organisation is engaged in lawful activity and isn't doing anything to justify a ban, I don't see why it should be discriminated against in the tax code (relative to other non-profits) merely because I don't share its vision, or look with favour upon its activities - or because you don't. Or because the Minister doesn't.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

rom the external POV from which I'm looking, it's entirely selfish -- it invents a problem, then prescribes itself as the only solution. Most religions do this, and christianity is no different.I'm very well aware that you don't see the point of my argument

You just have an atheistic bias that you'd like to see enshrined in law :pac:

aridion

The Catholic Church is one of the Richest organisations in the world. If you open your eyes and look around you, you will see their massive wealth. They should be taxed. Absolutely.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

You just have an atheistic bias that you'd like to see enshrined in law :pac:

As somebody who appears to apply their religious bias in every waking moment, I quite understand where you're coming from. Personally, I don't give a wet fart what anybody's theistic beliefs are, or if they have any -- I just don't like to see selfish, exclusivist organizations that propagate irrational and anti-social beliefs receiving tax benefits.

For the record, I think the state should also work, with equal energy, to neutralize the power of some other selfish, exclusivist groups I mentioned, some of whom parasitize in similar ways to religion -- trade unions, armies, political parties and so on.