Tax the Church-

welsh

Junkmaster
And not just the Catholic Church, tax all the churches.

I know that some of you might say, "that which you can tax, you can destroy."

Yeah, but I am saying, "fair is fair."

If churches are going to get into the game of politics and business, than they should pay the same consequences.

If churches are little more than PR people (clashing PR people who represent the same client) than they should pay taxes just like everyone else.

Churches as businesses

Jesus, CEO

Dec 20th 2005 | SOUTH BARRINGTON, ILLINOIS, HOUSTON, TEXAS AND WASHINGTON, DC
From The Economist print edition

America's most successful churches are modelling themselves on businesses

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck- it's a fucking duck.

VISIT Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, an upscale exurb of Chicago, and you are confronted with a puzzle. Where in God's name is the church? Willow Creek has every amenity you can imagine, from food courts to basketball courts, from cafes to video screens, not to mention enough parking spaces for around 4,000 cars. But look for steeples and stained glass, let alone crosses and altars, and you look in vain. Surely this is a slice of corporate America rather than religious America?

And why the fuck shouldn't these bastards pay taxes like the rest of us.

Or better yet, why don't the rest of us call ourselves churches and stop paying taxes.

The corporate theme is not just a matter of appearances. Willow Creek has a mission statement (“to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ”) and a management team, a seven-step strategy and a set of ten core values. The church employs two MBAs—one from Harvard and one from Stanford—and boasts a consulting arm. It has even been given the ultimate business accolade: it is the subject of a Harvard Business School case-study.

But does it pay taxes? Fuck no.

Willow Creek is just one of a growing number of evangelical

More proof that the Evengelicals are full of shit.

churches that borrow techniques from the corporate world. Forget those local worthies who help with the vicar's coffee mornings and arrange flowers. American churches have started dubbing their senior functionaries CEOs and COOs. (North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Georgia, even has a director of service programming. Can Chief Theological Officers be far behind?) And forget about parish meetings in which people bat about random ideas on how to keep the church going. America is spawning an industry of faith-based consultancies. John Jackson, the senior pastor of Carson Valley Christian Centre, a “high-impact” church in Minden, Nevada, has taken to describing himself as a “PastorPreneur” and has published a book with that title.

This is a dangerous business. It was the Catholic Churches ownership of land and mucking about in politics that got it in trouble. Buddhist monestaries suffered similiar problems when they got into the agriculture/agriculture business.

If you play business, you pay business. It doesn't fucking matter that the client, at the end of the day, is God.

Tell that to an athiest.

Willow Creek is based on the same principle as all successful businesses: putting the customer first.

Unless they happen to be Catholics, Jews, or Muslims.

Buddhist monks are personal non grata.

Back in 1975 the church's founder, Bill Hybels, conducted an informal survey of suburban Chicagoans, asking them why they did not go to church, and then crafted his services accordingly. He removed overtly religious images such as the cross and stained glass. He jazzed up services with videos, drama and contemporary music. And he tried to address people's practical problems in his sermons.

Remarkable how all that- charity to the poor, meek shall inherit the earth, golden rule stuff gets tossed out for wide screen TVs, video advertisement and cool tunes.

Evengelicals= salemen.

Because goos salesmen make bigger profits.

By the way, Campus Ministries works on a similar business model.

An emphasis on user-friendliness continues to pervade the church. Mr Hybels's staff try to view their church through the eyes of newcomers (or “seekers” as they are dubbed). This means dedicating themselves to “total service excellence”. The grounds—“the path of first impressions”—are kept impeccably, with the lawns mown and the car park perfectly organised. It means being welcoming without being over-the-top (“evangophobia” is a big worry). And it means having lots of “hooks” that help to attach seekers to the church.

But what they really need is a drive-through window. Perhaps get a side of Jesus Fries with your Holy Burger?

Willow Creek has dozens of affinity groups for everyone from motor-cycle enthusiasts to weight-watchers. The church provides social services, from counselling for drunks and sex-addicts to providing help with transport. It has a “cars ministry” which repairs donated vehicles and gives them to needy people. “Cars”, of course, stands for “Christian auto-repairmen serving”. The church also lays on entertainment, from sports to video-areas.

Ok so am I being too harsh. One's church can both do work for the needy and do tailgate for the nearest football game?

