How much money does the state give the Catholic Church?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

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 this is your belief, then I suggest you read up on the current Saudi government. They don't do door-to-door, but their funding of sympathetic religious organizations, particularly schools, is widescale and influential, particularly in the far east, and to a lesser extent, in Africa.

They've announced that they're trying to open one in Dublin too, btw -- see here.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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?

Up to fairly recently, they reserved the right to expel anybody who watched a soccer match and especially, anybody who played one. That rule was removed under pressure from the government who waved money under the GAA's nose. And as long as it remained selfishly exclusivist, the GAA should have received no state benefits. But the GAA doesn't propagate (broadly speaking) irrational or anti-social beliefs, so it's a different class of organization from religious organizations.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

You didn't answer the question. Should Hamas receive tax benefits from the state? According to your criteria as I understand them, it should.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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) [...]

It's not a question of negative discrimination against, but of providing positive tax incentives, and at the moment, these are handed out (largely) regardless of whether the organization is providing any genuine benefit to the state or its citizens in return.

The catholic church believes and propagates its belief that death in the service of its ideology is a great and glorious thing. How's that different from what Hamas preach about islam and death in the service of it?

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

If this is your belief, then I suggest you read up on the current Saudi government. They don't do door-to-door, but their funding of sympathetic religious organizations, particularly schools, is widescale and influential, particularly in the far east, and to a lesser extent, in Africa.

The current Saudi government, as I suspect you know, is hardly representative of Islam as a whole. The rather simplistic and fundamentalist Wahabi sect which is dominant in Saudi Arabia is very much a minority within the Islamic world as a whole.

You can treat the Saudi government as an authoritative representation of the whole of Islam if I can treat Joe Stalin as an authoritative representative of the whole of secularism. Fair enough?

But leave that to one side. All I see you accusing the Saudi government of doing is “funding religious organisations, particularly schools”. Endowing schools which cater to Muslim communities is hardly compelling evidence of seeking converts. If that’s the best you can come up with, I rather think that tends to support my point than to refute it.

robindch wrote: »

Up to fairly recently, they [the GAA] reserved the right to expel anybody who watched a soccer match and especially, anybody who played one. That rule was removed under pressure from the government who waved money under the GAA's nose. And as long as it remained selfishly exclusivist, the GAA should have received no state benefits. But the GAA doesn't propagate (broadly speaking) irrational or anti-social beliefs, so it's a different class of organization from religious organizations.

Again, you keep demanding that the state proceed on the basis that religious organisations propagate irrational and anti-social beliefs, but you offer no reason why the state should have to act on your say-so, and you make no serious attempt to show that your view is objectively correct. Instead you rely on simplistic distortions and mischaracterisations which can hardly convince you, and as you must certainly know won’t convince anyone else. For example, you find yourself claiming above that in the Christian view baptism has nothing to do with one’s relationship with God because Mt 28:18-20 doesn’t directly say so. You cannot expect us to take this argument seriously, yet it's not untypical of the kind of corner into which you paint yourself.

robindch wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Should Hamas receive tax benefits from the state? According to your criteria as I understand them, it should.

I did say that I thought the activities of Hamas should be (and indeed are) criminalised. I don’t believe that criminal activities should be tax-favoured. Do I really need to spell that out?

robindch wrote: »

The catholic church believes and propagates its belief that death in the service of its ideology is a great and glorious thing. How's that different from what Hamas preach about islam and death in the service of it?

Careful now, you’ll bring scepticism into disrepute. Hamas and the Catholic church are hardly alone in thinking that dying for a cause may be noble; the leading political parties of this state are committed to that ideal, as were Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ, and indeed as are the men who, even know, are exposing themselves to potentially lethal doses of radiation to prevent a greater meltdown at Fukashima. I’m sure you’ll even find a few sceptics and secularists who endorse the idea, given a sufficiently worthy ideal for which to be willing to die.

The problem with Hamas is that it advocates killing – widespread, indiscriminate, terrorist killing - for its cause. Are sceptics required to think that this distinction does not exist, or is not significant?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

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.

How is Christianity exclusivist in particular?

Are we heading down a wild goose chase I wonder? I'm starting to doubt I'll actually see any sound logic from you on this.

Edit:

Peregrinus wrote:

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.

Islam is a missionary religion. Look up dawah and you'll see what I mean.

