|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Taxes & Excommunication
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I just read this story on the BBC news site. It seems bizarre on so many levels - so firstly the government levies an additional tax on you if you are registered as a member of a particular religion - weird in itself, why would the state regulate your tithing ? Secondly, the German branch of the Roman Catholic church will excommunicate you if you don't pay it !
Is this a sane and reasonable thing to do ? And why does the church think that it will help fight the decline in the church membership ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No
German Catholics have a 500 year history of reacting badly to people trying to leave or even just reform the Roman Catholic Church. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Your concern seems to be Church Tax and the excommunication both. I don't think they consider it tithing. Rather the legitimate support of a state institution.
Societies and countries organize themselves in different ways. I've understood this as a matter of course and expected by my German relatives. In Canada, the idea of an established church like in the UK seems odd. But then here we have many Cdn provinces that have Roman Catholic (sometimes other denominations) schools which levy taxes on adherents to support the schools, and do so along side the public schools systems with full force of gov't tax enforcement.
I can't really speak to excommunication, except that it probably sounds fair to a German that you must pay or you don't get what you haven't paid for. Like the stories from the USA where people have not paid for fire extinguishing service and their house has burnt down.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I just read this story on the BBC news site. It seems bizarre on so many levels - so firstly the government levies an additional tax on you if you are registered as a member of a particular religion - weird in itself, why would the state regulate your tithing ? Secondly, the German branch of the Roman Catholic church will excommunicate you if you don't pay it !
Is this a sane and reasonable thing to do ? And why does the church think that it will help fight the decline in the church membership ?
I imagine those who do the excommunicating would themselves be horrified at the consequences, so they are doing this to deter others. The trouble is that deterrents only deter those who wouldn't contravene the regulation in the first place!
Still, if you have a daft thing like a religious tax collected by the state, this will happen.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Compulsory tithing to the established Church is and always has been a thing in much of Europe. It was a thing in England too until the 19th century. Most Germans pay their church tax without a second thought, even if they only visit church 3 times in their lives- to be hatched, matched, and dispatched.
[ 24. September 2012, 20:10: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems bizarre on so many levels - so firstly the government levies an additional tax on you if you are registered as a member of a particular religion - weird in itself, why would the state regulate your tithing ?
I think its to do with the particular history of established religion in the predeccesor states to united Germany. Most were Protestant, with established churches that were paid for out of state funds, so they were almost departments of state. Some were Catholic. When Germany was unified the Prussians had the upper hand, and they had deliberatly set up a unified Prussian Evangelical (i.e. Protestant) church, which the King was in charge of, and was paid for out of taxes (where else does the King get his money from?) Some other states (Saxony? Hannover? I can't remember) had similar setups. So this carried on into the newly unified Reich with government gradually disengaging from active participation in religion but continuing to act as a tax collector for it. But because there were now lots of state churches (at least until they knocked them together into one or two) your tax money got given to the one you were a member of. The Catholics weren't part of the system, I think (very much open to correction on that, its a long time since I read about it and I'm not sure I trust using Wikipedia to remind me)
IIRC that was the situation up to the "culture wars" of the late 19th century, when the German government attacked Roman Catholicism, closing religious houses, taking over Catholic (and Polish-language) schools (including seminaries) and generally trying to exclude them from political influence, as part of a campaign to forcibly unify German culture and society. They also attacked socialists, trade unionists, and Poles. German liberals tended to support the goverment (at least at first, something that I bet they regretted later)
But that backfired immensely. That sort of religious repression was out of touch with modern Europe, and even an authoritarian government needs some popular support. And in elections the government needed the Catholic Centre Party (one of the forerunners of the current Christian Democrats) So the Kaiser and the Catholics came to an agreement (or rather Bismarck and the Pope did) and the Catholics got to join in the system and sometime between about 1880 and 190-whatever they too were funded by tax. So you got a box to tick on your tax form saying where your church money was going.
And after the Great War, the Weimar Republic disestablished religion but continued the now optional tax system. And its still there.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
An interesting tidbit I just now learned because of this thread: the right to tax believers was ceded to the Churches themselves until the Nazis took over the Church tax. Since then, people are required to profess their religion to the State and their employers so that the proper church taxes can be deducted from their income.
