Forum menu
Anyone else thinks this stinks to high heaven?
Well it rather depends what they are doing with the money, doesn't it? The Church doesn't really have any other income stream.
Are you alleging that someone in the Church is lining their own pockets unfairly? Who might that be?
Simply making money for an organisation isn't necessarily bad - they pretty much all do that. They question is about what they then do with it.
curent searches show nothing about Save the children investing unethicaly could be that I was miss remembering and it was comic relief that I was thinking of.
They’re involved in food banks, helping the homeless, giving back to communities but my point is this is hypocracy when they’re only giving less than 10% of what they make through these very worthwhile activities. I haven’t got an issue with them making money but it’s hyprocracy when they’re keeping hold of the vast majority of it whilst peddling their holier than thou crap.
I'm not sure you understand how charities or pension liabilities work. They have the pension liabilities right through until the pension holders die (their accounts list that as a £1.5Bn liability), but their funding is far from being just the pensions of the clergy (in fact they only have liabilities accrued until the late 90s). So your question, and it is a legitimate one for all charities - is should they spend all their (investment) income today or keep some back to make the pot bigger so they can grow more in the future. And if so how much should they keep back? For an organisation like the church I'd assume they have taken a fairly significant look at:
- their projected future expenditure (all those old buildings)
- their projected future income (church attendance is falling, their classic supporters are dying out, I'd not be surprised if legacy income is falling too).
My guess is their modellers/actuaries have said (1) We expect to see demand for expenditure rise (2) We expect to see church incomes fall - to ensure you can continue to service those needs long term you need to increase the size of their capital/endownment.
Why can’t vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they’re sitting on to charitable causes?
Vicars are employees just like most other people - you can't just turn around many years later and say "we are abolishing the pensions we promised you". Now many employers change the rules for new entrants, some (often with much public outcry) even change the criteria for future accrued benefits but its almost never going to wash to change the contractual benefit retrospectively. Given the Commissioners only have a liability accrued prior to '97 it sounds like they are already on it.
To the vast majority of modern society, vicars don’t provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension?
So people should only get a pension if the vast majority of modern society thinks they should - because they used to do something useful? I also suspect you might be wrong that the "vast majority" think they don't do anything worthwhile. We'll see what the Census says - my expectation is it will still show a lot more people claiming to be associated to a church than either weekly attendance or daily life would suggest; but even many of those like me who are not religious (indeed I have quite an open dislike for most aspects of religion) would recognise that many vicars actually serve some publicly useful function, at least for their own congregations, and sometimes the wider society.
Or maybe they should declare themselves a profit making organisation that has a religious charitable arm. In any case, in my opinion, it just stinks to keep projecting a raison d’etre of being for the greater good.
Now since the "advancement of religion" is one of the legal purposes that a charity can be set up to deliver I think you are on a shaky nail with your argument that they should not be a charity... but what difference would it make financially if they were to declare themselves "profit making" - HMRC (the same people scrutinising Amazon!) scrutinise charities to ensure they comply with any exemptions and if they don't (some don't) they pay the tax?
I've just skim read their approach to investment ( https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/church-commissioners-england/how-we-invest) and I'd say it is pretty modern in terms of investing on ethical criteria, and they have policies on lots of things: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/ethical-investment-advisory-group/policies-and-reviews now admittedly it doesn't have a policy on investing in companies that minimise their tax - because that is ALL companies.
I think if you want to have a concern about their governance it should probably be having 6 MPs (including the PM) and a couple of Lords. They seem to mostly be there on account of their office - and is a sign of how entwined church and state still are in this country, but it clearly makes is difficult for any reform of charities which might be working at the boundaries of charitable status if those who make the rules governing charities are sitting on their "boards".
Good grief.
Who’s supposedly benefitting from all this freeloading?
What I think we're getting at here is the disparity in the CoE business between their local outlets claiming poverty (and underpaying staff, asking for donations and relying on volunteers) and their management structure sitting on billions in assets.
All facilitated by a model based on superstition and absolution.
I think we have a failure to understand the legal obligations of the trustees of a charity, which have been well set out above.