In Islamic theology, the purpose of Da‘wah is to invite people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, to understand the worship of Allah as expressed in the Qur'ān and the sunnah of the prophet, as well as to inform them about Muhammad. Da‘wah produces converts to Islam, which in turn grows the strength of the Muslim ummah.

Seaneh

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.

The church I attend makes a massive loss. We are, however, lucky enough to have a patron which is CFO of a fortune 500 company, a world renowned classical music producer and several other wealthy individuals who underwrite the church every year. Without them we couldn't do any of the community work we do, like our food trailer ministry where we provide food and hot drinks for homeless people in the city.

Most churches I know of have very similar circumstances.

So your point is bull****.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

How is Christianity exclusivist in particular?

Christianity is exclusivist in the sense that it divides the world into a pious, saved "Us" and damned or damnable "Them". It's a tendency that most religions share -- declaring themselves the vessels of the one and only Truth, and all other religions, worldviews, philosophies etc in states of error that range from the merely "wrong" (as in protestanism to a catholic, or catholicism to a protestant), all the way up to lethal (atheism to a chrisitan, islamic or jewish fanatic).

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm starting to doubt I'll actually see any sound logic from you on this.

If you weren't aware that christianity divides people into ingrounps and outgroups, and feeds upon this difference, then you're going to have to pay a lot more attention in whatever religion classes you take!

robindch

Seaneh wrote: »

So your point is bull****.

You haven't addressed my point, at least, not yet anyway

Seaneh wrote: »

Without them we couldn't do any of the community work we do, like our food trailer ministry where we provide food and hot drinks for homeless people in the city.

And how much of that church's turnover is dedicated to these good works? I'm assuming here, btw, that the food and hot drinks are handed out without asking the recipient's religion, and that there's no kerbside proselytizing of any kind.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

The current Saudi government, as I suspect you know, is hardly representative of Islam as a whole.

I didn't say that Wahhabism was representative of all of islam -- all you said was that islam doesn't proselytize, and I pointed out that it certainly does. And in many countries, and to considerable effect.

Peregrinus wrote: »

All I see you accusing the Saudi government of doing is “funding religious organisations, particularly schools”. Endowing schools which cater to Muslim communities is hardly compelling evidence of seeking converts.

A bit like catholic schools in Ireland, the Saudi-funded maddrassas are not there only to educate children -- they also subject kids to indoctrinating propaganda. Have a read of the following article on the topic, if you're not aware of how effective the Saudi effort has been:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, you keep demanding that the state proceed on the basis that religious organisations propagate irrational and anti-social beliefs, but you offer no reason why the state should have to act on your say-so, and you make no serious attempt to show that your view is objectively correct.

My say-so? We've been through this already. This is an online debate. I'm not up in the Archbishop's palace, delivering a torrent of policy recommendations and veiled threats to the government of the day, as John Charles McQuaid did.

I also suspect that, like Jakkass, if you took the time and energy to understand what I was saying rather than objecting huffily to some silly mischaracterization of it, you might find that there's a thought worth thinking there.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I did say that I thought the activities of Hamas should be (and indeed are) criminalised. I don’t believe that criminal activities should be tax-favoured.

On what grounds? I've already pointed out that Hamas claims to be a religious charity and operates as such in places like Palestine and Lebanon, where it spends millions on schools and hospitals. The suicide bombing is organized by its military wing, the Al-Qassam brigades, but the preparatory work is done by Hamas and Hamas-supporting religious preachers. Are you saying that the religion-only side is not a "charity"?

And what about Scientology? We probably agree that it's a religion. So, do you think they should have charitable status in Ireland? So far, the Irish government hasn't granted it. Do you think that's unfair discrimination? Or do you think that sometimes, it's worth looking at what an organization does before accepting its own word that it's a "charity"?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hamas and the Catholic church are hardly alone in thinking that dying for a cause may be noble; the leading political parties of this state are committed to that ideal, as were Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ, and indeed as are the men who, even know, are exposing themselves to potentially lethal doses of radiation to prevent a greater meltdown at Fukashima.

There's a world of difference between dying to save your fellow human beings, and getting oneself killed in the service of an idea.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Christianity is exclusivist in the sense that it divides the world into a pious, saved "Us" and damned or damnable "Them". It's a tendency that most religions share -- declaring themselves the vessels of the one and only Truth, and all other religions, worldviews, philosophies etc in states of error that range from the merely "wrong" (as in protestanism to a catholic, or catholicism to a protestant), all the way up to lethal (atheism to a chrisitan, islamic or jewish fanatic)

Absolute twaddle.