Willow Creek is particularly careful to ensure that everything is suitably tailored for different age-groups. The church provides child-care for thousands of children every weekend: this started out as a necessity (parents will not come if their children are not taken care of) but has become a hook in its own right (parents can relax at the service while children are royally entertained). The church also has a youth auditorium. Willow Creek's adolescent members have taken over a hall, tearing up the carpet to expose the concrete floors, painting the whole thing black and littering video-screens all over the place.

Is it a church or a disco?
Why is this question even asked?
Mr Hybels's emphasis on user-friendliness is now commonplace in the Evangelical world. Rick Warren is a fifth-generation Southern Baptist who was raised in a faith that is both austere and emotional. But when he moved to Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Southern California, he realised that Baptist staples like altar calls—in which worshippers come to the front of the church and accept Jesus—would not go down well with his prosperous and laid-back congregation. So he packaged himself as a relaxed Californian: bearded and open-shirted, he served up a diet of contemporary music and self-help tips.

In their pursuit of “total service excellence” America's pastorpreneurs do not just preach on Sundays and deal with the traditional “hatch, match and dispatch” rites of passage. They keep their buildings open seven days a week, from dawn to dusk, and deliver a truly catholic array of services. Some mega-church complexes house banks, pharmacies and schools. Counselling and guidance groups are routine. So are children's ministries.

It's all in one, under a banner of heaven!

The Second Baptist Church, in Houston, Texas, has a huge football pitch. The Phoenix First Assembly of God has a medical-equipment lending closet. The World Changers Ministry in Georgia offers help preparing for tests, filling out tax forms and buying houses (it even has a network of mortgage brokers and real-estate agents). Lakewood Church, also in Houston, puts on one of its Sunday services en español. Carson Valley Christian Centre (motto: “friends helping friends follow Christ”) offered sermons on how to slay the “Goliaths” of procrastination, resentment, anxiety, temptation and loneliness. It also offers classes in martial arts: “the Christian warrior way”.

Kung FU Christians!
Maybe W will get his crusade yet.


This emphasis on customer-service is producing a predictable result: growth. John Vaughan, a consultant who specialises in mega-churches, argues that 2005 has been a landmark year. This was the first time an American church passed the 30,000-a-week attendance mark (it was Lakewood, which earlier this year moved into its new home in Houston's Compaq Center). It was also the first time that 1,000 churches counted as mega-churches (broadly, you qualify if 2,000 or more people attend). Willow Creek has seating for 7,200 (comfortable chairs, not wooden pews). The fastest-growing church in the country, Without Walls in Tampa, Florida, added 4,330 new members in the past year alone.

This sort of rapid growth brings all sorts of advantages. The most obvious is that it lets churches put on extravaganzas. Willow Creek regularly invites celebrities such as Randy Travis, a country singer, or Lisa Beamer, the widow of Todd Beamer (a hero on one of the hijacked aircraft on September 11th). Lakewood has a 500-strong choir. Westlink Christian Church put on an outdoor display of extreme sports that includes skate-boarders jumping over a fire to illustrate salvation.

Growth also allows pastorpreneurs—empowered by a combination of large cash flows and economies of scale—to exploit every available channel to get their message across. Joel Osteen, the chief pastor of Lakewood, has a television-ministry, which reaches 7m people around the world, and a best-selling book, “Your Best Life Now”. Rick Warren's “The Purpose-Driven Life” has sold more than 25m copies and spawned a follow-up industry of books, tapes, courses and CDs, including a selection of songs. Bishop T.D. Jakes, the chief pastor of The Potters House, reaches 260 prisons a week via satellite.

Most successful churches are humming with technology. Willow Creek sports four video-editing suites. World Changers Ministries has a music studio and a record label. The Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, employs a chief technology officer (and spends 15% of its $30m annual budget on technology). Worshippers in such churches do not have to worry about finding their place in the hymn book or that they will catch cold. Computers project the words of the hymns onto huge screens, and the temperature is perfectly controlled.

But this rapid growth brings problems in its wake too—problems that usually end up forcing churches to become yet more business-like and management-obsessed. The most obvious challenge is managing size. You cannot just muddle through if you have an annual income of $55m (like Lakewood in 2004) or employ 450 full- and part-time staff (like Willow Creek). Such establishments need to set up a management structure with finance departments and even human-resources departments. They also need to start thinking—like Mr Hybels—about the relationship between the religious leadership and the management team.

