Americans don't want to fund the church

bluemason3 said:In my view, the best approach would be to structure things so that those tax dollars can be redirected easily. We should offer humanitarian charities as an option for people who don't want their money going to any religious group whatsoever.

On the other hand, I find it strange how we reached this point where it's considered normal for religious groups to be funded through state tax mechanisms rather than just direct contributions from members—like tithes—or specific donations from individuals and corporations, much like how most non-profits operate in the States.🤔

In my view, anyone unhappy with the current setup should really consider joining a political party to fight for their interests from the inside.
Another path would be to form an advocacy group, similar to how the ACLU or the NRA organizes its influence.
Then, you gather signatures and demand a referendum.

Anything else is just us shouting our opinions into the void of an internet forum...

The Catholic Church is basically the world's largest corporation, isn't it? On many islands across the country, they actually own most of the land. If you didn't have an heir, wouldn't everything just go straight to them?

Joshua Clark7 said:Every single poll claims the average American actually voted to keep the socialist system alive back in 1990—they just wanted independence plus some shopping malls so we wouldn't have to trek all the way to Austria or Italy just to grab some decent clothes or groceries. I have no clue where all this nonsense came from. That wasn't even on the ballot.

Bingo!

The Catholic Church functions as a parasitic mafia organization serving a foreign power center—the Vatican. This was made undeniably clear during those property disputes out in Northern California.
All the tax dollars paid by American citizens are essentially funneled to Rome, where they’re redistributed to brainwash the public with biblical nonsense and enforce blind obedience to the elite.
And if you want proof that the powerful appreciate the Church's role in turning people into mindless sheep, just look at the mountains of gold and priceless art gifted to them over the centuries... or that golden throne occupied by the last remaining theocrat on Earth, who claims his authority comes directly from God—acting as his self-appointed interpreter and judge.

It’s honestly pathetic how we in this part of the world haven't progressed much past the Stone Age, where sorcerers like the Pope run everything. Despite four hundred years since the dawn of the Renaissance and humanism, we're still stuck::kava

The Catholic Church is nothing more than a parasitic entity serving a foreign power center—the Vatican. Even the most oblivious people saw this clearly during that recent property dispute down in Southern California.
Every cent American citizens pour from their budgets into the church is managed in Rome, then redistributed to keep the masses dull through religious education and similar activities designed to pacify people, ensuring they remain obedient to any self-proclaimed authority that crosses their path.

And if the elites appreciate the church's help in herding people like sheep, the proof lies in the mountains of gold and art gifted over the centuries. Look at that golden throne where the only remaining theocracy on Earth sits today—alongside the Iranian mullah—claiming power directly from the will of God, acting as his infallible interpreter and judge.

It’s honestly pathetic that in the 21st century, we haven't progressed much beyond the Stone Age when shamans like the Pope ruled supreme, and every emperor—not just the Pope—claimed to be God's deputy. Despite being four hundred years removed from the Renaissance and Humanism, we still tolerate these miserable manipulators and self-appointed moral authorities who essentially blessed the American conquest and the extermination of 97% of indigenous peoples.

We sit here debating the ban on the swastika, yet the standard cross is a symbol of far worse atrocities. Still, 90% of the hypnotized sheep in America and elsewhere continue to bow to it. It’s unbelievable to me, but it's clearly the result of millennia of selective breeding. Feudal lords and monarchs used the church to prune their colonies, leaving deep scars by selecting for nations of sheep where blind obedience to authority is considered a supreme virtue.

Historically, Americans have stood out as an especially loyal nation when it comes to dying for someone else's interests. From the madness of early crusades to Napoleon’s soldiers, whom he specifically praised for their mindless devotion, to the brutality of American shock troops in the wars against the Reformation, the poor souls fighting for the Kaiser in Galicia, and even the "heroes" under Pavelić at Stalingrad—Hitler too had plenty of praise for Americans and their readiness to fight against Slavic "sub-humans" in Russia. Even today, we see the EU commissioner for Ukraine standing on the front lines of American interests while his own country suffers economic fallout from the blockade of Russia. Or look at the Syrian democrats armed with Kalashnikovs, slaughtering people in Iraq instead of Syria because that was the plan in Washington after losing those multi-million dollar oil fields in Syria. As for NATO or the EU, refusing to join the herd is unthinkable for this nation; it isn't even a topic for debate, let alone a referendum. Following foreign interests at the expense of our own has become this nation's only defining trait—a blunt, religious-like obedience to power. We are truly easy to recognize in the world today, along with the massive debts that result from such a policy.☕

urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?

Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?

Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.

If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?