There are members of Irish Skeptics and there are non-members. That's pretty much all you are saying. There are members of a church and there are non-members. An atheist can attend church if they want to or even become a member if they really really want to.

As for the tenets of Christianity, you either believe or you don't.

Your main problems involve things that are inherently involved in any organisation.

1. Promotion, 2. Membership vs non-membership.

robindch wrote: »

If you weren't aware that christianity divides people into ingrounps and outgroups, and feeds upon this difference, then you're going to have to pay a lot more attention in whatever religion classes you take!

Dealt with in full above. It's all nonsense. Hypocrisy abounds so it seems.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

There are members of Irish Skeptics and there are non-members.

And at the six annual lectures organized by the ISS, nobody says that all non-skeptics are going to burn in hell. Which I seem to recall is a tenet of your religion. Is it?

Jakkass wrote: »

Your main problems involve things that are inherently involved in any organisation. 1. Promotion, 2. Membership vs non-membership.

At the risk of repeating myself ad meam nauseam, on this page alone, I've pointed out in this post, this post and this post that my problems with organized religion is that the latter is an exclusivist organization which propagates irrational and anti-social beliefs and which is interested primarily in itself as an end ("selfish"), and from all of these together, I conclude that they're not worthy of receiving tax benefits.

If somebody can show me a church which spends 90% or more of its turnover providing, without proselytization, charitable services like soup, sandwiches, sleeping bags etc (or, services to help rewire nuclear reactors ), then I will be the first to recommend that it receive "charitable" status.

Unfortunately, my understanding (from the limited stats that churches produce, and from what I know from personal experience) that most churches spend, at most between 5% and 10% on charitable services, with many spending significantly less . The remainder is spent on themselves and that's not charity.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

And how much of that church's turnover is dedicated to these good works? I'm assuming here, btw, that the food and hot drinks are handed out without asking the recipient's religion, and that there's no kerbside proselytizing of any kind.

How much of the revenue of Irish Skeptics is? :pac:

I have yet to see the issue with proselytism in secular sense as promotion.

I'll get around to the other post later!

Tim Robbins

Robin, you're acting like the way I have sometimes acted. Let it go.
Are you going to try and take over my acting career next?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

How much of the revenue of Irish Skeptics is?

The ISS isn't in the business of handing out tea and sandwiches to homeless people, though I do know people who've been to ISS talks who have been involved in things like the Dublin Simon and similar organizations (have you?).

And I can assure you that if the ISS did extend its remit in that direction, it would not consume more than 90% of its turnover in administrative overhead, then make a song and dance about spending the last few cents in each euro on a streetside "ministry" designed to take advantage of the needs of the sick, hungry, friendless and homeless (as I have seen religious organizations do).

Jakkass wrote: »

I have yet to see the issue with proselytism in secular sense as promotion.

I suspect you have yet to understand anything I've written.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Robin, you're acting like the way I have sometimes acted.

Good grief, I should hope not.

This mornings level of posting had far more to do with me being stuck alone in a hotel bedroom seven time zones east of Dublin, with a magnificent tropical downpour limiting my interest in sitting by the pool, sipping cocktails and making my way through back issues of the New Yorker.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The ISS isn't in the business of handing out tea and sandwiches to homeless people, though I do know people who've been to ISS talks who have been involved in things like the Dublin Simon and similar organizations (have you?).

And you're complaining because churches happen to partake in charitable activities part of the time? :pac:

robindch wrote: »

I suspect you have yet to understand anything I've written.Good grief, I should hope not.

No, just what you've written is nonsense. A good few other posters see it too.

eoin5

Whats the deal with something like the situation in NUI Maynooth. Its a shared campus between the seminary and the university. I wonder if theres lots of monies involved or if its done with agreements about upkeep and lecture sharing etc mostly?

philologos

eoin5 wrote: »

Whats the deal with something like the situation in NUI Maynooth. Its a shared campus between the seminary and the university. I wonder if theres lots of monies involved or if its done with agreements about upkeep and lecture sharing etc mostly?

As a student there it would be pretty intriguing to find out. NUI Maynooth is technically a secular university. Whereas St. Patricks College isn't. In practice it means a lot of overlap.

I study philosophy there and there is a big emphasis on RCC philosophy. For example we did a whole module on Thomas Aquinas which was interesting enough, but still a little focused for one philosopher.