Why can’t vicars fund their own pensions and they free up most of what they’re sitting on to charitable causes?
At 18yo & straight out of school I was on a higher wage than my vicar dad.
To the vast majority of modern society, vicars don’t provide a worthwhile public service so why should they get a free pension?
Despite me being 100% non beleiver in that god nonsense, one thing that (most/some/maybe my dad was the exception) vicars do is provide a valuable if hidden social service.
One of the churches my dad was vicar of (he had 5 parishes to look after) was of historical importance & a local landmark - he always hoped it would burn down so he didn't have to deal with it anymore 😄
I think we have a failure to understand the legal obligations of the trustees of a charity, which have been well set out above.
No i believe the obligation to maximise charity assets is well understood (if thought perverse when perceive to conflict with charity objectives). For me it's definitely the CoE business model that is questionable.
For me it’s definitely the CoE business model that is questionable.
Which bit?
Well if they have £9bn kicking about then they can’t be spending that much on their historical buildings.
16,000 churches and 42 cathedrals.
If they were to split it between them all it would give them a £561,000 investment fund per church to pay for upkeep in perpetuity. I don't think that would go very far. Some of the larger churches and cathedrals will be spending in excess of that on maintenance annually!
For me it’s definitely the CoE business model that is questionable.
Which bit?
I consider people who believe in deities and the supersticions around them as vulnerable.
I consider organisations which prey upon these vulnerable people, and which take money from them, as fundamentally immoral. Bookies and religions both qualify.
Furthermore, I consider any business which claims poverty at a local level whilst retaining enourmous capital centrally as cynical and immoral.
Just Christians or all religions from pagans to Zoroastrian?
Shouldn't that be Agnostics to Zoroastrians, vie Buddhists, Catholics, Daoists... 😀
I consider people who believe in deities and the supersticions [sic] around them as vulnerable.
I'm sure they're fortunate to have you looking out for them!
Furthermore, I consider any business which claims poverty at a local level whilst retaining enourmous capital centrally as cynical and immoral.
And yet your earlier comment is extremely cynical. Are you saying that the church is extorting money? From whom? I thought church services were free to attend?
The maths you have just been shown indicates that whilst they have a lot of assets generating income, they also have huge liabilities across which that income is spread. So they aren't that rich. Surely you aren't confusing revenue and profit?
@saxonrider my Mum died god fearing (note, not god loving) which broke my heart.
This was due to a totally ****ed up upbringing where churches called her an illigitimate bastard, a convent school drummed into her some weird guilt, and local churches (she tried them all, methodist, CoE, baptist) used her vulnerability (and seeming desire to repent something despite being salt of the earth) to accept donations and goodwill, whilst the great and the good of the church community swanned round in big cars, in their big houses, ****ing people over in business but showing a pretence of piousness on a Sunday.
If one person sees through the scam and dies happier because I've helped them then I will consider my campaign to have been successful.
Are you saying that the church is extorting money?
Not far off. They definitely prey on the vulnerable. Religion is humanities' most effective scam.
If one person sees through the scam and dies happier because I’ve helped them then I will consider my campaign to have been successful.
I won't defend any religious organisation that abuses people, or takes advantage of vulnerabilities, but you do realise that: a) it is not a sine qua non of religious belief and practice to inflict such things, and b) there are any number of pathologies from which people may suffer that do not take as their point of departure religious adherence.
To conclude that religious belief and/or practice was to blame for your whatever your mum went through is to paint all faith with a ridiculously large brush, while ignoring many other potential factors.
Im really sorry that your mum's experience was so bad.
However, its like saying all cyclists jump red lights ergo all priests are abusive manipulators?
Sadly/happily sweeping generalisations tend to be wrong.
What I'm not hearing from you defenders of faith is a cohesive or compelling explanation of religions' purpose. What is it if not to convince people of a narrative and build loyalty to their brand, thereby creating income?
I'm not trying to make that argument. If you want it, maybe start a new thread. This thread is/was about the Church Commissioners and their investments, and I was just pointing out that some of the side comments being made were either spurious or inaccurate or both.