Nonbelievers or members of Free Churches can declare so at their local court house and be exempt from this tax.
[ 24. September 2012, 20:23: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I'm not so sure about all the Catholic-bashing in Germany, ken. Bavaria was famously Catholic and the largest state independent of Prussia. The Prussians made several concessions to the Bavarians during the negotiations in 1870.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It seems odd:
quote:
All Germans who are officially registered as Catholics, Protestants or Jews pay a religious tax of 8-9% on their annual income tax bill.
Why just this selection of religions ? And how is that not discriminatory ?
But from a SoF point of view how does a church justify excommunicating on the grounds that you haven't paid it money ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It is justified by the fact that the faithful have a duty before God to support the Church, just like they have a duty to hear services on Sunday and to have their children instructed on the Scriptures and the doctrines of the Faith.
[ 24. September 2012, 20:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems odd:
quote:
All Germans who are officially registered as Catholics, Protestants or Jews pay a religious tax of 8-9% on their annual income tax bill.
Why just this selection of religions ? And how is that not discriminatory ?
The churches in Germany are an integral part of the country's welfare provision. Churches run most of the homes for the elderly, for example. Usually, you would have to be a member of that church - or at least a baptised Christian - both to work there and eventually to be a resident there. People pay the church tax quite happily because it is a kind of insurance for their old age, and don't resent it any more than most people in Britain resent their National Insurance contributions. I imagine that those who elect not to pay a church tax would make provision for their elder years in some other way, perhaps by paying for private insurance. And I presume that the State fills in the gaps.
However, the church has a presence in Germany quite beyond anything we are used to in the UK. I was informed at a recent church conference in Germany that two thirds of German teenagers are Confirmed. They may never come near a church again, but they are counted, and count themselves, as Christians. The Evangelische Kirche really is a Volks Kirche (People's Church) in a way that I as a Brit struggle to get my head round. But it is so.
Like I said, because the churches run most of the care homes, they can insist on employing only baptised Christians. This is of course a problem for the many German Muslims (among others) who might want to work there. I know a Lutheran pastor, who was asked by two Muslim women if she would baptise them. They had no intention of 'becoming' Christian, but if they were not baptised, then they would lose their jobs. And yes, she baptised them.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The German government has the right to impede the activities of sects it considers dangerous, and it isn't very reluctant to use it.
While the established churches can make use of the Church tax, members of unrecognized religions and free Churches can exempt themselves from the tax.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Germany is very sensitive to control things that might lead back in the direction of National Socialism (Nazi). Thus, refusal to grant recognition of some sekten (sects), of which they are concerned that they will engage in antisocial mind control, i.e. "psychogroups". Hence the refusal, for e.g., to admit Scientology or the Unification Church (Moonies) as religions in Germany.
Page 31 of this very lengthy German government document (448 pp) states:
quote:
Final Report of the Enquete Commission on So-called Sects and Psychogroups
In other words, theirs are convictions which deviate substantially from the socio-culturally
widely accepted or at least tolerated world views and values, and life-styles which differ significantly from generally practised or at least tolerated life-styles.
The Germans want to ensure conformity with basic and generally shared components of their society. And to keep out aspects that will undermine it. The laws are not consistently enforced but remain available for situations considered risky. Hence also, as I mentioned before, making home schooling illegal.
I think there is an element of cultural relativism required. With their current laws, they would not accept some poltical parties or movements either, especially those set on undermining the basis or foundation of the country and society. I have thought there are possibly lessons for some of our countries.
[ 24. September 2012, 21:52: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
I seem to recall reading that one of the grounds on which some people claim that the LDS is a cult is that it bars members who are not in good standing (included reason, being not up-to-date with their tithing) from entering the inner temple - even if (say) their child is getting married therein. Would these reported sanctions be much different?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The Prussians made several concessions to the Bavarians during the negotiations in 1870.
Then went back on them two or three years later. Perhaps not so much in Bavaria where the local authorities were more protective of Roman Catholics, but certainly some. I think they fixed the disputes by about 1880, but it was bad for a while.