Seaneh

robindch wrote: »

This mornings level of posting had far more to do with me being stuck alone in a hotel bedroom seven time zones east of Dublin, with a magnificent tropical downpour limiting my interest in sitting by the pool, sipping cocktails and making my way through back issues of the New Yorker.

Most people tend to spout incomprehensible ****e on boards while under the influence of alcohol. You are saying you are posting incomprehensible ****e on boards because you can't get drunk by a pool.

Takes all sorts I guess.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

And you're complaining because churches happen to partake in charitable activities part of the time?

No, I'm simply pointing out that they contribute little, but shout a lot - the prerogative of the fishwife.

Jakkass wrote: »

No, just what you've written is nonsense. A good few other posters see it too.

One or two other posters does not a "good few" make

Seaneh wrote: »

Most people tend to spout incomprehensible ****e on boards while under the influence of alcohol. You are saying you are posting incomprehensible ****e on boards because you can't get drunk by a pool.

Great comeback there, Seaneh! You really put my mind at rest about your religious service provider spending over 90% of its turnover padding its own nest! :rolleyes:

philologos

robindch wrote: »

No, I'm simply pointing out that they contribute little, but shout a lot - the prerogative of the fishwife.

Again absolute nonsense.

Why are Irish Skeptics any more deserving of tax-exemption?

1. You claim that promoting churches and indeed the Christian message through evangelistic means is "selfish" despite the fact that you promote your own events through Irish Skeptics.

2. You claim that Christianity is exclusivist despite the fact that all are free to partake in the churches if they want to, just like anyone can take part in Irish Skeptics events.

3. You claim that Christian churches don't do enough charity (and don't consider outreach to be a charitable thing - voiding much charitable work that is actually done. Besides I don't actually think it is selfish to let people know about Christianity should they want to consider it / and if the Christians are right bring them to salvation), however Irish Skeptics does no charity and yet receives a tax exemption.

4. Then you go on to say that because you find Christian belief irrational the State should tax it. AKA you want your own beliefs enshrined in law.

TBH with you PDN's idea is miles ahead of this and most people can see it too.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

Why are Irish Skeptics any more deserving of tax-exemption?

I guess the writers of the 2009 charities act struggled with the same question, their solution was to define the advancement of religion as a charitable act!

In the context of the Dialogue process with the Government, where we were assured of parity of esteem with religions, we were disappointed that the draft legislation did not give equality to Humanism as a belief system in the definition of charitable purposes with religions. Proposed amendments by the Labour Party which would have given such equality for the advancement of religion and the advancement of non-religious philosophical life stances or alternatively simply to Humanism were rejected by the Government. This was the first opportunity, since the Dialogue process started, for the promised parity of treatment to be delivered in legislative terms.

We have a similar concern in relation to the interpretation of tax legislation. In tax law there is no definition of the term “charity”. Arising from a 19th century court judgment four categories of charity are accepted. One of these categories covers “the advancement of religion”. The Revenue Commissioners have stated that the Courts have so interpreted the term religion so as to exclude an organization which, for example, is formed for the advancement of atheism. However, if equality of treatment with such organizations is to be achieved in accordance with 21st century principles, it appears to us that the Commissioners should interpret the law so as to provide a fifth category, namely one to cover organizations formed for the advancement of non-religious life stances. The issue is a fundamental one of equality of treatment of citizens and we are sceptical that any Court would restrict the Commissioners to the present scope.

http://www.humanism.ie/website/docs/EqualityForNon-ReligiousPamphlet.pdf

philologos

Read back and see PDN's suggestion which I largely agree with. There's no point posting unless you are to consider the thread as a whole rather than an isolated post amongst many.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Why are Irish Skeptics any more deserving of tax-exemption?'

I've already described this in detail so regularly and so grindingly that Tim Robbins, one of the forum's best detail-grinders himself, has rightly said that I've out-ground him!

I'm simply at a complete loss as to how to explain my point of view in any more grinding, exacting, clear, specific detail than I already have. Without being accused of being autistic or suffering from OCD anyway

I'll only respond to one point, since it only came up, was answered, and was misunderstood only once or twice.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. You claim that Christianity is exclusivist despite the fact that all are free to partake in the churches if they want to, just like anyone can take part in Irish Skeptics events.

In summary - I'm objecting to the religious requirement to classify people by religious belief since it creates ingroups and outgroups (if you are not familiar with these two concepts, then go look them up in a primer on psychology). Suffice it to say that it is a social tactic that is known to cause social problems -- see Jane Elliott's experiment for a simple, easily-understood demonstration of what happens when ingroups and outgroups are created. The Irish Skeptics do not set up ingroups and outgroups, nor do we claim that people who don't believe us are going to burn in a lake off sulfur for all eternity.

