This is absolutely no surprise: a newspaper article reports that church-based scams are costing the country big bucks.
Between 1984 and 1989, about $450 million was stolen in religion-related scams, the association says. In its latest count — from 1998 to 2001 — the toll had risen to $2 billion. Rip-offs have only become more common since.
Small potatoes. They're only counting rip-offs like Ponzi schemes and other non-religious con games. I'm sure that what people willingly toss into collection plates adds up to a far larger act of wholesale robbery; a clerical collar is just a genteel swindler's uniform.
- Log in to post comments
Just for yucks... anyone know how much money the "Religion Industry" takes in a year? I mean, if it were a taxable business... This is a segment of the economy, I'm betting a very large one.
How much? I'm talking churches, tv shows, publishing, bible sales, veggie tales videos... the whole sector of the economy.
I just feel like it would be an eye-opening statistic. How much money does it take to buy Salvation?
I have been wondering if a class action lawsuit could be filed against each of the major religions for fraud. Seriously. I think the case is pretty easy to make. Why is it that con men who separate fools from their cash by promising something they cannot deliver are commiting a crime while priests/mullahs/clerics of all kinds are doing the same thing and are granted tax exempt status?
What the heck, let's note the return of Melinda Barton. She names names in support of her article this time, including dangerous extremists Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.
It's kind of sad.
The holy communion scam: Eat me! Now fork it over!
a clerical collar is just a genteel swindler's uniform.
Of course, a Ph. D is simply another way of saying, "I went to school way more than you, now hand over your tuition dollars."
Same Swindle, Different Day.
Of course, a Ph. D is simply another way of saying, "I went to school way more than you, now hand over your tuition dollars."
Yeah, someone should put a stop to that book learning that made all those computers possible.
The Ph.D. not only went to school a lot. They listened while there.
...
...
Siamang, think about THIS: As you drive around your home city, start taking conscious note of all the churches you see. You have to really work at it initially, but once you get tuned in, you'll be amazed at the HUGE number of them. Even tiny towns are apt to have a handful of "houses of worship," and they're everything from small storefront operations to huge castles with soaring stoneworks.
Far as I know, none of them pay property taxes. Considering that they enjoy the same or higher levels of police and fire protection, etc., someone else is stuck with their bill. Not to mention all the lost revenue from those large buildings, many of them occupying prime real estate in the city center.
Essentially, for the purposes of taxation, churches are treated as if they are government buildings.
Additionally, they get special favors in a lot of other government departments. For instance, churches can hold bake sales, barbecues, etc., and nobody ever thinks about requiring them to have health inspectors over to examine their food preparation premises, or tax collectors over to demand the percentage the rest of us would be required to pay.
Plus, as we all know, some of their staffers have apparently been getting away with molesting kids for ... decades? hundreds of years? millennia? ... and it's only recently that they've stopped being able to hush that up.
...
...
Of course, a Ph. D is simply another way of saying, "I went to school way more than you, now hand over your tuition dollars."
And we all know how postdoctoral fellowships are the next best thing to owning an orchard of money-trees... can you say 35K-40K per year after 8-10 years of college??? And after you haul in that pot of gold, you can progress to the next level of obscene wealth (if you are *really* lucky), the (non-tenured) ....drum roll.... assistant professorship!!!
Hey Dr. Myers, tell us about that blinged-out Cadillac Escalade that you impress all your students with.....
About that PhD thing....I got one, and I grew up with two people who have them. I work with several people who have one. I'm under no illusions about either the special powers of people who have them or about the process of getting one. Anyone without serious learning disabilities who is willing to do the work can get one. A PhD and $5 will get you a latte at Starbucks. That said...there is a big difference between the university swindle and the religious swindle. We profs have to at least on occasion put our claims up to empirical tests. The priests, pastors, and monks never have to show any empirical proof for anything they claim. It is an enormous distinction.
See Italian Lawyers Asked to Prove Jesus Existed from January of this year.
How much money does it take to buy Salvation?
Thirty Dollars.
The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.
I guess money donated to secular interests never gets wasted or misallocated.
