|
In 2001, the Vatican reported a total income of $422 billion. Adjust that for expenses, and they still posted $8.5 billion in pure profit. Adjust that $422G for inflation (into 2010 dollars), and it would eat Luxembourg and Greece for breakfast.Even small countries in Europe have a vast income above and beyond what the Church does.
Luxembourg GDP $38.8 Billion
Greece 333.38 Billion, and they have financial issues.
That is the the Consolidated Financial Statement of the Holy See for fiscal year 2000. Not the Vatican. That would be like adding up every church expenditure in every different protestant church in every country of the world and claim it was all the same for the purposes of finances.
I have heard this Myth before
That is the the Consolidated Financial Statement of the Holy See for fiscal year 2000.
The Holy See is not, in essence, the government of the Catholic Church? (as an analogy) -- so
counting all the donations would be like, I don't know, counting all the tax revenue collected from each citizen in Greece (to use your earlier example)?|
|
That is the the Consolidated Financial Statement of the Holy See for fiscal year 2000.The Holy See is not, in essence, the government of the Catholic Church? (as an analogy) -- so
counting all the donations would be like, I don't know, counting all the tax revenue collected from each citizen in Greece (to use your earlier example)?
More like combining the combined Tax of Europe and the USA. Any so called profits are used on the local level to fund social programs such as this.
I had a longer post but it was ate. I have faith in your intelligence to be able to understand where I am getting at.
Regardless of whether Kirth or Crimson Jester is right (and it does matter), the fact remains that the Catholic Church (as a whole) is probably the single richest institution on the planet. Even if they are (as a whole) losing money. Which I doubt, but hey, I could be wrong. The Pope lives in a palace. He is a head of state, so I guess that's okay, right? But it does lead me to ask: how do you accumulate all of this stuff while you're doing good works, if you're not in it for the money? I don't ask this question to make fun of or denigrate the Catholic Church, or any other for that matter. I ask it because it seems suspect to me to have a man who lives in a palace surrounded by fine art and opulence lecture others on the virtues of poverty. Whether or not that palace is the Papal Apartments or some megachurch pastor's mansion is irrelevant.
A church has a right to own land and property. I am glad that they preserve artworks for future generations. Many cathedrals are beautiful works of art in their own right (modern churches, however, tend to be ugly in my opinion). Nor did I say that they should be taxed. I was merely positing that the monies gained from taxing the churches would offset the loss in charitable giving due to such a tax, if any such loss were indeed to take place, which I posit would be unlikely, given the nature of the donors.
As Crimson Jester said, if charitable giving is up, why is the Catholic Church losing money? Perhaps they are not paragons of efficiency, as compared to government. Indeed, unlike most other churches, they actually have their own country, and in a sense are a government. Again, not to dig on Catholics, just making a point.
Perhaps roadkill is a paragon of efficiency, as compared to government. $14,400,000,000 in the hole not including entitlements isn't exactly a rounding error.
Feel free to move the church/tax/money discussion to the Civil Religious Discussion Thread.
Hey BT:
I haven't had a chance to weigh in -- school has been crazy. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring you. :)
Hey BT:
I haven't had a chance to weigh in -- school has been crazy. I just wanted you to know I wasn't ignoring you. :)
Cool! :)
Ok, briefly my opinion is this:
I believe we're far too quick to proclaim compromise impossible. That said, it is true that some people cannot be compromised with; trying is futile. But why? Are they insane? A few perhaps, but I doubt most are clinically insane. Are they stupid? Again, some are, but most are not. So what's the difference?
In my opinion, it's ignorance. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of their own inherent rights as people, and of their own potential. The good news is that ignorance can be fixed. Perhaps not in a given individual, but the social constructs that perpetuate ignorance can be changed. And no, I don't mean government thought control. I mean ensuring that our society provides everyone with an equal opportunity to reach their potential. In my opinion, history has shown time and again that if we don't make a collective effort to maintain a level playing field, eventually there won't even be a game. That's why I view public education as one of the wisest investments a society can make.
K, back to work. :)
Ok, briefly my opinion is this:
I believe we're far too quick to proclaim compromise impossible. That said, it is true that some people cannot be compromised with; trying is futile. But why? Are they insane? A few perhaps, but I doubt most are clinically insane. Are they stupid? Again, some are, but most are not. So what's the difference?
In my opinion, it's ignorance. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of their own inherent rights as people, and of their own potential. The good news is that ignorance can be fixed. Perhaps not in a given individual, but the social constructs that perpetuate ignorance can be changed. And no, I don't mean government thought control. I mean ensuring that our society provides everyone with an equal opportunity to reach their potential. In my opinion, history has shown time and again that if we don't make a collective effort to maintain a level playing field, eventually there won't even be a game. That's why I view public education as one of the wisest investments a society can make.
K, back to work. :)
Thanks!
(What? Getting something useful done? Nay we must drag you in! ;)
I think it is pretty obvious just here in the Off-Topic Discussions section that some people are unwilling to review 'facts' or they interpret them differently. Maybe there is nothing we can do about that. However, we can guard against doing it ourselves.
I also believe if you better understand where the other side is coming from it can only help them understand your own position. That does not mean it is a guarantee.
I was reading this and I thought back to our example of Osama bin Laden. If we could truly understand Osama bin Laden's perspective and not dismiss it as 'he hates us because we are better than him' and, further, if we could help him achieve what it is he truly wants, perhaps we could make an ally out of an enemy.
