Newsvine - Fake Social Science: Dirty Sex! Dirty Politics! Dirty Religion! The First Annual Exploit Your Fellow Viners for Research Poll

Comments will open 24 hours after the timestamp on this comment.

13 votes

#1 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:52 AM EST

IRESPOND-2315268

People tend to be honest the first time. They answer with the gut feeling.

My humble opinion....

1 vote

#1.1 - Sun Mar 11, 2012 9:11 PM EDT

Well, the embargo's over and we need to see if the experiment work. So let me start off by telling one of the things that went into Question #1.

I teach Freshman Comp through a random assortment of current op-eds. It's not the majority method, but it is a standard method. One of my professors in Grad learned freshman comp that way at Pace back in the 1950s and there's always a handful of folks doing it that way in most every department. There are costs and benefits to the method. One of the benefits is that the topics are guaranteed fresh. One of the costs is that when every columnist is writing on the same thing, you're stuck.

So in the last stages of the Gay Marriage controversy in Massachusetts, the Archdiocese was pushing for a state constitutional amendment and issued a pastoral letter to that effect. I come to class and everyone had written a rejoinder to somebody who said something about it in the Globe or Herald, which was everybody who said anything.

I called on a woman who started arguing against a column that mentioned the Pastoral letter, but I interrupted her. "Have YOU read the letter?" I asked knowing full well the answer would be No and I could launch into a cozy professorial discussion of how critical it was to consult primary souces. But that's not what she said.

"I HEARD it," she replied. You HEARD it? Gears started clicking, the sprocket caught and I realized she must have gone to Mass two days before and heard the letter read. Brilliant as I am putting it all together in less than I tenth of a second, I cleverly said, "Uh .... You're Catholic?" Which is what any dolt would say anytime anywhere. So maybe I was a dolt, but that wasn't anytime anywhere, it was a classroom. For all I know, I had just violated some privacy law; aw, heck, let's go First Amendment why don't we? So while I stood there dumbfounded for an instant struggling to recover, she bailed me out.

"I'm supposed to be," she shrugged.

If I had just lost my job for violating the First Amendment, I won it right back. Instead of bursting at that incredible answer, I looked at her cool as the other side of the pillow and said, "You know what you did that was really good? You consulted the primary source . . . "

9 votes

#2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:53 AM EST

I teach Freshman Comp through a random assortment of current op-eds.

One of the most useful exercises that I had to do as a graduate student was to write a paper with at least 10 references. What made writing the paper more difficult than usual was that I had to come up with an observation that none of the authors of the 10 referenced articles had seen. In other words - I had to take the information provided from at least 10 articles - and then use that information to reach a conclusion (or a hypothesis) that none of the original authors had seen individually.

That exercise demonstrated (at least, to me) the difference between 'critical thinking' and 'reporting'.

That was in the biological sciences - I wonder if such a task would lend itself to the social sciences.

8 votes

#2.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:27 PM EST

rls8r:

I wonder if such a task would lend itself to the social sciences.

Probably too easily, actually. The core problem of the social sciences is rigor not original hypothesis.

For instance, I'm making original social scientific inferences below from a handful of dumb internet polls.

:^{)>

6 votes

#2.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:53 PM EST

~~I'm waiting with bated breath~~ ... no ... ~~I'm waiting with baited breath~~ .... drat, that doesn't look right either ... ~~I'm anxiously~~ ... crap!

I can't wait to read what you make of all the responses. I'm especially curious to see how (or if) the final reel reflects a combination (or concatenation) of all the responses and reaches a conclusion (or observation) that is not a topic that is embodied by any of the individual questions. You're a better man than I am ~~Gunga Din~~ ...~~Charlie Brown~~... ~~well @!$%#!~~ (we'll just leave it at that!)