Another problem is subtler: how do you speak directly to individual parishioners when you have a church the size of a stadium? Some mega-churches have begun to see members drift away in search of more intimate organisations. And many mega-preachers worry that they are producing a flock who regard religion as nothing more than spectacle. So they have begun to adopt techniques that allow churches to be both big and small at once.

One ruse is to break the congregation into small groups. Most big churches ask members of their congregation to join clutches of eight-to-ten people with something in common (age or marital status, for example). A second is to segment the religious market. Willow Creek has two very different services. The Sunday one for new “seekers” is designed to exhibit the Christian faith in a “relevant and non-threatening way”. Willow Creek estimates that over half of the people who come to its Sunday services would otherwise be “unchurched”. The Wednesday service for people who are committed to Christianity is designed to deepen their faith.

A third technique is to set up satellite churches—a form of religious franchising. Willow Creek has set up several satellite churches in the Chicago area so that nobody has to travel more than 50 miles. Life Church has franchised five campuses in Oklahoma, two in Arizona and one in Texas.

Growth in religious organisations is proving just as addictive as it is in corporate ones, and successful churches are reaching deep into business theory to feed their habit. They use strategic planning and strategic “visions” to make sure they know where they are headed.

These pastorpreneurs are committed not just to applying good management techniques to their own organisations but also to spreading them to others. This is, after all, the world of evangelism. Willow Creek has a consulting arm, the Willow Creek Association, that has more than 11,500 member churches. It puts on leadership events for more than 100,000 people a year (guest speakers have included Jim Collins, a business guru, and Bill Clinton) and earns almost $20m a year. Rick Warren likens his “purpose-driven formula” to an Intel operating chip that can be inserted into the motherboard of any church—and points out that there are more than 30,000 “purpose-driven” churches. Mr Warren has also set up a website, pastors.com, that gives 100,000 pastors access to e-mail forums, prayer sites and pre-cooked sermons, including over 20-years-worth of Mr Warren's own.

Is this religion or Walmart.

Indeed, in a nice reversal businesses have also started to learn from the churches. The late Peter Drucker pointed out that these churches have several lessons to teach mainline businesses. They are excellent at motivating their employees and volunteers, and at transforming volunteers from well-meaning amateurs into disciplined professionals. The best churches (like some of the most notorious cults) have discovered the secret of low-cost and self-sustaining growth: transforming seekers into evangelicals who will then go out and recruit more seekers.

The Lord helps those who help themselves
There is no shortage of criticisms of these fast-growing churches. One is that they represent the Disneyfication of religion. Forget about the agony and ecstasy of faith. Willow Creek and its sort are said to serve up nothing more challenging than Christianity Lite— a bland and sanitised creed that is about as dramatic as the average shopping mall.

Another criticism is that these churches are not really in the religion business but in the self-help trade. Mr Osteen and his equivalents preach reassuring sermons to “victors not victims”, who can learn to be “rich, healthy and trouble free”. God, after all, “wants you to achieve your personal best”. The result is a wash: rather than making America more Christian, the mega-churches have simply succeeded in making Christianity more American.

Moreover, it is a wash that is extraordinary good for the pastorpreneurs themselves, who prosper by preaching the gospel of prosperity. The wonderfully named Creflo Dollar, chief pastor of World Changers Church International in Georgia, drives a Rolls-Royce and travels in a Gulfstream jet. Joyce Meyer, who promises that God rewards people with his blessings, counts among her own blessings a $2m home and a $10m jet.

Yet three things can be said in the mega-churches' defence. The first is that they are simply responding to demand. Their target audience consists of baby-boomers who left the church in adolescence, who do not feel comfortable with overt displays of religiosity, who dread turning into their parents, and who apply the same consumerist mentality to spiritual life as they do to everything else. The mega-churches are using the tools of American society to spread religion where it would not otherwise exist.

The second line of defence is that they are simply adding to a menu of choices. There is no shortage of churches that offer more traditional fare—from Greek Orthodox to conservative Catholic. The third defence is more subtle: these churches are much less Disneyfied than they appear. They may be soft on the surface, but they are hard on the inside. The people at Lakewood believe that “the entire Bible is inspired by God, without error”. Cuddly old Rick Warren believes that “heaven and hell are real places” and that “Jesus is coming again”. You may start out in the figurative hell of a Disney theme-park, but you end up with the real thing.