However, its like saying all cyclists jump red lights ergo all priests are abusive manipulators?
Eh?
A priest's competency framework would presumably major on their ability to lead, persuade, empathise, hold a line, gain trust....
Abusive manipulator is a bit strong but they are essentially salesmen.
Sorry if we drifted. OP noted the CoE ability to make money. A few people commented that making money is their primary purpose. I've delved a little into their modus operandi.
Not far off. They definitely prey on the vulnerable.
How? This money they make isn't given to them by vulnerable people, is it? The whole point of this thread is that it's being made from investments just like your pension.
If one person sees through the scam and dies happier because I’ve helped them then I will consider my campaign to have been successful.
What about all the people who die happier because of their faith? Your viewpoint is very intellectually limited.
This was due to a totally **** up upbringing where churches
There are religious people, there are abusers, there are greedy people, there are megalomaniacs and there are well meaning people who do damage. These groups aren't all the same. You're linking shitty behaviour with religion, but you're ignoring all the shitty behaviour that was done for secular reasons. Like for example taking indigenous American kids away from their families to try and 'civilise' them etc etc etc.
A priest’s competency framework would presumably major on their ability to lead, persuade, empathise, hold a line, gain trust
Yes, also like a salesman, business owner, manager, film producer, and so on. These are just people skills. You're demonstrating extreme selective bias.
but they are essentially salesmen
We're all essentially salesmen / saleswomen, just that some haven't realised it yet.
Abusive manipulator is a bit strong but they are essentially salesmen.
Sorry, I thought that was the thrust of your post about your mum's experience.
Religion brings a lot of comfort to many, just as it has done terrible things to others. Usually when the religious aspects are twisted for political purposes.
What's missing here is not really what the CoE does with its money but how it got its money. Mainly 'gifts' from kings and lords who stole it from the common man in the first place and then used the church as an instrument of power to keep the masses subdued. That is what you should be angry about comrades!
The only problem is that church and state being so intertwined in the UK church land is effectively state land (the prime minister does after all have the power to appoint bishops on behalf of the queen who is head of church and state but proxies her power to the government).
Given the current government seems inclined to give away as many state assets as they can to their mates (and previous governments) at least when it comes to claim our common heritage for the people all we need to do is say thank you for keeping things in order church commissioners now hand the keys back to the people please.
The thing is, Christianity is very explicit in telling you not to be an asshole. The fact that people have acted like assholes in the name of religion therefore tells you that it wasn't religion - it was just them being assholes.
Bad people are always going to do bad stuff. It makes little difference what kind of hat they are wearing when they do it.
What’s missing here is not really what the CoE does with its money but how it got its money. Mainly ‘gifts’ from kings and lords who stole it from the common man in the first place and then used the church as an instrument of power to keep the masses subdued. That is what you should be angry about comrades!
Same as the aristocracy. Again - not an exclusively religious thing. Blame William the Conqueror for that.
What’s missing here is not really what the CoE does with its money but how it got its money. Mainly ‘gifts’ from kings and lords who stole it from the common man in the first place and then used the church as an instrument of power to keep the masses subdued. That is what you should be angry about comrades!
I think you'll find in most societies the spiritual and temporal sitting side by side, one influenced by the other
It's not a CofE thing it's a human thing
What about all the people who die happier because of their faith? Your viewpoint is very intellectually limited.
I'd contest that sanctuary found in religion at death only exists because of the fear that was instilled in them by that same religion initially. Tell them they're shit then save them. Salvation!
And strangely, it is blinkered views based on faith that I find the intellectually limited perspective!
You know some people get comfort and support from religion long before facing death?
And that not all religions tell people they're shit?
I’d contest that sanctuary found in religion at death only exists because of the fear that was instilled in them by that same religion initially.
Yeah you don't appear to be an expert in this area.
Have you tried asking happy churchgoers what they like about it? Have you considered the underlying neuroscience at work here?
is this the thread where someone with their own ill -formed and ignorant views (not in a pejorative sense) tries to explain why religion = bad?