6 votes

#2.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:52 PM EST

I answered the polls. I find religions overall to be a massive joke, played on humans by the giant Squid from Arcturus that pooped out the first biological materials that kicked off evolution on the planet Earth. The Catholic Church made it's bed, now let it lie in it. In 1983, the Archbishop on NY made the case for overlooking their ban on contraceptives and abortions, and declared that social programs such as welfare, medicaid, and food stamps count as "charity". Once they did this, yet clung to their tax exempt status, they proved the Catholic Church was not charitable. Then, in the 80s they moved proven child molesting priests to other parrishes and diocese to prevent their facing criminal charges, thus losing any claim to moral superiority.

That being said, making ANY organization claiming religious objections to funding birth control or abortions (NOT the same thing) provide their employees access to those same processes DOES violate the 1st Amendment.

2 votes

#2.4 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:16 PM EST

Neale:

Thanks for taking part.

And ....

That being said, making ANY organization claiming religious objections to funding birth control or abortions (NOT the same thing) provide their employees access to those same processes DOES violate the 1st Amendment.

Wrong. The First Amendment does not protect "organizations" it protects people. If people want to worship. Fine. 1st Amendment. If people want to build a church to worship together, fine. 1st Amendment. If that church wants to set up a corpration to provide service, not fine, not First Amendment.

4 votes

#2.5 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:25 PM EST

Jack- we'll just have to disagree! :)

I don't like the Church. I don't like it's tax exempt status. I don't like it's homosexual priests. However, forcing ANY organization to provide it's members services the organization opposes for religious reasons does, in my opinion, violate the 1st Amendment. However, the Catholic Church's chickens...... are coming home.. to roost!

SEE THIS to get why. (Note- as an atheist, I resent the tax exempt status of ALL religious organizations)

3 votes

#2.6 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:33 PM EST

Roy Batty

Hurm. Imagine if a headline would read "Obama says people who work for religious organizations ineligible for contraceptive benefits, they must pay for it themselves."

I imagine churches would be be jumping up and down for being treated specially and the conservatives would call it a War on Religion.

9 votes

#2.7 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:08 PM EST

Roy- I actually hope they WOULD do exactly that! It would show up the total hypocrisy of organized religion. What bearing does that have upon this debate, though. Obama does not have the Constitutional authority to require this insurance mandate to begin with. I'm not supporting churches, I'm opposing the illegal removal of ANY enumerated right.

3 votes

#2.8 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:23 AM EST

Neale:

Glad you're back. I haven't read you enough to say if you've actually said this, so if you haven't, regard this as a more general critique of Libertarianisn than of you.

Many libertarians, when pressed to defend Ron/Rand Paul's objections to the Civil Rights Act on First Principle, make a claim something like "The Constitution doesn't protective collective rights, only individual rights."

If you are arguing that the First Amendment right to free exercise inheres to the Catholic Church as such, i.e., as a voluntary but nevertheless collective entity, then that undercuts the objection in principle to the CRA.

Either. The Constution does NOT provide for protection of collective rights (actually it does already; Indian tribes have a right to treat collectively with the Federal gov't under Congress's enumerated powers). Or. The Constitution DOES provide for protection of collective rights.

Don't really care which answer you give. But fair warning. I'll remember it.

8 votes

#2.9 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:51 AM EST

THe Civil Rights Act was a mistake. But not for the reasons some have espoused. What it SHOULD have said was "These are American citizens. They already have these rights, and we're gonna toss your assees in the slammer if you continue to violate them. (personally, I would have done some ass tossing no matter what) So be warned, all you lawmakers- try to figure a way around the individual rights of these people, and there WILL be hell to pay." As you may know, I have very little use for government. But one of the very few times a government IS usefull is when some person or group of people have had trheir rights violated. I am opposed to Affirmative Action because it violates the rights of some to protect the rights of others. Was it a fair thing to do when started? Probably. Is it STILL fair to do it today? In my opinion, no. I'm still willing to discuss it, though! :)

ALL rights are individual. One person or 10,000 of them, the basis for the right is each individual. " (actually it does already; Indian tribes have a right to treat collectively with the Federal gov't under Congress's enumerated powers)." is semi- inaccurate. The tribes as groups DO have the right, just as any group does, but the individuals WITHIN the group have the right to refuse to abide by the negotiations of the group. An example is the tribes that recently sued several breweries. The tribes have enacted prohibition within the confines of their reservation. many of the members of their tribe do not hold with the ban on alchohol. The tribe as a whole does NOT have the right to violate the individual rights of the indians by preventing them from leaving reservation grounds and buying beer. The collective rights of the tribe does not remove the individual right of the single indian to buy alchohol, no matter how lofty the reason for the ban.