The other common criticisms of the mega-churches—and the marriage of religion and business that they embody—are practical. One is that the mega-churches are a passing fad, doomed to be destroyed by a combination of elephantiasis and scandal. Another is that they are an idiosyncratic product of red-state America: amusing to look at, but irrelevant to the rest of the world. Again, neither argument is entirely convincing.

The marriage of religion and business has deep roots in American history. Itinerant Methodist preachers from Francis Asbury (1745-1816) onwards addressed camp meetings of thousands of people, and often borrowed marketing techniques from business. Aimee Semple McPherson, one of America's first radio Evangelists, built a church for 5,300 people in Los Angeles in 1923. (She had none of Mr Hybels's worries about religious symbolism: she topped her church with an illuminated rotating cross that could be seen 50 miles away.) And the gospel of self-help and prosperity is as American as apple pie. In his 1925 bestseller, “The Man Nobody Knows”, Bruce Barton, an adman turned evangelist, pictured Jesus as a savvy executive who “picked up twelve men from the bottom ranks of business and forged them into an organisation that conquered the world”. His parables were “the most powerful advertisements of all time”.

The mega-churches are also on the march well beyond red-state America. America has an impressive track record of exporting its religious innovations. Pentecostalism, which was invented in a Kansas bible college in 1901, currently has well over 100m adherents around the world. Even Mormonism, that most idiosyncratically American of religious faiths, has 6.7m followers outside the United States. There is no reason to think that the latest style of marriage between religion and business is an exception. Rick Warren has inserted his “purpose-driven operating chip” into churches in 120 countries around the world. He and his congregation have also set themselves the goal of eradicating poverty in Africa. The Willow Creek Association has 4,700 member churches abroad; a meeting in the staid English town of Cheltenham recently attracted almost 3,000 people. The merger between business and religion has been fabulously successful in America. Now it is starting to do battle with the “evangephobia” that marks so much of the rest of the world


And so the next wave of American Imperialism?

Fuck this. Tax the bastards.

If it walks like a business, and talks like a business, if it makes profit like a business-
then tax it like a business.
 
Because...

The churches figured out that if they own the politicans they don't have to fear the politicans.

And if they don't have to fear the politicians then they can make their fortune from their sheep.

Lovely business, church.

Tax the fuckers.
 
Again: you can bitch all you want but you know it's impossible.

And Chruches do not hold any more political power then thinktanks or motherfucking celebrities, and I'd be inclined to give far more power to Reverand Jimmy H. Adams then Barbra Streisand.

This is a dangerous business. It was the Catholic Churches ownership of land and mucking about in politics that got it in trouble.

They also happened to save Europe from total illiteracy and loss of classical heritage.
 
I doubt it, John.

Remember, think tanks serve clients and are often paid for their services.

Celebrities probably make less money than churches.
Yet at least celebrities pay taxes.

ANd there isn't much difference between Barbara Streisand and a Televengelist- except that Barbara usually only puts on one or two specials a year and pays taxes, while the Televengelist is on every day and pays no taxes.

Don't get me wrong, I like being Catholic, but I don't want my church selling burgers or running a Christian Disco. I'd like to keep my churches honest and in the business of religion, not in the religion of business.
 
American "religion" is mostly based on making people rich anyway.

If I'd have a penis for every church that was founded in the "New World" to make its founders rich, I'd be casted for live action tentacle porn ten times over.
 
Welsh said:
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck- it's a fucking duck.

Not rly, it can be the new Polish president.

No, wait...


[ontopic] I think Pat Robertson-style businesses should be heavily taxed. In fact, I think Pat Robertson-like "evangelists" should be shot and their bodies dumped in a river, but let's stay on topic:

http://www.petchurch.org/home.html

Man. How evil does it get?
 
You're comparing churches to think tanks and celebrities but you should be comparing them to law firms that specialise in lobbying.

Churches should be taxed. Severely.
 
Tax 'em, I say. Tax 'em all. But if I ran the country every individual and organization would pay a 10% tax, no exceptions, no loopholes, no deductions whatsoever. Tax brackets separate us to make it easier for the politicians to "divide and conquer". If everyone's taxes were tied together, people would vote more sensibly. Lots of people now don't pay taxes but do vote. How can they be expected to vote sensibly about taxes they don't pay? How can the poor be expected to decide taxes for the rich, or vice versa. Nobody should get out of it, there should be no exemptions whatsoever.
 