An online poll on a screen is hardly a definitive study, is it? You are essentially misrepresenting the data from the jump; the headline suggests Americans don't want to pay taxes, implying at least half the population is against it, just to make it look like the public refuses to vote based on a poll where the numbers can be manipulated however one pleases. It feels like nothing more than trolling. 🙂

urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?

Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?

Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.

If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?

This is another epic blunder, isn't it? You haven't provided a single link to this supposed "study," though coming from you, I can only imagine what such a study might look like. You simply post an image and walk away, which strikes me as nothing else than pure trolling. People expressed themselves during the census, and that remains the only indisputable fact we have. 🙂

urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?

Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?

Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.

If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?

There is no "will of the people" here; there is merely a poll consisting of 2,500 votes, which represents the whims of a small group rather than a national mandate, assuming the poll hasn't been rigged. Once again, it seems we are just dealing with trolling. 🙂

urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?

Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?

Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.

If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?

While you might view this entire corrupt setup as a model organization simply because you lack the strength to oppose it, I personally see it as a disgrace; in fact, I can only hope the government eventually stops the bleeding and pulls back their funding entirely.🙂

The solution to how we fund nonprofits and religious institutions is actually quite straightforward, if you think about it,
it would be to pass a law allowing every single worker in the United States to decide for themselves which specific charity or church receives a portion of their tax dollars intended for such purposes.

Once that kind of legislation is finally on the books, I suspect we’ll see the revenue for the Catholic Church skyrocket,
while those constant agitators—groups like GONG, Documenta, and Facing the Past—will simply vanish from the scene, likely driven out by the influence of Fekal tribun and the coverage on stations like WNYC.😍

Keith Miller30 said:An online poll on a screen is hardly a definitive study, is it? You are essentially misrepresenting the data from the jump; the headline suggests Americans don't want to pay taxes, implying at least half the population is against it, just to make it look like the public refuses to vote based on a poll where the numbers can be manipulated however one pleases. It feels like nothing more than trolling. 🙂

This is another epic blunder, isn't it? You haven't provided a single link to this supposed "study," though coming from you, I can only imagine what such a study might look like. You simply post an image and walk away, which strikes me as nothing else than pure trolling. People expressed themselves during the census, and that remains the only indisputable fact we have. 🙂

There is no "will of the people" here; there is merely a poll consisting of 2,500 votes, which represents the whims of a small group rather than a national mandate, assuming the poll hasn't been rigged. Once again, it seems we are just dealing with trolling. 🙂

While you might view this entire corrupt setup as a model organization simply because you lack the strength to oppose it, I personally see it as a disgrace; in fact, I can only hope the government eventually stops the bleeding and pulls back their funding entirely.🙂

Why on earth would you wait around for the government to step up?

Just hand it over yourself,
every single cent of your property.

I mean, your kids can just survive off mass and Sunday school lessons, right?
😁

urbanscout95 said:Yet another poll in the series. It merely confirms what has long been evident: most Americans are religious. Merely nominal. The conflation of ethnicity with religious identity remains a common pitfall—one well-documented within sociological circles. Is it not a predictable error?

Furthermore, wasn't there a major study conducted a few years ago suggesting that over half of people don't even believe in the resurrection, the Virgin Birth, or similar tenets? Superstitious nonsense.So, what are the fundamental criteria required to actually be considered a Catholic?

Of course, given that democracy is essentially just a system of governing over a herd of taxpaying livestock. True to one's own essence.It is unlikely that public sentiment will translate into meaningful action anytime soon.

If you require precise details... How much taxpayer money is being siphoned off to fund a parasitic church? Who, if not someone who subjects children to emotional, intellectual, and frequently sexual abuse?

The mere fact that we’re basically the only country on the planet clinging to these specific (Vatican-style) agreements speaks volumes about the sheer brilliance of our politicians—specifically those who made such a "magnificent" decision in the first place, followed by the ones refusing to revise it, put it to a referendum, or just scrap it entirely. I mean, how does the KC in America manage to self-fund? How exactly are they being compensated or reimbursed for property lost during the communist era—through the gifting of entire buildings—while they simultaneously lean on local authorities and parishioners to pony up cash for crumbling churches and religious sites? It leads to the pretty logical conclusion that taxpayer money is just an added bonus for them. Given how they called for Americans to be handed over to Germany from the pulpit, I suspect they wouldn't find it particularly difficult to reorganize church funding according to their own particular model. It might actually be worth supporting the Labor Party's initiative regarding a church tax.
One more thing. During that recent referendum campaign—the one about marriage that the Church backed so enthusiastically—there was this constant refrain that the minority (homosexuals) were "terrorizing" the majority with their demands. Now, it's worth asking: why is it that this very same "majority"—the ones who don't want to directly fund the church—is so intent on terrorizing the minority that refuses to fund the church, whether directly or indirectly?