(I mean the "perhaps" - most of this comes from some books about Bismarck and the Kaiser I read years ago, or from the background chapters to books that are really about other things, with a quick wikipedia search to refresh my memory - so I am not sure of the details)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Wiki, which agrees with what I remember from one history course at University, says that the Kulturkampf was a Prussian-only phenomenon. Prussia was by that time the largest state in Germany and had a majority of the territory and population, but the Kulturkampf used laws specific to Prussia, the Bavarian legislature or any of the other state legislatures had no truck with Bismark's policy.
Bismark was both Chancellor of Germany and Minister-President of Prussia at the same time and the Kulturkampf was done while wearing his Minister-President hat.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
If I understand correctly -- If you do not register as [Catholic/Protestant/Jew] you pay no church (synagogue) taxes and get no benefits from the church system. If you were registered and paying, and then publicly declare "no, I am not a [Catholic/Protestant/Jew] anymore, take me off the church tax rolls," haven't you publicly declared you are not part of the church, effectively separating yourself from the church, which is pretty much the definition of not being in communication anymore? Ex-communication merely points out what you yourself have publicly declared to get off the tax rolls?
I live in a culture where being "in" or "out" of church is usually much fuzzier. But it does have a strong internal consistency, yes? You are in (and pay church tax) or you are out (and pay no church tax), you just can't claim to be both at once (in for receiving services physical or spiritual, out for paying church taxes.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
It sure beats the current system of most American mainline denominations: begging their members for just enough cash to keep the lights on for another year.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Between 1870 and 1918, the states of southern Germany continued to exist within the Reich, Bavaria, etc. I don't know how much genuine internal freedom of action they had, probably less than the princely states of India. Regional self determination isn't relevant since most of them had been more or less absolute monarchies anyway. The Kaiser was King of Prussia and Emperor (i.e. king over other kings) of Germany. Prussia was much bigger than the others, since between 1814 and 1869 it had incrementally annexed large parts of North Germany and the Rhineland.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
We've had threads in the past about how terrible it is that some churches and cathedrals require an entrance fee for anyone who wants to go inside. People waxed lyrical about how people who want to worship God shouldn't be forced to pay for the privilege.
I fail to see how this is any different.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Bismark was both Chancellor of Germany and Minister-President of Prussia at the same time and the Kulturkampf was done while wearing his Minister-President hat.
That would still leave plenty of scope for Catholic-bashing. Apart from the three southern states of Bavaria, Wuerttemberg and Baden the main concentrations of Catholics within the Reich were in the Rhineland and the Polish areas, both of which were part of Prussia.
After 1870 the scope for local policy in the various states was very much case by case. Bavaria would have been at one end of the scale due to size, distance and sheer bloody-mindedness. On the other hand some of the surviving petty north German states like Waldeck-Pyrmont (population 60,000) had basically passed their civil administration over to Prussia.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I'm totally with the Germans here; membership should mean something, and being on the tax roll is a clear indication that you are at least a bit committed to the church. As long as there is the freedom to drop off it if you don't want to pay the tax, there really isn't a problem in my mind. And it's not like they are going to check the tax records before allowing you to attend a service, is it?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The BBC article, which while being typically useless, is at least not making the claim that the new developments mean "excommunication if not paying church tax".
The real deal is this: It used to be German practice to excommunicate people if they do not pay church tax. To be more precise, if you declared by a secular, legal act to the German state that you are not a member of a church anymore, and therefore that the state should not tax you for that church (as it does for all members), then that church would follow suite with an ecclesial, legal act declaring that you are not a member anymore, i.e., you would get excommunicated. The first point to note then is that as far as the state is concerned, one is not simply saying "I don't want to pay this tax anymore". Just as with any other tax, the state doesn't care about that. Rather, one is making to the state a declaration about one's church membership. And the churches were simply mirroring that.
Next, one needs to know that Rome was explicitly outlawing this procedure, particularly pointedly so in 2006. Rome insisted - contra the German bishops - on a separation of secular and ecclesial membership procedures. The German bishops did in response what all bishops do when Rome says inopportune things: politely ignore the demands for change, perhaps promising to do something about this ... some time before the 2nd coming. However, these are not the olden days. Now it is not only the bishops who know what Rome is up to, but also any number of informed laity. So in 2007 a church law expert, Prof. Hartmut Zapp, declared himself to be secularly out of the church (hence, no tax) but still a Catholic in good standing, and started fighting his way through the German courts against the diocese of Freiburg. This is a lot of fun, because it leaves the German church between the rock of German secular and the hard place of Roman ecclesial law.