John Uskglass said:
I think Pat Robertson-like "evangelists" should be shot and their bodies dumped in a river,
Go off and join the Khmer Rouge then, you radical idiot.

CCR, I would like to know why religion is automatically associated with 'good' in your mind rather than as a neutral concept. Why does the ability to believe or disbelieve in an afterlife, a divinity, etc affect in any way a person's actual ideals? Or is religion solely about fear of God making us behave?

As for being radical...why hell, I look only to esteemed Jack Chick and the like to tell me about being normal, yes? God hates homos, Muslims worship the moon, the poor deserve what they get, Jesus said to fuck over your neighbor, etc?

I mean, religion to me is about having a damn 'choice' in the matter. In between the pages detailing the benefits of slavery, putting the sword to so and so, slicing foreskins and pillars of salt, you basically have a HIPPIE going around saying you should be nice to people. What a fucking novel concept.
 
John Uskglass said:
And Chruches do not hold any more political power then thinktanks or motherfucking celebrities

This is perhaps the most unbelievably retarded comment ever said in regards to sociology and political structure.

Unless you're talking about Ronald Reagan, and then I'll agree that celebrities in power are far more damaging than anything else. He's also the only case of where your argument has the slightest bit of connection with reality. He also can't condemn your eternal soul to hell like the church, except for the part where he tried to send this entire country to hell, and that was just trying to speed up the process. Elvis, likewise, has no ability to clean your soul with cash offerings.

Apparently you also missed the Church of England, and the sway the various churched has have over governments like Italy, England, Spain...hell, pretty much all of Europe over centuries of proof, and it is rather hard to miss the political influence of the churches even today.

and I'd be inclined to give far more power to Reverand Jimmy H. Adams then Barbra Streisand.

Sorry, I don't know whom Reverend Jimmy H. Adams, but I can only guess that in the context used that he is just another piece of shit evangelist.

The difference is, one of the above has use to this world as entertainment for homosexuals, while the other makes cash off of abusing the teachings of the Bible, as does EVERY evangelist. They rouse people into giving them cash over denigrating others and for feeling good along with the other sheep in the congregation, but they really don't see what their money is truly going to.

Well, except for the Armani suits these assholes are wearing.

They also happened to save Europe from total illiteracy and loss of classical heritage.

That is perhaps the most warped view of what happened in regards to the church that I have ever seen. Yeah, they preserved literacy and heritage, by putting it solely in the church and king's hands.

No, they purposefully kept the people ignorant because it served their needs and the needs of the king, and you can't quite get everyone's attention and control over them when there are people bright enough to figure out the plot holes in the bible, or for that matter, how the then current incarnation of the church or the "God-appointed ruler" was not following the teachings of Christ in any form whatsoever.

Fireblade said:
I mean, religion to me is about having a damn 'choice' in the matter. In between the pages detailing the benefits of slavery, putting the sword to so and so, slicing foreskins and pillars of salt, you basically have a HIPPIE going around saying you should be nice to people. What a fucking novel concept.

Too bad the concept remains just in the novel.

Yeah, just don't try to tell the televangelists any of this, as they love their God-given right to hate and act derogratory to those they don't like, to selfishly try and further their own petty means to buy that new car for their next charity parade they take a healthy salary from. :D
 
Robot Santa said:
Fireblade said:
I mean, religion to me is about having a damn 'choice' in the matter. In between the pages detailing the benefits of slavery, putting the sword to so and so, slicing foreskins and pillars of salt, you basically have a HIPPIE going around saying you should be nice to people. What a fucking novel concept.

Too bad the concept remains just in the novel.

Yeah, just don't try to tell the televangelists any of this, as they love their God-given right to hate and act derogratory to those they don't like, to selfishly try and further their own petty means to buy that new car for their next charity parade they take a healthy salary from. :D

Well, I am very hesitant to try to create a connection between believing in an afterlife and somehow being less critical of thinking in *any* form. Why does the peculiar belief that some other principle ordered the universe besides chance so mindboggingly complex as to justify the most heinous of crimes committed? Is idealism the culprit then, the flipside being zealotry and intolerance?