Now, for the hard part. Ron Paul. Since I oppose Oabama, and the ONLY party at the time that has a chance of unseating him is the Republican party, the odds are I will vote Republican. I'll be holding my nose, swallowing my gorge, closing my eyes, and voting Republican. I am philosophically opposed to Obama's policies on nearly every level. There ARE Democrats I could vote for, but he isn't one of them. And NO, it isn't his skin color I oppose. IF Romney gets the nod, I'm not voting for him because he and Obama are brothers in political goals. If Newt or Santorum get the nod, it's REALLY gonna hurt, but I feel either of them is a lesser evil than Obama. Ron paul, as a semi-Libertarian, would be my preferred choice. By no means perfect, but far closer to it than the other Republican front-runners. He has several flaws. Some glaringly huge, most acceptable. Again, lesser of two evils, but more tolerable than most. I'd probably not have to swallow my gorge. I'd still hold my nose and close my eyes, though.

A last thought, then I'll let you have at me! (LOL)

Our political field sucks this year. We have a Keynesian marxist, a New England Republican marxist, a failed Speaker of the House, a religious zealot, and a 70-something doctor/Libertarian with questionable judgement in who he delegates certain things to. No matter who wins, one thing is sure. In my opinion, WE, the People, will most assuredly lose.

5 votes

#2.10 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:12 PM EST

While I'm not a fan of Ayn Rand (hides from fellow Libertarians), she said the following VERY well!

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
Ayn Rand

No group has the right to bargain away an individual's right, any more than any majority has the right to bargain away the rights of ANY minority.

(I see what someone will comment next, but I'll let THEM say it first!!)

5 votes

#2.11 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:19 PM EST

Neale:

The tribes as groups DO have the right, just as any group does, but the individuals WITHIN the group have the right to refuse to abide by the negotiations of the group.

Where on earth do you get that from? The tribe as a collective had the right to treat with the United States Government and then the resulting treaty bound all tribe members to those conditions. No individual was able to change, say, a reservation boundary, or transport goods that were contraband by agreement just because ... LIBERTY.

ALL rights are individual.

Again. I'm willing to adopt that as a first principle, but if that's the principle then the contraceptive mandate is not an infringement. No individual is being denied the liberty to do anything. Only certain statutorily constructed and recognized entities like the "Archdiocese of Boston" are affected and even then, it's other statutorily constructed and recognized entities controlled by the first statutorily constructed and recognized entity that is being forced to do anything. Those entities are not individuals. Not even the Archbishop is in this instance because corporate control rests with the office, not the person, and that office is within the sole gift and domain of some guy who lives in a city-state surrounded on all sides by Italy.

The Pope has a lot of things, but one thing he doesn't have is the protection of the First Amendment while upon the Throne of Saint Peter.

6 votes

#2.12 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:12 PM EST

merleliz

Since I oppose Obama, and the ONLY party at the time that has a chance of unseating him is the Republican party, the odds are I will vote Republican. I'll be holding my nose, swallowing my gorge, closing my eyes, and voting Republican. I am philosophically opposed to Obama's policies on nearly every level. There ARE Democrats I could vote for, but he isn't one of them. And NO, it isn't his skin color I oppose. IF Romney gets the nod, I'm not voting for him because he and Obama are brothers in political goals. If Newt or Santorum get the nod, it's REALLY gonna hurt, but I feel either of them is a lesser evil than Obama.

sigh...yep. It would be nice to have a candidate I could wholeheartedly support with a chance of winning, though. But I have found over the years that most people, the vast majority, in fact, vote against someone instead of for someone. Probably because we have such crappy choices...Corrupt Politician A or Corrupt Politician B...that the best we can do is the lesser of two evils. How sad is that?