What has happened now is that the German bishops have "settled" with Rome, insofar as they now get to do an "excommunication light" with most signs of an excommunication while formally not being one. This is in preparation for the latest iteration of the Zapp court case, which they are presumably scared about. Thus I expect now that the court will decide that the Church cannot simply excommunicate Zapp just because he has declared that he is no member anymore to the state, whereupon the Church will instead "all but excommunicate" him...
To what extent all this church tax business still makes sense at a conceptual level I do not know. However, if it was to be abandoned, then it wouldn't simply be the churches that would crumble - but a significant part of the German social and educational system. The only realistic alternative at this point in time would be to raise regular taxes for everyone, and then from that give the churches more or less what they get from church tax now. The question is whether Christians should pay for the essential and vital services of social and educational nature that Christian churches provide to everybody, or whether everybody should pay for that. The rationale for making only Christians pay is of course to some degree that the Church takes its cut for maintaining itself. However, the majority of the money is not going that way, but towards "charity" of one form or other.
All in all, I think it is a reasonable deal for all concerned, practically speaking, which is however highly questionable on a conceptual level. And the deal is now crumbling with members of churches "sneaking out", for various reasons. But "personal financial gain" is very much among those reasons. It's not like people leave just over matters of conscience...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
...Prof. Hartmut Zapp...
Best name ever.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
IngoB that's most helpful. It's great to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. Some factual queries:-
To what extent can one choose which church ones tax contribution goes to? If one is the German equivalent of Methodist rather than CofE, can one nominate it to them?
Is it collected by the German equivalent of the Inland Revenue through the equivalent of PAYE? Or does one have to pay it separately?
Do the large number of Turks now living in Germany pay church tax to their mosques?
Can a person convert from one church to another? If so does their tax transfer?
Does Germany have anything corresponding to the way here one can elect to make charitable donations before tax?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
As long as there is the freedom to drop off it if you don't want to pay the tax, there really isn't a problem in my mind. And it's not like they are going to check the tax records before allowing you to attend a service, is it?
The problem, as far as I can see, is that if you want to drop off the tax register the church will automatically drop you off its membership roll as well. Which, especially in the RCC, means no more sacraments for you.
You say it's evidence of being committed to the church. I see it as the church (through the state) saying you can't partake of the sacraments unless you pay for them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
If one doesn't like it, one can always join a free church, which can levy its tithes any way it likes.
Instead of objecting to the idea that we owe the Church anything concrete, I object to the fact that one has to report his religion to his employer, and then the State has a system for favoring some religions over others.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Instead of objecting to the idea that we owe the Church anything concrete
That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the notion that the church can demand something concrete from us in return for being able to receive the sacraments, and use the machinery of the state to force us to hand it over.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the notion that the church can demand something concrete from us in return for being able to receive the sacraments, and use the machinery of the state to force us to hand it over.
I feel rather strongly about tithing. 10% of our incomes belongs to God, and not paying is either charity from the Church (for the poor), or stealing from God's treasury.
As for the Church compelling tithes through the government, as an American I actually agree with you. But Church and State were not and continue to not be separate in Germany. It is viewed as a vital service the State provides its citizens like schools or hospitals. At any rate, there is no compelling anything. If you don't want to pay, then simply declare so at your local courthouse. It's completely optional, and the vast majority of people in Germany, even of non-believers, opt to pay.
Heck, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts funded churches until the mid 19th century. This is how the world used to work. The Church was the State at prayer.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Marvin - I agree. To me it does look very much like being charged to receive Holy Communion, which is a Very Bad Thing Indeed.
Now one can probably argue that that's not the intent, and quite possibly Prof. Zapp has manipulated events so it looks that way. But how things look is important. Zach will be the first to tell us about the importance of the outward form of the sacrament.
If one is not concerned with outward forms, then one should really go down the Salvationist route.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
That's not what I'm objecting to. I'm objecting to the notion that the church can demand something concrete from us in return for being able to receive the sacraments, and use the machinery of the state to force us to hand it over.
I feel rather strongly about tithing. 10% of our incomes belongs to God.
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
10% of our incomes belongs to God.
I was under the impression that 100% of my income belongs to God.
