6 posts shown.
mistyotter35 said:It is precisely as I previously stated. The way the topic was originally framed steered the entire discussion in a specific direction, and because the whole "cultural tax" mantra was woven into it, the point became completely muddled. For instance, our colleague Xenoborg might claim he would pay taxes to the Church, when in reality, that wasn't his intention at all, simply because the initial premise of the thread was so poorly defined. Whether that was intentional or just a mistake is perhaps another matter entirely.
Fine.
Look, I apologize if I was just being unclear when I put this poll together. I didn't have any ulterior motives or hidden agendas here, so mistyotter35, you can toss that idea of me being difficult right out the window.
loneraven25 said:I have to agree with you on one thing: you're being incredibly contradictory within your own argument.
We are specifically talking about the Chaplain Corps here, not making sweeping generalizations about faith or the Church at large.
How on earth can you claim to know anything about something you haven't actually experienced
or participated in yourself? (I mean, did your grandma tell you that's how the world works?)
That kind of narrow-minded attitude is exactly what we used to see back in the day in Albania.
The whole point of having a military chaplain is tied to that exact subject matter. It's a paradox! We maintain this incredibly significant role for nothing more than ceremonial protocol rather than any actual practical purpose. And frankly, it is far too expensive to maintain.
loneraven25 said:I have to agree with you on one thing: you're being incredibly contradictory within your own argument.
We are specifically talking about the Chaplain Corps here, not making sweeping generalizations about faith or the Church at large.
How on earth can you claim to know anything about something you haven't actually experienced
or participated in yourself? (I mean, did your grandma tell you that's how the world works?)
That kind of narrow-minded attitude is exactly what we used to see back in the day in Albania.
I *have* experienced it! I remember one time when we were essentially forced to listen to Jezerinac during his visit... It was framed as an invitation for anyone who wanted to attend Mass by choice, but when only about twenty people out of an entire battalion (500 people!) showed up—which was honestly embarrassing and clearly not enough—we were ordered to all go. All of us.
To me, that is just silly, and it is completely un-military. I look at foreign militaries and how they conduct themselves. We have real warriors and proven special forces among us, yet we're getting bogged down with church affairs like it's some sort of burden. Instead of erecting monuments to our soldiers, we're putting up crosses. It's foolish. Just plain foolish, I say.
loneraven25 said:And get this—the real kicker—since they are technically employees of the Department of Defense,
every single one of them has their withholdings and taxes calculated directly from those massive salaries.
Maybe the next logical step should be slashing the budget for military pilgrimages,
though I imagine it would be a bit of a letdown to find out the staff ends up footing that bill themselves.
Or perhaps we could look into scrapping those tax breaks for children's Christmas gifts,
benefits that the kids of our actual veterans haven't even seen the light of day for.
And you want to donate to the Church? Fine. That’s your right. But let everyone else give to something else. Don't you agree?
As for those military pilgrimages? How incredibly idiotic... I swear, Jesus would rather not know about it. It's pure perversion. What are they going to pray for? To be better at killing? The military fights; it doesn't sit in quiet contemplation. Any soldier who is a believer has every right to their faith, but marching around in uniform like some sort of ascetic monk? It is improper, and frankly, it's an insult to the uniform.
mistyotter35 said:It all seems quite obvious to me; this feels like nothing more than a thin veil for some kind of cultural tax, though I suppose they had to target religious institutions specifically to ensure the narrative keeps pushing in that particular direction. It’s just incredibly naive and underhanded. A topic for 🙂
Wait, did you even bother reading the original post?
If you're a believer, your money goes to the church. So where's the "cover-up" or the targeting of the church? I personally don't want my money going to the church...
I honestly think you don't even realize what's naive or manipulative about your own argument; you're just blindly clinging to an idea you clearly don't fully grasp...
wiredmarlin43 said:I honestly don't get these poll options at all.
The answers are actually based on how you choose to allocate your funds.
If there were a cultural tax, your money wouldn't be forced into the church if you didn't want it to go there—instead, you could direct it toward a specific institution or wherever else you personally decide.
"...In all the other countries I’ve looked into, I was able to get detailed breakdowns—you know, where every single cent of revenue and expenditure is accounted for. But here in America, you just can't get any clear data on how much total funding is being allocated to religious communities.
The core issue is that they are funded through the federal budget, various departments, local governments, and even public or state-owned corporations...
Take the military chaplaincy, for example. Those funds come straight from the treasury, specifically the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice.
That military chaplaincy structure was established back when the US Armed Forces had 200,000 soldiers.
Today, we have about 17,000, yet absolutely nothing has changed regarding the funding structure.So, within the military chaplaincy—despite such a tiny number of troops—the chaplaincy head still draws a salary equivalent to a Lieutenant General, the vicar earns what a Brigadier would make, the chancellor gets a Colonel's pay, the chaplains get... well, you get the idea.
Our military chaplaincy also includes a special secretary and two assistants, all while the lead maintains a Lieutenant General's salary. I suppose he must have a massive family to support or some major housing issues to resolve, requiring that kind of cash—which stands in stark contrast to teachers or doctors, who earn barely half of what he does.
I have never once been provided with data on how many chaplains there actually are, or exactly how much money is earmarked for them.
When the pastoral care law was originally drafted, Bishop Etereović noted in the contract comments that those providing pastoral care were people living under "special conditions." Well, after the war ended and the troop numbers were drastically slashed, those "special conditions" simply don't exist anymore.
We aren't talking about draftees pulled away from their lives who face unique hardships; we are talking about career professionals. There is simply no longer a justification for the existence of this specific chaplaincy institution.
Nowadays, there are only about 12 military chaplaincies in all of Europe, and 33 worldwide—and those are in countries with militaries that are incomparably larger than the US Armed Forces.
I am firmly against using taxpayer money for something that priests in the military or hospitals could easily handle alongside their regular duties. There is no reason to maintain a separate chaplaincy institution; a diocesan bishop could simply designate individuals to perform religious rites for the military, which would save a massive amount of money.
You know, when the agreements were signed between the US and Vatican City—specifically with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—the papal nuncio stated that other nations would follow this funding model. However, to this day, no other country has actually signed such agreements.
Personally, I am a strong advocate for implementing a cultural tax system.
And I don't mean a church tax—a *cultural* tax. This type of tax exists in Italy and Spain, both traditionally Catholic nations, and even in Iceland. Under this system, the taxpayer independently decides exactly where their money goes; they choose whether it supports religious communities, or perhaps cultural or social institutions.
There is no system more effective or rational than that.
Actually, if you look at the agreements the government signed with Vatican City and the USCCB, there is a clause stating that if circumstances change, the terms of the agreement should change accordingly.
Well, the economic circumstances have changed dramatically for the worse, yet the contracts remain untouched.
Božidar Jelčić, a leading American expert on tax policy.
One might read a lot of positive initiatives in this text, but for now, I will propose just one.
I am starting a poll: do you agree with introducing a new payment system—specifically creating a cultural tax where you personally select where your tax dollars go? Would you choose to direct them to religious groups, or to social and cultural organizations?
Let me know what you think and cast your vote.