This means we have to get to what he truly wants and assume it is not just to seize power. I can not help but wonder if 'seize power' is just our attempt to dismiss him instead of truly understanding where he is coming from. Could it be he just wants a better life for him and his? Could it be he commits the acts he does because he is fearful? If we could help him feel secure, would he change his ways?
I was reading this and I thought back to our example of Osama bin Laden. If we could truly understand Osama bin Laden's perspective and not dismiss it as 'he hates us because we are better than him' and, further, if we could help him achieve what it is he truly wants, perhaps we could make an ally out of an enemy.
This means we have to get to what he truly wants and assume it is not just to seize power. I can not help but wonder if 'seize power' is just our attempt to dismiss him instead of truly understanding where he is coming from. Could it be he just wants a better life for him and his? Could it be he commits the acts he does because he is fearful? If we could help him feel secure, would he change his ways?
I have always heard his major demand, besides the total destruction of the state of Israel, was just the US to keep its nose out of the Islamic world. I for one would not feel all that bad if we did so. At least to a point. Now where that line lies, well that is perhaps above my pay grade.
But is that, deep down, what he really wants? Does he wish for the destruction of Israel because he perceives it as a threat to Islam? I do not have answers here, just posing questions that come to mind.
Could it be a fear of change? That he does not want conservative Islam to give way to a moderate Islam. Let's face it, for disparate religions to peacefully co-exists, they do have to be moderate.
Not trying to start anything here, just offer some perspective, I see a few 3.5 fans still sniping at 4e. Why? Pathfinder should have wiped away any fears. Still, I believe there are some that would revel in the total destruction of 4e. Now apply this zeal for something important…like say politics or religion.
Maybe if we could just get Osama to play Pathfinder. :)
But is that, deep down, what he really wants? Does he wish for the destruction of Israel because he perceives it as a threat to Islam? I do not have answers here, just posing questions that come to mind.
Could it be a fear of change? That he does not want conservative Islam to give way to a moderate Islam. Let's face it, for disparate religions to peacefully co-exists, they do have to be moderate.
Not trying to start anything here, just offer some perspective, I see a few 3.5 fans still sniping at 4e. Why? Pathfinder should have wiped away any fears. Still, I believe there are some that would revel in the total destruction of 4e. Now apply this zeal for something important…like say politics or religion.
Maybe if we could just get Osama to play Pathfinder. :)
Good questions. I am guessing it comes from having more then once fight off foreign invaders from this land he now calls his home. He was exiled from Saudi from what I remember.
As time goes on I find that most of us fear change. You find very few older folks comfortable with computers for example. he is also in poor health and has been for sometime, I would guess that this would affect his outlook as well.
I wonder what would happen if we could have set down and explained things to him and even helped instill some level of trust with him say back in the Clinton or Bush 2.0 administrations? I am not sure it would have changed much but then again maybe the attacks on New York and our military vessels need not have happened.
It is hard to say really.
Bin Laden achieved his major demand in 2002: US forces by and large departed Saudi Arabia.
But that's not his only demand, and not all of his demands are remotely reasonable. I am especially disinclined to sign myself up for execution in order to sooth his ruffled feathers.
We cannot all just get along until we're all agreed on peaceful, equal coexistence. This is not even remotely forthcoming in far more secular states than those of the Arabian Peninsula.
But that's not his only demand, and not all of his demands are remotely reasonable.
I get this. I assume you give me the benefit of the doubt and do not believe I am suggesting we just throw down and give him whatever he wants. It is simply impractical.
But, as an academic exercise, do you think it possible, if we could truly understand his mind, and not just what he thinks he wants, and were practically capable of fulfilling his needs, he would become 'reasonable'?
Further, if we believe this possible, where do we draw the line at attempting it? Obviously, we can't just give everyone what they want. How deep do we have to go to get to what really drives an individual? How much do we have to give up to meet their needs? Is the end result, assuming it would be successful, worth the effort?
But that's not his only demand, and not all of his demands are remotely reasonable.I get this. I assume you give me the benefit of the doubt and do not believe I am suggesting we just throw down and give him whatever he wants. It is simply impractical.
And immoral. But sure, if there's something he wants that doesn't involve major atrocities I'm prepared to entertain the notion of giving it to him.
But, as an academic exercise, do you think it possible, if we could truly understand his mind, and not just what he thinks he wants, and were practically capable of fulfilling his needs, he would become 'reasonable'?
I think everyone would be quite reasonable if we could figure out a way to give everything they ever wanted. I mean, why wouldn't you be reasonable then?
Further, if we believe this possible, where do we draw the line at attempting it? Obviously, we can't just give everyone what they want. How deep do we have to go to get to what really drives an individual? How much do we have to give up to meet their needs? Is the end result, assuming it would be successful, worth the effort?
I'm a greatest good for the greatest many kind of guy. It's a pat answer, but as long as the costs of satisfying him are outweighed by the benefits of having him satisfied we may as well keep on going. But you're right that we can't just give everyone everything they want. The resources for it do not exist and satisfying even one person perfectly would surely require the efforts of many other people who probably would be more satisfied if they were the ones getting the royal treatment instead, leaving aside desires it would be unacceptable to accommodate regardless. So I guess the answer is "it depends".
So far as understanding what really drives a person, I'm afraid I don't think people are all that deep. Having a good idea of a person's upbringing and circumstances can tell you a very great deal about what drives him or her. Certainly people delude themselves. They are conflicted, irrational, inconstant. But we're products of our environment, whatever mix of acceptance and rejection thereof we happen to have. In that respect, people are easy to understand. It's true that there are individual variations, but I think these are very often oversold. We're more automaton than crazy random seizure machine.