In detail - you will be aware that christianity prohibits people from being islamic or any other religion, and that islam prohibits people from being christian or any other religion. Same for judaism, shinto, buddhism and many other religions. We conclude that these religions will only let you belong to one belief-system at a time. The adjective for this is "exclusivist". The Irish Skeptics, on the other hand, do not require people to hold any particular beliefs, nor do we require members to abandon any beliefs that members wish to hold. Therefore, the ISS is not "exclusivist".

Exclusivism is known to cause problems in society at large, therefore there is a case to be made that organizations which promote exclusivism should not receive tax breaks from the state.

Can't say it simpler than that.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Exclusivism is known to cause problems in society at large, therefore there is a case to be made that organizations which promote exclusivism should not receive tax breaks from the state.

Can't say it simpler than that.

Or more subjectively.

Tim Robbins

Back to the OP.

The only way I see the state funds the Church is by paying religion teachers to teach their doctrine in school.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Answered each of these points individually including your false assertion that I am in favour of taxing these organizations "to the hilt" -- I am simply interested in seeing a level playing-field in which corporations are taxed equally if they are carrying out non-charitable work (and as I have said already, I do not consider "advancement of religion" to be charitable, for the reasons I've mentioned time and time again). Please check out previous pages in the thread.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps it should sell some of its worldwide art collection -- easily, I would imagine, the most valuable in the world.

PDN wrote: »

Or more subjectively.

Or objectively, if you're prepared to read, or even better, pay some attention to, the research carried out by people like Jane Elliott, whom I mentioned in case -- a shock foreseen! -- you might think that this was some subjective opinion.

Yet again guys, for people who build an entire worldview, and perhaps your entire working lives, on a presumed ability to interpret effusive, metaphorical prose written languages that none of you speak, you all show a shocking inability to comprehend unadorned, straightforward, explicit, plain, grindingly precise English :rolleyes:

<shakes head and goes for a beer>

.

robindch

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just a brief follow-up -- it's well-known that the Vatican is asset-rich, but cash-poor. Though one wouldn't guess that from some of the asset-lists released by the dying religious orders in Ireland who, on the advice of some of the country's top lawyers, asset-stripped themselves into private trusts which they generally then stuffed with sympathetic boards (the same religious orders, by and large and by co-incidence, who are party to the residential abuse "settlement" agreement with the last government but one).

Anyhow, as I mentioned previously somewhere, it's the protestant churches, generally the large evangelical ones, which turn over real money. While I don't have figures or even estimates for the size of the religious economy in Ireland, it does seem that the US's religious economy is valued at something northwards of one hundred and ten billion dollars per year.

Tax-free.

28064212

Robin, which category would you put each of these organisations into, taxed or tax-exempt:

• The RCC
• Childline
• ISS
• Vincent DePaul
• Samaritans
• Atheist Ireland
• CMJ Ireland
• The Jewish Church*

What would be your criteria in the law for tax-exempt status?

* I don't know how it's structured in Ireland, I'm assuming there's some kind of central body

JimiTime

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Back to the OP.

The only way I see the state funds the Church is by paying religion teachers to teach their doctrine in school.

Nice try Tim, but I don't think you're thread is coming back:)

robindch

28064212 wrote: »

What would be your criteria in the law for tax-exempt status?

It's quite simple really.

As I've pointed out several times, and pH has most recently, under current Irish tax law, a gift received for the purposes of the propagation of religion -- "advancement of religion" in the tax code -- is tax-free, once the gift is used in accordance with the tenets of that religion. This is specified in the Charities Act 2009, Section (3) on page 12:

http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a609.pdf

I'm very happy to see gifts received for other charitable purposes -- there's a good list on the following page -- used as described, but as far as I'm concerned the advancement of religion is not charitable for the reasons I've mentioned before.

Do you believe, for example, that designing, building and maintaining some of the largest buildings in the country, each one dedicated to nothing but themselves, their ideas and their heroes, is really as deserving of a tax break as, say, cancer research or child abuse recovery?

robindch

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would be interesting for your to post a percentage summary -- you don't need to include actual figures -- for how much cash is spent on each of the areas you mention above. With a clear definition of what each area includes and excludes, and a percentage for what else is spent, but not accounted for in the areas listed.