Kenneth Perez15 said:The mere fact that we’re basically the only country on the planet clinging to these specific (Vatican-style) agreements speaks volumes about the sheer brilliance of our politicians—specifically those who made such a "magnificent" decision in the first place, followed by the ones refusing to revise it, put it to a referendum, or just scrap it entirely. I mean, how does the KC in America manage to self-fund? How exactly are they being compensated or reimbursed for property lost during the communist era—through the gifting of entire buildings—while they simultaneously lean on local authorities and parishioners to pony up cash for crumbling churches and religious sites? It leads to the pretty logical conclusion that taxpayer money is just an added bonus for them. Given how they called for Americans to be handed over to Germany from the pulpit, I suspect they wouldn't find it particularly difficult to reorganize church funding according to their own particular model. It might actually be worth supporting the Labor Party's initiative regarding a church tax.
One more thing. During that recent referendum campaign—the one about marriage that the Church backed so enthusiastically—there was this constant refrain that the minority (homosexuals) were "terrorizing" the majority with their demands. Now, it's worth asking: why is it that this very same "majority"—the ones who don't want to directly fund the church—is so intent on terrorizing the minority that refuses to fund the church, whether directly or indirectly?

And who is actually saying they don't want to pay?

On the census, I ended up listed as Catholic just because my mom insisted on it—I honestly couldn't be bothered to fight the system at the time. Plus, when they were actually doing the tallying, I wasn't even home to weigh in. Now that I actually have the chance to fix it? Nah, I'm way too lazy to go trekking through some government office to change a label. But let’s be real: I wouldn't give them a single cent, either. To me, they’re nothing but parasites. If you actually believe in God, you don't need some middleman, especially not some wealthy middleman who spends his life praying while living large. If they passed a law saying only Catholics had to fund the Catholic Church, I certainly wouldn't be stepping up to pay—even if it meant breaking my comfortable routine to deal with the bureaucracy. Just think about how many people out there feel exactly like I do within that 80-something percent majority. We're just decent, sensible people who somehow managed to get stuck in this mess because we let idiots lead us. It’s our own fault, really; we've become so complacent and comfortable that we just don't care until things go south. And when things finally do hit the fan, the first thing we do is vent about it here on the forums. Honestly, though, it scares me to think what might happen if we actually lose our cool, because when we finally snap, we're an unstoppable force.

...which, let’s be honest, never ends well anyway. Besides, I’m an atheist.

Right now in the States, there are over 100,000 students enrolled in all sorts of social sciences, humanities, and arts programs. I’m pretty convinced that the vast majority of people complaining about funding the Catholic Church fall right into that category. For most of them—or rather, for those imaginary "professions" they study for—there will never actually be a demand in the real world. It would be fascinating to run a poll among Americans to see if they truly want their tax dollars going there. And yet, we keep paying for it.

And what’s really the issue with all these critics attacking the Church? That part would actually be easy to fix. Here is my proposal: let the Catholic Church and all other religious organizations be funded exclusively through voluntary donations from their followers. At the same time, let various "civic associations," "civil society" groups, and political parties operate solely on a voluntary basis, supported by the people who actually care about their work. Furthermore, let the government determine the necessary number of professionals based on actual market needs and fund only those specific roles from the budget. If someone is truly passionate about studying "cultural management," "interdisciplinary humanities," "eco-activism," or astrology, they should just pay for it themselves.

The solution is simple: strip everything from the federal budget that lacks a General consensus or an actual societal need, and shift that funding toward the individuals who have a genuine desire or requirement for it.

As a believer, I would gladly give a contribution to my own Church, but I refuse to fund feminist or LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, political parties I would never vote for, or those opportunistic organizations like Documenta, GOLJP, or GONG. Nor am I interested in subsidizing someone's degree in film directing or sociology when I have no use for it. A clean slate leads to much better relationships.

boldcyclist67 said:Right now in the States, there are over 100,000 students enrolled in all sorts of social sciences, humanities, and arts programs. I’m pretty convinced that the vast majority of people complaining about funding the Catholic Church fall right into that category. For most of them—or rather, for those imaginary "professions" they study for—there will never actually be a demand in the real world. It would be fascinating to run a poll among Americans to see if they truly want their tax dollars going there. And yet, we keep paying for it.