PZ Meyers is getting so f*#king predictable. I used to like pharyngula.
Of course, a Ph. D is simply another way of saying, "I went to school way more than you, now hand over your tuition dollars."
Same Swindle, Different Day.
Except the guy with the PhD is actually has to know something.
>> Except the guy with the PhD is actually has to know something. <<
Like how to get funding.
Or how to get tenure at a small-town teaching-oriented liberal arts college without publishing much.
Or how to get tenure at a small-town teaching-oriented liberal arts college without publishing much.
Bitter about something?
Careful, you're starting to sound like Jason.
Sorry, but I've been saying this for years...
All religion is blackmail.
Incidentally, does anyone know anything about the finances of a USA-based group of "churches" called, among other things "The Potters House"?
They are over here, all registered as separate "churches" with separate charitable staus, and we're sure its' a scam, but proving it is a different matter, bacause they move the money around .....
Of course, a Ph. D is simply another way of saying, "I went to school way more than you, now hand over your tuition dollars."
Same Swindle, Different Day.
I can only assume that you'd rather be taught by people who didn't go to school. Or that you think professors should work for free.
Which is it, incidentally?
"I guess money donated to secular interests never gets wasted or misallocated."
I think the point is that secular authorities rarely claim to be the font of all ethical and goodly behaviour the way that religions tend to do. It's the breathtaking gap between image and reality that's the issue.
And wasn't there that thing in the bible about moneychangers and temples that the big J. got so irate about?
@raindog: well i dare you to do it. You would have to be pretty stupid though but either way, you might even stir up some fuss. I certainly wouldn`t make an attempt in a state where religion is as closly tied with the state as for instance in turkey (and they are already the "moderate" ones).
While I certainly agree that there are worthier uses for one's money than the collection plate, with the exception of TV preachers and those at megachurches, priests and other clerics seem to be in general to be living merely lower middle-class lifestyles. Even without the burden of taxation, maintaining and heating/cooling a church building costs money, as do salaries for janitorial staff, and perhaps a professional choir director. And of course many churches run soup kitchens and homeless shelters, although, yes, one can argue that state-run services are better because they don't mix prayers with the soup.
"Of course, a Ph. D is simply another way of saying, "I went to school way more than you, now hand over your tuition dollars."
Only if the body of knowledge is unprovable arcane nonsense, with a language unto itself and no possible practical value. Like say, literary criticism.
Ralphy boy and Jack had a similar idea.
Well, you know, Stephen, some of us use the knowledge we garnered as Ph.D. students in other ways. For example I, as a forensic scientist, help protect the sorry asses of ignorant losers like yourself.
"Of course, a Ph. D is simply another way of saying, "I went to school way more than you, now hand over your tuition dollars."
Of course, hoody et al. are forgetting that there is way more to graduate school than just "going to school." As a grad student, you learn how to perform real research, including how to think rationally as a researcher and how to write. You do this research and then are scrutinized on every minute thing you did. It is only after you pass this that they hand you a PhD.
Then again, I shouldn't be so hard on these guys. They probably didn't do grad school.
I find it ironic that the church in question is called Crossroads Christian Church. Isn't the crossroads where folklore says you meet the Devil? E.g.: Faust and all those old blues songs?
More and more these days I find myself forced to look at this country through the eyes of Mencken:
More than two millenia ago, the sages of the Indian Carvaka school taught:
The Sacrifices, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves,
and smearing oneself with ashes--
Brhaspati says these are but means of livelihood
for those who have no manliness nor sense.
Brhaspati was right
I'm sure these folks making comments are probably confusing Ph.D.'s granted from such pillars of acedemic ethics like Partiot University, Pensacolla Bible Institute, and Louisiana Baptist U. with actual institutions of knowledge and education. Go light on them. They're just confused.
Academic. Patriot. Pensacola.
sheesh.
Or how to get tenure at a small-town teaching-oriented liberal arts college without publishing much.
... because, as we all know, teaching is no work whatsoever.