I don't think the problem with believing in whatever spiritual beliefs you have is what causes this. I follow more in the line of deistic thought and I never saw it as contradictory to believe in a higher principle and remain a decent human being. I think the problem is the primordial tendency to try to categorize people. Human beings have a nasty habit of wanting to spontaneously delineate things into groups to make it easier to understand. It is easier than having to think, surely.

In the end, I agree that chruches should be taxed. Since charitable work is tax deductable in the USA, the excuse that churches need to be tax exempt in and of themselves is rather flawed. They are exempt because they nominally are supposed to do good works. if they are doing good works, then they wouldn't have any godamn money that was taxable, would they?
 
Fireblade said:
Well, I am very hesitant to try to create a connection between believing in an afterlife and somehow being less critical of thinking in *any* form.

The same, here, though when it gets to the point of religious dogma or anything else without a brain involved, then you just have to wonder why these people can't even understand the damn Bible themself. They have the capability to read, so what gives? Is it the rest of the herd mooing the same contrary lines to the scripture and teachings, that the teachings come second? I think we're onto something, something that ties in heavily with how the human mind categorizes differences and xenophobia. Who really wants to be the black sheep of the flock that points out that the scriptures say "four feet good", not "two feet better"?

Why does the peculiar belief that some other principle ordered the universe besides chance so mindboggingly complex as to justify the most heinous of crimes committed? Is idealism the culprit then, the flipside being zealotry and intolerance?

Or, better yet, try to rationalize the mentality that someone would preach peace and compassion, and some people would take that to make money from inciting people into doing the exact opposite, and others would find it perfectly okay. Yeah, it's been something I have been musing about for years.

I don't think the problem with believing in whatever spiritual beliefs you have is what causes this. I follow more in the line of deistic thought and I never saw it as contradictory to believe in a higher principle and remain a decent human being.

Bingo! This was a major somewhat secret aspect of Ultima (more like a deep philosophy that becomes apparent with time). There are many different people in the Ultima world, some with their own sets of virtues, including the demon-like Gargoyles and Mandrake the Bard. Each virtue or principle set had a set of moral guidelines and definitions towards what the people are trying to strive for. The entire point was to live your life in harmony with others, and to live your life to the fullest and to your potential. This isn't to say that Ultima didn't have its fair share of bigotry and hatred, by two people who have had similar ideas but found xenophobia by both races to get in the way and cause more problems than anything previously.

One good point is that earlier in the series (Ultima V) Lord Blackthorn came about to show that such teachings can be perverted, much like the Church circa ~1000 A.D.

I think the problem is the primordial tendency to try to categorize people. Human beings have a nasty habit of wanting to spontaneously delineate things into groups to make it easier to understand. It is easier than having to think, surely.

Xenophobia and "not part of the herd" mentalities are something that pervades the human mind, to a level of causing fear in the subject, and only intelligence/wisdom to understand the views of others different than yourself is the only way to surpass this, to put yourself behind their eyes. There really isn't any other way.

It is a pity most humans are hopelessly uneducated and unenlightened, even within the belief structure they currently pay a subscription to.

In the end, I agree that chruches should be taxed. Since charitable work is tax deductable in the USA, the excuse that churches need to be tax exempt in and of themselves is rather flawed. They are exempt because they nominally are supposed to do good works. if they are doing good works, then they wouldn't have any godamn money that was taxable, would they?

Agreed in full. Non-profit is non-profit, and they have been making a profit. Churches were only accorded the tax break due to charitable work and because they inherently were not for profit.

If anything now, since the churches want to abuse the break given to them, they should pay taxes and only be tax exempt for the amount used for charitable work. It is only fair, and it's what the rest of us have to pay. Screw this "special citizen" crap.
 
John Uskglass said:
And Chruches do not hold any more political power then thinktanks or motherfucking celebrities
Uh huh, does the President claim to follow the word and lessons of a celebrity? bah

And new sig!
 
The result is a wash: rather than making America more Christian, the mega-churches have simply succeeded in making Christianity more American.

probably my favorite line in the whole article. I thought this was a great read. Really showed an interesting light on the trend that evangelical groups are taking.

but aye... keep on discussing, i'm just poking my head in.
 
Apparently you also missed the Church of England, and the sway the various churched has have over governments like Italy, England, Spain...hell, pretty much all of Europe over centuries of proof, and it is rather hard to miss the political influence of the churches even today.
I said Churches not "the Church". This topic is clearly in regards to the power of 'evangelical' churches.