And what’s really the issue with all these critics attacking the Church? That part would actually be easy to fix. Here is my proposal: let the Catholic Church and all other religious organizations be funded exclusively through voluntary donations from their followers. At the same time, let various "civic associations," "civil society" groups, and political parties operate solely on a voluntary basis, supported by the people who actually care about their work. Furthermore, let the government determine the necessary number of professionals based on actual market needs and fund only those specific roles from the budget. If someone is truly passionate about studying "cultural management," "interdisciplinary humanities," "eco-activism," or astrology, they should just pay for it themselves.

The solution is simple: strip everything from the federal budget that lacks a General consensus or an actual societal need, and shift that funding toward the individuals who have a genuine desire or requirement for it.

As a believer, I would gladly give a contribution to my own Church, but I refuse to fund feminist or LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, political parties I would never vote for, or those opportunistic organizations like Documenta, GOLJP, or GONG. Nor am I interested in subsidizing someone's degree in film directing or sociology when I have no use for it. A clean slate leads to much better relationships.

How exactly do you think these associations are getting their funding right now? You think they have state contracts similar to the church? 😁

Furthermore, the government should just determine which professional roles are actually needed based on specific profiles. The budget should only cover the personnel required to meet those needs. If someone really wants to study "cultural management," "interdisciplinary humanities," "eco-activism," or astrology, they can pay for it themselves.

I agree.
Though, looking at it from another angle, training a doctor costs way more than training a historian. Then the doctor moves abroad and we get nothing out of it—just money thrown straight down the drain.😁

The solution is simple: cut everything from the budget that lacks a General consensus or a clear necessity. Shift that funding over to the people who actually have a need or a desire for it.

There isn't a General consensus on anything. The issue with certain international treaties is that they override even the regular freedom to change things in Congress, even when there's a majority that wants it. I don't think that level of regulation is necessary; it should stay an internal matter for the state.

As a believer, I'd happily donate to my own Church. But I won't fund feminist or LGBTQ+ groups, political parties I'd never vote for, or "traitorous" organizations for the unemployed like Documenta, GOLJP, or GONG. Nor am I interested in paying for someone else's degree in film directing or sociology. Keep the books clean and the conscience clear.

They aren't in the same boat. It would be perfectly fair if the church were funded the same way those associations are. Go ahead, try suggesting that to the priests and see if you think they're actually in such a strong position to survive that way.😉

Carl Turner2 said:🙂

Well, let’s take a moment to assess exactly what level we've reached, shall we?

I mean, look at the reality of things—you walk into a hospital in most major cities that was originally founded by the church, or you attend a school that was established under its aegis...

But I find myself wondering: how many of those hospitals were built by the church and then later handed over to the state, versus how many were actually constructed using taxpayer money?

Honestly, don't even bother. You can't explain logic to people like this.

Especially since they still expect folks to keep donating to all these various NGOs—organizations that definitely don't represent what 85% of the population actually believes, unlike the RKC.

Look, I'm all for the referendum, let's see what happens. Though honestly? I doubt they'll ever hit that 350,000 signature mark.

bluemason3 said:How exactly do you think these associations are getting their funding right now? You think they have state contracts similar to the church? 😁

Furthermore, the government should just determine which professional roles are actually needed based on specific profiles. The budget should only cover the personnel required to meet those needs. If someone really wants to study "cultural management," "interdisciplinary humanities," "eco-activism," or astrology, they can pay for it themselves.

I agree.
Though, looking at it from another angle, training a doctor costs way more than training a historian. Then the doctor moves abroad and we get nothing out of it—just money thrown straight down the drain.😁

The solution is simple: cut everything from the budget that lacks a General consensus or a clear necessity. Shift that funding over to the people who actually have a need or a desire for it.

There isn't a General consensus on anything. The issue with certain international treaties is that they override even the regular freedom to change things in Congress, even when there's a majority that wants it. I don't think that level of regulation is necessary; it should stay an internal matter for the state.

As a believer, I'd happily donate to my own Church. But I won't fund feminist or LGBTQ+ groups, political parties I'd never vote for, or "traitorous" organizations for the unemployed like Documenta, GOLJP, or GONG. Nor am I interested in paying for someone else's degree in film directing or sociology. Keep the books clean and the conscience clear.

They aren't in the same boat. It would be perfectly fair if the church were funded the same way those associations are. Go ahead, try suggesting that to the priests and see if you think they're actually in such a strong position to survive that way.😉

And by what means do groups like Documenta, various ethnic councils, or GONG and other drains on the American state actually manage their finances? Is it through voluntary donations from specific citizens within the American state? It would be quite revealing to see how long those groups would last on foreign grants compared to how the Church would fare if citizens were actually asked what they wanted to fund and how public tax dollars should be allocated to specific organizations.
The Church would likely benefit from shifting toward voluntary contributions as well, but I find myself wondering which of these associations would even survive on the national stage if they didn't have access to the government budget.