Can you all wait while I get snacks.
Can you all wait while I get snacks.
Can I have wafers and red wine?
Can I have wafers and red wine?
😁😁😁
You can have some red Shloer and a KitKat!
You can have some red Shloer and a KitKat!
Listening to a very interesting presentation on Ramadan, now feeling bad....
I've bitten my tongue so far but I now think it's time to call you out on your bullying tone, which let's face it is ironic given the discussion is about religuous folk bullying others into their system. As with many believers and followers of faith, you clearly dont like challenge and resort instead to telling people they're "intellectually challenged" etc. Well done you, I hope your faith serves you well.
I think you misunderstood what molgrips (I think) is trying to say.
Not understanding the wider intellectual aspects of an argument is not the same as saying they are thick.
I guess you have to admire how successful the CofE cult became (and to an extent still is)
I’ve bitten my tongue so far but I now think it’s time to call you out on your bullying tone
I apologise if you thought I was bullying - that is not my intention at all. I am only interested in reasoned debate. I just wanted to point out where I think your argument is flawed. I think this is one of situations that suffers from being text-based rather than face to face.
However, your posts are very scathing and insulting towards believers. I don't know if this was your intention or not. If it was, I think it reasonable to expect a robust response, don't you?
And finally, I'm an atheist.
I guess you have to admire how successful the CofE cult became
This is a fascinating topic, and there is obviously so much manipulation in the history of Christianity that I can't even think of a word for it that does more than scratch the surface. However it's important to remember that this is just how people are, and it happens just as much in non-Christian regions and even in secular history. For example, you could compare the Crusades to the Cold War.
This thread is reminding me why I avoid evangelical atheists as much as I avoid people from the fundamentalist end of whichever religion they are signed up to (Conversations with people who are fundamentally convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong are pretty dull).
I’ve worked for over twenty years on historic buildings owned by various religions and flavours of those religions. Yes there have been people who I wouldn’t trust with vulnerable or impressionable people but I can probably count them on the fingers of one hand. The rest of the people I work for seem pretty much focused on making the lives of other people in their communities and the wider community better. Yes they sometimes want to explain what motivates them to do that but I have never encountered anyone who would contemplate withdrawing their help if you didn’t sign up (I’m not naive enough to say this doesn’t happen just that I have never encountered it). A significant proportion of these people work in very demanding roles with people most of society have given up on, so any edges they might have had aren’t evident.
Historically the church commissioners have been pretty hopeless so it is good to know they seem to be recouping some of the historic losses (I’m sure someone on here will tell me different but from what I can gather their more recent investments have been made on an ethical basis, although some of their older holdings are a bit more variable).
I can’t remember the exact figures but the CofE are responsible for 85% of the Grade I and II* listed buildings in the country. Maintaining these buildings Historically many of these fulfilled a far more secular roll than they have in the last couple of hundred years (The chancel and any side chapels were the only exclusively ‘holy’ bits while the rest of the building was used by the community for everything from celebrations to schools and sometimes the local court). Many churches are trying to return to this balance (by fulfilling a secondary community use such as village shops, libraries, village hall etc) but are hampered by the attitudes of various conservation bodies, by people who can’t see beyond what we now see as the proper use of a church (These concerns are usually of a conservative rather than a religious nature), and by a lack of funding available for maintenance or changes. From experience if there is a community need most religions seem very good at putting aside differences, talking to each other, and getting on with solving a problem. The perceived problems often come from secular bodies who expect people to be offended by the symbols of the religions involved.
The only organisation which probably did need to make changes were tackled very effectively by the charities commission who suggested that, as one of their stated purposes was to prepare people for the day of judgement in the year 2000, they might want to re-focus their charitable focus on research and education, which they did (They now run a small museum and fund research grants for university students).
The chancel and any side chapels were the only exclusively ‘holy’ bits while the rest of the building was used by the community for everything from celebrations to schools and sometimes the local court
This is a fact that can, at times, be quite moving. When the Maidan protests erupted in Ukraine, the churches in the middle of the city opened up to become field hospitals.