I think the point is less about pay and more about purpose or utility. I'm pretty sure that we'd consider most American clergy to be "underpaid" if they were in equivalent secular jobs. If such an equivalence can be made. And yes, there are fairly small minority of them who are well-paid or outright filthy rich, but academia also does have a similar (much smaller, I suspect) minority.
Seems to me it's about what they actually do for us. Teachers and professors provide a (on occasion debatably) useful education. They serve an important societal function, we benefit from their existence. Greatly benefit, I would argue. But many of us here would claim the same can't be said for the clergy. There are arguments to their favor, certainly, but I haven't found them convincing.
for those who think getting a ph.d. is a meal ticket: i calculate that mine COST me $200,000. if i'd stayed at that permanent job instead of deciding to take the plunge, i would have had my house paid off by now.
we don't get a ph.d. for the fun of it. or for the money. we do it because we're IDIOTS. who love learning.
All these guys are small-timers. Compare these petty hustles to Pat Robertson, who built up his "Family Channel" with tax-deductible contributions from his faithful followers, then bought it as an individual (along with his sons) from his own ministry for a few hundred million (can't find the exact figure at present) and turned around and sold it to Rupert Murdoch for $1.9 billion in 1997. All done quite legally, I'm sure, and each detail vetted by the best lawyers money can rent.
If only the Vatican banking scandal could be summed up so briefly...
Is this in ANY way surprising? Like the least little bit?
Folks, if you were looking for people you could scam on a huge scale--the kind of grift where large numbers of people hand you their life savings--where would you go?
(Hint: Not a university. Nor any place with a lot of PhDs.)
Y'know, so many of Bush's policies have been about enabling well-connected thieves that I can't assume that his support for those religions that attract the particularly gullible are solely because such people are reliable members of the 30-odd percent who still approve of him. Investment firms, both established and boiler-room, being able to identify (a) evangelicals who (b) voted for Bush and (c) make under 6 figures p.a. would be like wolves having a map of sheep.
(Can you imagine what would happen to the (a)(b)(c) types if Social security got privatized? It would be a reverse Gold Rush. At which point, they'd insist that the Blue States support them financially.)
PZ, why don't you just come out and baldly state, "I am an anti-Christian bigot!" instead of dancing around it? It would save you a lot of typing.
Jason, being against something with good reason is not bigotry. Given its utter irrationality and its appalling track record over the centuries of producing dire social ills of many kinds, there are lots of excellent reasons to be opposed to Christianity. You are kind enough to put some of them on display for all to see, on a regular basis. Thanks for this public service.
Just as a service, I recommend looking at the IRS publication which discusses churches and their tax status.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
Many things which churches do are subject to taxes.
Their are a few additional exemptions beyond a typical 501(c)(3) organization, like that ordained ministers (or equivalent) do not pay income tax. But other people hired by the church do.
The most recent printing of this above brochure is even clearer about what political activity a church could support. In effect, they cannot promote any political activity as part of their church.
However, I suspect that the reason one of the churches near me wasn't chasitized for the promenant display of a banner which read, 'The lord spoke to a burning BUSH!' during the 2004 election was simply lack of complaints. (I really should have taken a picture of it.)
If a citizen's group really wanted to make trouble, reporting violations of the prohibitions to political compaign activity by churchs to the IRS, and making them concerned about losing their tax-exempt status, could be an enjoyable passtime.
Cheers,
-Flex
Religion is a SCAM! Boo hoo. Ouch we hurt your feelings.
I don't believe in god. I think the religious are essentially suckers.
Does thay make you cry. Damage you in any way?
Didn't think so. So get over it.
Jason: you forgot to say "broad brush." You are letting your fans down.
True. However, PZ is against tithing for no good reason.
According to whom? Self-proclaimed rationaists like yourself?
And what has atheism brought us? Hundreds of millions of people in poverty, imprisoned, tortured or dead thanks to the brutal regimes of the likes of Stalin, Lenin and Pol Pot.
And you, PZ and others are kind enough to put many examples of why anti-Christian bigots should continue to be exposed, shunned and marginalized.
And you forgot to call me a "troll." Tsk, tsk, tsk. What would PZ think? For shame!