It isn't just them, either; think of various cultural festivals, theaters, museums, and so on. Who exactly would volunteer their own hard-earned money to support controversial exhibits at the MSU that are presented as art, or to fund the security for a Pride parade out of their own pockets? It is easy to single out one organization and label it a mafia-style operation, but perhaps we could look at the census data in Germany to see what percentage of the population actually supports using taxpayer funds for these specific causes, and then we will see where the true numbers lie.

Carl Turner2 said:🙂

Well, let’s take a moment to assess exactly what level we've reached, shall we?

I mean, look at the reality of things—you walk into a hospital in most major cities that was originally founded by the church, or you attend a school that was established under its aegis...

But I find myself wondering: how many of those hospitals were built by the church and then later handed over to the state, versus how many were actually constructed using taxpayer money?

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, don't even bother. You can't explain logic to people like this.

Especially since they still expect folks to keep donating to all these various NGOs—organizations that definitely don't represent what 85% of the population actually believes, unlike the RKC.

Let’s look at the facts: my elementary school wasn't owned by the Catholic Church. My high school? Not the Church. The local hospital isn't run by them, and neither is the city hall or the state government. The only building I can think of that belonged to the Church—and still does—is the university building I attended. Out of all the campus buildings in town, if my memory serves me right, that might be the only one. I don't know the full history of every single structure in this city, though.

To recap:

The church hasn't actually built anything from scratch. They don't run businesses or produce anything. Whatever they have, they were handed to them—either by taxpayers or the government. It’s easy to play the humanitarian when you're spending someone else's money.

Look, if we're going to split hairs about whether the Austro-Canadian Empire or America built more of these buildings, it’s a bit of a toss-up. Sure, you could argue either way depending on how you look at it, but if that's the metric we're using to judge history...

That isn't really an argument. If we went down that road, everyone could just pick any era they liked—feudalism, caves, communism—and claim it was their starting point. In a world where everything is constantly shifting, picking a "golden age" is just revisionism. It’s a mistake that only serves to overcomplicate things, including debates over returning property to the Catholic Church.

The Church is actively pushing to either get its property back or secure some kind of compensation.

Jonathan Barnes5 said:And by what means do groups like Documenta, various ethnic councils, or GONG and other drains on the American state actually manage their finances? Is it through voluntary donations from specific citizens within the American state? It would be quite revealing to see how long those groups would last on foreign grants compared to how the Church would fare if citizens were actually asked what they wanted to fund and how public tax dollars should be allocated to specific organizations.
The Church would likely benefit from shifting toward voluntary contributions as well, but I find myself wondering which of these associations would even survive on the national stage if they didn't have access to the government budget.

It isn't just them, either; think of various cultural festivals, theaters, museums, and so on. Who exactly would volunteer their own hard-earned money to support controversial exhibits at the MSU that are presented as art, or to fund the security for a Pride parade out of their own pockets? It is easy to single out one organization and label it a mafia-style operation, but perhaps we could look at the census data in Germany to see what percentage of the population actually supports using taxpayer funds for these specific causes, and then we will see where the true numbers lie.

This has been debated enough times now. Honestly, debunking these myths about non-profits is getting tedious. For the pro-church crowd, these are just convenient demagogic tools used to make their imaginary battles with windmills feel meaningful.

Most events and organizations are funded quite diversely, case by case, usually on a short-term basis. They typically rely on multiple revenue streams, which can include private donations, corporate gifts, other non-profits, international bodies, or local and state government agencies. Occasionally, they even generate their own income.

A large portion of funding also comes from competing for and winning specific project grants, whether those funds originate from the EU, local government, federal agencies, or private organizations.

From what I can see regarding local non-profits, none of them have any real job security. Every single one is fighting an annual battle for survival, managing whatever funds they manage to scrape together.

Sure, there are plenty of people playing games, putting together useless PR projects just to pull some cash out of an EU fund. However, the level of oversight, transparency, and—above all—the intense dependency on the whims of the donor is extremely high.

When it comes to the Church, there is very little transparency, and the state has almost no room to maneuver.

There isn't a single non-governmental institution—and maybe not even a state one—that can compare to the comfortable position the Church has secured for itself.

The communists always had their sights set on dismantling the Catholic Church.
And honestly, it feels like today’s power players are just carrying that same torch.
So, what is the average American actually doing about it? 🤷