The thing about evangelical churches is that there is absolutely NO central organization, no overriding universal agenda and generally their ideology differs from Church to Church.

Now, given, Southern Baptists may have an agenda, but they are a minority, and even among the SB there is a division between political tenancies.

Thing is, this *might* be a problem in American society if a single, monstrous Church decided it wanted to make a grab for power, but guess what, THAT AIN'T HAPPENIN. People choose to attend Churches with ideological tendencies just like people choose to buy Fahrenheit 9/11 on DVD, and no massive CONSPIRACY is attempting to brainwash people into believing anything.*

*Other then the Good News.

Sorry, I don't know whom Reverend Jimmy H. Adams, but I can only guess that in the context used that he is just another piece of shit evangelist.
He does not exist, just made up the name as an example.

But it still stands: I'd trust a man of the Cloth rather then a Celebrity in terms of politics any day, for the simple reason that one requires education and a certain amount of connection with the real world.

The difference is, one of the above has use to this world as entertainment for homosexuals,
So does that make Unitarian churches the worst of both worlds?

while the other makes cash off of abusing the teachings of the Bible, as does EVERY evangelist.
To be fair, the only word I disagree with in that sentence is 'every', but I still don't see why they are worse then celebrities.

They rouse people into giving them cash over denigrating others and for feeling good along with the other sheep in the congregation, but they really don't see what their money is truly going to.
No, they don't, and I largely agree, even if I do think some evangelists occasionally do do good.

Yeah, they preserved literacy and heritage, by putting it solely in the church and king's hands.
Do Frankish peasants just magically become literate without the oppression of Carlemagne and the Catholic Church? Have any chipper ideas on how the Feudal structure of society was not required in premodern Europe to maintain stability and growth while at the same time preserving precious learning of the ancients?

Ich don't think zo.

No, they purposefully kept the people ignorant because it served their needs and the needs of the king, and you can't quite get everyone's attention and control over them when there are people bright enough to figure out the plot holes in the bible, or for that matter, how the then current incarnation of the church or the "God-appointed ruler" was not following the teachings of Christ in any form whatsoever.
Congratulation! Wow, you should really tell the world this stuff! Why don't you nail your Theses to the door of Castle Church!

Stability is required for growth, and growth through that time lead to the modern age. Many people tried alternatives to the Feudal system, such as Wat Tyler, Angelo da Clareno, the Bogomils, the Cathars, but they fucked up. Medieval society evolved on it's own, and the Church did prove to be a source of stability during that age.

Look, guys, you may think this all sounds cute and funny, and that in spite of every lesson of the post-1789 world that religion is somehow not essential to society or is some kind of moneymaking scheme, but this is not going to happen, and you will all have to get past that.
 
CCR said:
But it still stands: I'd trust a man of the Cloth rather then a Celebrity in terms of politics any day, for the simple reason that one requires education and a certain amount of connection with the real world.

Comedy gold.

Do Frankish peasants just magically become literate without the oppression of Carlemagne ...blahblahblah

FYI, "peasants" didn't become educated until the Industrial Revolution. The only people able to read and write back then was the clergy, much like in ancient Egypt. Hell, I don' think Charlemagne was able to read or write, either; nor most of the middle-ages' nobility. As pointed out before, it pays off to have uneducated gullible masses.

Anyways. Newsflash, Europe got over the feudal system some time ago. Its methods, while understandable at the time, have absolutely no place in modern society.

Look, guys, you may think this all sounds cute and funny, and that in spite of every lesson of the post-1789 world that religion is somehow not essential to society or is some kind of moneymaking scheme, but this is not going to happen, and you will all have to get past that.

What you fail to grasp is that most of the posts here highliten the abuses of religion in society thourough the ages. Nobody's saying that religion isn't something important for society, just pointing out the dangers of flock mentality which always lead to misery.

Go off and join the Khmer Rouge then, you radical idiot.

It doesn't take the Khmer Rouge to despise ass-evangelists such as Pat Robertson, masters in building hyperstructures of power and fear with old ladies' checks. If you don't see what's wrong with this man's actions, juxtaposed with Christ's teachings, you can't evin begin to claim you understood anything in the Bible.

If Pat Robertson is Christian, then I am Captain Kirk. Hell, most "Churches" in the states are based on bucolically stupid fundaments, reading the Word Of God out of a hat, to name one.
 
Back
Top