I like Flex's idea, but make it an organised effort. Everybody looks up the relevant laws in their country, state, etc, and then keeps an eye on all the religious organisations in their area. Every violation gets reported by as many people as possible. Every law that can be challenged gets challenged. Every scandal gets reported. Maybe it'd take a long time to make any significant impact but at least it'd be fun!
Jason, you suceed only in showing that you're too stupid to understand what the word "bigotry" means. In Jason-speak it evidently means "expressing opposition to anything that anyone else holds dear." Which would come pretty close to precluding all thought, thus dragging everyone down to your mental level. Nice try.
PZ, why don't you just come out and baldly state, "I am an anti-Christian bigot!" instead of dancing around it? It would save you a lot of typing.
Jinxy, don't you get tired of being so remorselessly predictable?
PZ, why don't you just come out and baldly state, "I am an anti-Christian bigot!" instead of dancing around it? It would save you a lot of typing.
Jinx:
a) You still never answered my questions at the 16-kids thread.
b) I imagine that you disapprove of atheists and I know you hate liberals. Please explain why this does not make you an "anti-atheist bigot" or an "anti-liberal bigot", and as such, why you're any better than PZ.
Flex: just to be clear, fully employed ministers do pay income tax, but are considered self-employed. Therefor, the church doesn't withold the taxes, they instead have to file quarterly returns with projected income, and usually, pay up ahead of time.
That was unworthy of you, PZ, and seems to have been pure troll fodder (which, naturally, worked perfectly).
Your premise is faulty as it assumes there is no benefit associated with church membership and tithing. In return for the contribution, the organization provides a space to socialize (you might prefer the Moose or the Rotary, but that's your choice). It provides regular lectures that the participants find useful or comforting (you may prefer the Learning Annex, an astrologer, or a psychologist, but that's your choice). There are discounts associated with certain functions such as marriage and funerals for members (you may opt for a civil ceremony or choose not to have a funeral, but that's your choice).
You might have argued about the relative value of the services (I belong to a Y, which is still almost $850.00 per year, not a regular gym, which around here would be well over a $1,400.00 and lack a pool), but that was a sloppy statement.
The parishioners are not ponying up that money to pay dues in a social club. They're being taken by a cosmic protection racket.
The parishioners are not ponying up that money to pay dues in a social club
In my experience, I think some of them are. Some churchgoers really do give money just because the church they go to needs money.
But I doubt that's the motive for some gullible fool who sends in a check to Robert Tilton.
"However, PZ is against tithing for no good reason."
So are a lot of reasoned Christians. When you really look into it, there are no actual regulations anywhere in the Bible regarding everyone giving 10% of their income to the church all the time. I know an Air Force chaplain who did a good chunk of his D. Div. research (Southern Baptist seminary, at that) on that very topic, and loves to preach against it. Not that he's against tithing as a general rule, but wants everyone to know that it's not Biblical.
Well, one data point on the relative importance of social club dues vs. celestial protection payments is to compare the tithing of fundie congregations to the notoriously stingy budgets of UU congregations. ;) (I myself, back when I was a UU, always felt like being a lot more generous about contributing to charities like the UUSC than to my own church's budget.)
Right. Unitarians pass the hat around like any other church but I highly doubt the people who donate think it's going to keep them out of hell.
Kaethe wrote, Flex: just to be clear, fully employed ministers do pay income tax, but are considered self-employed.
Thanks for the clarification. That is an important distinction, and I should have been aware of it.
-Flex
You know, a "tithe" was sometimes non-volentary and literally means 1/10th of everything you own. Funny how it now means, "what ever you throw on the plate." lol
But really, if you wanted to give priests pay equal to their job, then you have two choices, a) the salary of a Tarot Card reader, or b) psychology. The problem being that, while the they have often functioned as the later, to the limits of their understanding, in modern times, its doubtful 99% of them would ever qualify for the legal credencials needed to perform such a job, even of some of them didn't continue to use magic smoke, holy water and mummery to "cure" people's mental distress.
