Before I even clicked to see the comments I knew this sentiment would be here. Why is it that anytime a news article is published about some org having a lot of money someone has to say something like this? They have a lot of money. So what? I’m also under the understanding everyone of their members has a years worth of food too. Kind of prescient with cironavirus running around? Full disclosure - I’m not a Mormon.
It's how they got the money (typically manipulation[0][1] and free-will donations) and how they spend the money (politics, for-profit ventures) [2][3].
The tiresome argument is that "organization I don't like has a lot of money... they should stop having a lot of money!"
There may be a plethora of valid reasons to dislike the organization, but it doesn't follow that they shouldn't have a lot of money unless you think nobody should have a lot of money.
And if that is your argument, you should also consider if that includes the US government. We are talking about organizations in this instance, not people.
What I would prefer to see is at least some honest respect for one's enemies. "They are my enemy, but they at least have the same rights as anyone else."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course the sentiment is here! Because it's reasonable!
Look, I got no problem with what people believe or how they pray. But 100 billion isn't needed for that so the purpose is??? Will it involve me? And the tax treatment complaint is also perfectly reasonable.
None of this is hatred for private property nor religion.
In my view I think you would say this also about Bill gates... who are you to define what is a reasonable amount?
I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” confiscation is not very sound or sustainable and probably worse policy than allowing churches to collect money tax free.
At the same time there are laws in the US at least about how charities must use their cash and if they’ve broken these laws it would be a very serious case for them.
Generally a “reasonable” discussion on HN would involve details of the case and further our understanding of the issue. But that really wasn’t on your mind was it... “My throwaway”?
Let's leave off the hostilities and spurious accusations please.
Your confiscation point is valid. I don't know that is an equitable solution because private people did pay into the program at one point.
I suppose what I'd like to see is religions limited to some multiple of working annual budget in assets. This avoids an entire set of perverse negative incentives.
Grandfather it in and prevent further investment or collections until the assets come back to the level specified.
Fair enough I enjoy my relative anonymity here too. The whistleblowers do allege that the profits from investing have not been charitably distributed. But the issue in my meager understanding is not the amounts, it’s whether lds is acting charitably in its totality and I believe that’s fairly undeniable even considering the other controversies mentioned above. But let’s see...