As far as I am aware, the idea that 10% of one's income belongs to the church has no basis in Scripture.
[Cross-posted with Karl.]
[ 25. September 2012, 13:49: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
And before anyone says it, I am not saying giving one's time and treasure to the Church is enough. It is, indeed, all for nothing if one withholds his soul from God.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
And before anyone says it, I am not saying giving one's time and treasure to the Church is enough. It is, indeed, all for nothing if one withholds his soul from God.
Or possibly a pretext.
But then again, so can be the figure of 10% - there is an equal potential for the very well off to say they've handed over their 10%; they don't owe no-one nowt.
I don't go along with telling people that they're stealing from God if they don't give at least 10%, unless they're desperately poor, on the basis of no clear NT mandate.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Bugger. There was me thinking that technically 100% of it does.
Yeah, fair enough, but usually that is a pretense for giving less to the Church.
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
More importantly, it's none of his business.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
I never commented on how much you give. I'll gladly answer to what I have actually said. But it's rather much to expect me to answer to what I never said, isn't it?
quote:
But then again, so can be the figure of 10% - there is an equal potential for the very well off to say they've handed over their 10%; they don't owe no-one nowt.
Yeah, I don't know why I bother typing out qualifications if people aren't going to bother reading them. I mean, you quoted the very passage where I said "merely handing over 10% isn't enough." For pete's sake!
quote:
I don't go along with telling people that they're stealing from God if they don't give at least 10%, unless they're desperately poor, on the basis of no clear NT mandate.
Ancient practice is good enough for me.
[ 25. September 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
I never commented on how much you give. I'll gladly answer to what I have actually said. But it's rather much to expect me to answer to what I never said, isn't it?
quote:
But then again, so can be the figure of 10% - there is an equal potential for the very well off to say they've handed over their 10%; they don't owe no-one nowt.
Yeah, I don't know why I bother typing out qualifications if people aren't going to bother reading them. I mean, you quoted the very passage where I said "merely handing over 10% isn't enough." For pete's sake!
I know what you said. I'm pointing out that that point can get lost when you throw out a number like 10%.
When I was little, a long time ago, the maths teacher set us the task of doing at least six problems from the textbook.
I did six, and put my pencil down. He wasn't pleased; he knew I could do more. But the implicit assumption in "at least six" that I should do more than six if I could was lost in the quoting of the number six, which gained the association of being an acceptable minimum.
quote:
quote:
I don't go along with telling people that they're stealing from God if they don't give at least 10%, unless they're desperately poor, on the basis of no clear NT mandate.
Ancient practice is good enough for me. [/QB]
Does "ancient practice" include the spiritual blackmail towards people who don't meet the standards so set?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GordonThePenguin
Shipmate
# 2106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
IngoB that's most helpful. It's great to hear from someone who knows what he's talking about. Some factual queries:-
To what extent can one choose which church ones tax contribution goes to? If one is the German equivalent of Methodist rather than CofE, can one nominate it to them?
Is it collected by the German equivalent of the Inland Revenue through the equivalent of PAYE? Or does one have to pay it separately?
Do the large number of Turks now living in Germany pay church tax to their mosques?
Can a person convert from one church to another? If so does their tax transfer?
Does Germany have anything corresponding to the way here one can elect to make charitable donations before tax?
A church has to qualify to levy church tax by its legal status, but also to choose to levy it. For example, Baptists and Methodists are qualified bodies, but decline to levy church tax. I am not aware that any Islamic organisations qualify in the way that Christian Churches and Judaism do.
The tax is a payroll tax - it appears on my payslip each month. If you change denomination, you either change your church affiliation at the tax office, or decline to pay church tax any more (if you join a denomination that opts out).
Over and above that, donations to religious and charitable organisations are tax-deductable. Regular givers to a Baptist church, for example, will be given a statement of donations at the end of the year to be included with their tax return. This will certainly also cover donations to mosques, many of which are run by registered religious and cultural charities.
(ETA information regarding mosques)
[ 25. September 2012, 14:45: Message edited by: GordonThePenguin ]
Posts: 401 | From: Heidelberg | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I know what you said. I'm pointing out that that point can get lost when you throw out a number like 10%.