Oh, and poke, while it's fun to contemplate using the tax code to harass churches into staying out of politics, do you really think that an organized movement to help the IRS enforce the tax code would work?
Much more likely, considering the number of church-goers, that new legislation would pass, amending the tax code to allow churchs (and not other 501(c)(3) groups) to promote political positions (because they have a monopoly on morals of course).
I'd recommend letting this particular bear sleep until the fundamentalist population dwindles. Let's fight the fundies, by all means, but let's not persue a policy that has a great potential to give them more ammunition for their persecution complex.
After all, aren't we still fighting the "War on Christmas(tm)"? ;)
Cheers,
-Flex
I'm getting my christ's nativity scene abduction commando squad together now.
It's all about stealth and not knocking oer the cow or the camel.
Who's in?
Aren't we still fighting the "War on Christmas?"
Yes damn you!
Call me a whiner, but I sure am sick of the Godless Liberal Storm Troopers breaking into my home every December and confiscating the Christmas tree from my living room and the styrefoam angels from the mantlepiece.
Damn the religious persecution inherent in this secular dictatorship we call America!
Flex, why bother waiting? The churches aren't following the apolitical rule any more, anyways.
Personally, I say revoke the 501(c)(3) status of all churches, and give them a full tax year to prove they're actually following the rules. If not, well, time to fork it over.
By the way, are people going to grow out of the notion the horrors perpetrated under Stalin have anything to do with atheism? You might as well blame Jesus for Hitler.
Tyrants fly whatever banners are suitable for their purposes. Hitler's banners were German Nationalism and Christianity. Stalin's were not. In both cases, and acts performed under the aegis of the banners had very little to do with the underlying philosophies ostensibly promoted by the acts. Isn't that obvious?
I guess it's just easier to conflate all the elements of a complex series of historical events into something that enables you to say "Liberalism killed hundreds of millions of innocents!" Isn't that right?
(*facepalm*) I really need to proof-read a little better.
"... the notion that the horrors..."
"In both cases, the acts..."
Jason, you've been real active here recently. Hows the hit counter on your site now? Are you satisfied?
Blaming the horrors of those regimes on atheism is pure and simple poor understanding of history. Sure one of the tenents of Communism was atheism (procecuted in different ways) but there were many many others.
Stogoe,
As much fun as it would be to attempt enforce the tax laws on churches which violate their 501(c)(3) requirements, there is a difference between laws which are on the books and laws which are enforceable. I would like to say that because we live in a society of law, we can enforce all the laws the society has agreed to abide with. However, practicality gets in the way. (Not to mention the stupid laws which we really don't want to enforce.) A concerted effort to identify and enforce this particular requirement would give the churches which violate it a powerful tool to eliminate it.
How long would it take for these charismatic leaders to claim that the requirement violates freedom of speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the exclusionary clause, and invoke the (accepted) founding father's seperation of church and state?
You and I know that it doesn't, a church can pay taxes and still do all the things listed above. But laws are enacted by legislatures who are elected by voters. Some of those voters may not be as well attuned to the nuances of law as you and I. (You at least, I'm simply a dilettante.)
This tool needs to be used slowly and quietly, otherwise we may lose the tool altogether.
And remember, many, if not most, churches are aware of the 501(c)(3) requirements and abide by them. There are two ways I could see effective pressure against the politically active churches being applied. First, the leaders of nearby churches reminding the leaders of the offending church that they could lose their 501(c)(3) tax status.
Second, by determining if the offending church is a subsidiary of a larger church organization. The 501(c)(3) tax status is (often) granted to the parent organization, and umbrellas over the rest. The leaders at the parent organization are probably not only aware of the requirement, but also aware that the entire church network could lose their 501(c)(3) status because of a single subsidiary church which violates the rules. Let the parent organization squash the activist members.
Of course, there is the possibility that the churches would just agree to pay business taxes. :)
None of this discussion should suggest that a person cannot individually remind church leaders about the 501(c)(3) requirements. Or that a person couldn't report violations to the IRS.
Although I suspect that most churches are already well aware of the tax laws.
Cheers,
-Flex