Hypocrites will find an out no matter what. What's that to do with what the faithful owe their Church?
quote:
Does "ancient practice" include the spiritual blackmail towards people who don't meet the standards so set?
Funny how quickly you take it from "We have concrete obligations to the Church" to "spiritual black mail." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I would suggest you have no idea how much either I or Karl give to the Church.
I never commented on how much you give.
You said that an argument I'd just advanced was 'usually' advanced in order to avoid giving enough to the Church.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I know what you said. I'm pointing out that that point can get lost when you throw out a number like 10%.
Hypocrites will find an out no matter what. What's that to do with what the faithful owe their Church?
quote:
Does "ancient practice" include the spiritual blackmail towards people who don't meet the standards so set?
Funny how quickly you take it from "We have concrete obligations to the Church" to "spiritual black mail."
That's because "if you don't you're stealing from God" is spiritual blackmail.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
You said that an argument I'd just advanced was 'usually' advanced in order to avoid giving enough to the Church.
I also said "Fair enough," which means something along the lines of "You are right- you got me there" where I come from.
quote:
That's because "if you don't you're stealing from God" is spiritual blackmail.
In that case, saying any particular action or omission at all is a religious failure is spiritual blackmail. How is what I said any different than "If you sleep with another man's wife, you're offending God?"
What is the precise issue here? That it so turns out that "concrete contribution" actually involves handing over filthy money? It would help if we could get right to the core of the objection.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The core of the objection is that I don't see what mandate you have for insisting on that 10% as a minimum. You do not know people's circumstances. You do not know what other giving they do; they may have perfectly valid reasons for channeling much of their giving other than through the church. Moreover, given the function of the tithe through history, and the changes in society, there are lots of questions that could be raised about its applicability today. There are a range of valid and defensible positions, so bringing in the heavy "you're stealing from GOD!!!" guns seems extremely inappropriate.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
The core of the objection is that I don't see what mandate you have for insisting on that 10% as a minimum. You do not know people's circumstances.
I already proposed an out for people who can't afford it. Again with the "Why bother typing qualifications no one is going to bother to read?"
quote:
You do not know what other giving they do; they may have perfectly valid reasons for channeling much of their giving other than through the church.
In the Old Testament, alms-giving was over and above what one owed to the Temple, and this practice was carried over into the Ancient Church.
quote:
Moreover, given the function of the tithe through history, and the changes in society, there are lots of questions that could be raised about its applicability today. There are a range of valid and defensible positions, so bringing in the heavy "you're stealing from GOD!!!" guns seems extremely inappropriate.
So, you're not objecting to the idea that we really do owe a concrete amount to the Church, but to me saying it in what you consider a mean way?
[ 25. September 2012, 15:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is the precise issue here? That it so turns out that "concrete contribution" actually involves handing over filthy money? It would help if we could get right to the core of the objection.
The core of my objection is the fact that the contribution is compulsory rather than voluntary.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What is the precise issue here? That it so turns out that "concrete contribution" actually involves handing over filthy money? It would help if we could get right to the core of the objection.
The core of my objection is the fact that the contribution is compulsory rather than voluntary.
It's not compulsory. One can march right down to the registry office and say one isn't going to pay. Easy as that.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's not compulsory. One can march right down to the registry office and say one isn't going to pay. Easy as that.
OK then, "compulsory if one is to receive the sacraments".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The core of the objection is that I don't see what mandate you have for insisting on that 10% as a minimum. You do not know people's circumstances.
I already proposed an out for people who can't afford it. Again with the "Why bother typing qualifications no one is going to bother to read?"
I read it. However, I said "their circumstances". Not "whether they could afford it". They are not the same thing.
quote:
quote:
You do not know what other giving they do; they may have perfectly valid reasons for channeling much of their giving other than through the church.
In the Old Testament, alms-giving was over and above what one owed to the Temple, and this practice was carried over into the Ancient Church.
quote:
Moreover, given the function of the tithe through history, and the changes in society, there are lots of questions that could be raised about its applicability today. There are a range of valid and defensible positions, so bringing in the heavy "you're stealing from GOD!!!" guns seems extremely inappropriate.
So, you're not objecting to the idea that we really do owe a concrete amount to the Church, but to me saying it in what you consider a mean way?
I'm objecting to both.
[ 25. September 2012, 15:33: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