1 vote

#2.13 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:02 AM EST

In my first presidential election, 1972, I cast a vote for all the offices except president. I wouldn't vote for Nixon, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for McGovern, either. Since that time my preferred candidates generally get knocked out in the primaries - Morris Udall, Bruce Babbitt, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean - even George W. Bush in 1980.

Anyway, for me, the general elections always came down to the lesser of two evils, except for this last election, when I was happy to cast my vote for Obama. I have been very disappointed in his performance, particularly his unwillingness to stand up to the Republicans and his continuation of Bush's attacks on civil liberties. I will no doubt have to vote for Obama again this time, though, since the Republicans have turned evil or crazy or both.

I really hate having to choose the lesser of two evils.

7 votes

#2.14 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:11 PM EST

mightyj

I resent the tax exempt status of most all of the non-profit organizations. I think if they don't feed the hungry or perform a valuable service to the tax base (Other than running their douchebaggy mouths) they should have to pay taxes like any other organization.

non-profit scams for the wealthy should be extremely limited.

2 votes

#2.15 - Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:40 PM EST

Jack,

The thing that struck me from the beginning of the poll taking was that people skipped questions. I was wondering why.

Questions #2 and #4 got the fewest responses. It's fairly easy to take a guess why #4 got so few responses from the responses in #5. But why did so few people answer #2?

A brief scan of the response count shows that most questions got skipped a time or two, but #2 and #4 were skipped a lot.

4 votes

#3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:57 AM EST

Well, if 60% of the respondents answered "Not" to #1, you'd expect only at most that percentage to answer #2, since it was directed only at people who answered "Not" to #1. jeanneg, below, answers perhaps as good an explanation as any. I'm certainly no Catholic, but I still consider myself "culturally" Catholic in a lot of ways. So I didn't answer #2.

7 votes

#3.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:05 AM EST

spiffie @ 3.1

Thanks for the nice clear explanation. I missed the second 'not' in jeanneg's post. (It was so blasted early)

5 votes

#3.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:11 AM EST

spiff:

Now that you mention it, I'm actually kinda pleased at how it syncs up. And I like the implications.

Those two were supposed to be the demo screen, but I can see how I can also use them to see if people were undeceptively answering. If you factor in the few people (like me) who answered both questions honestly (I'm supposed to be Catholic but really atheist/agnostic), it looks surprisingly good, doncha think? For an NV poll?

7 votes

#3.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:18 AM EST

flameaway

The only one I didn't answer was #9.

Everyone deserves respect. Period.

8 votes

#3.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:55 PM EST

flameaway:

Because, you said earlier:

I think number nine is a bad question...

I think everyone deserves respect, not just people in fancy clothes.

:)

Good point!

Getting back to joke I made above about the social sciences, rigor is hard. Two people worked on this for three full days pretty much, a day of writing and two days of fightin' 'n' fussin'. Draft, polish, order, polish, abandon, draft, polish. And we thought we got it perfect. And a lot of it did work. But some of it didn't.

5 votes

#3.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:12 PM EST

SW Missouri Mule

I answered "because of the office they hold" on #9 because clergy do counseling and often for free. Like flameaway, everyone deserves respect but the cloth does not command any greater respect for the wearer.

I was surprised at the number of atheists/agnostics at this point.

7 votes

#3.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:11 PM EST

SW Mo Mule:

Funny. I mentioned above that I answered my own instrument honestly.

Up until just a little while ago, I was the only person who voted "Because their attire commands it."

Inference: There's another former altar boy who voted in the poll.

On your other point, really? I'm not the slightest bit surprised. The NV threads are pretty much a bastion of the secular liberal/left. I would've expected just about the number we got or even more. What I find surprising is the "Protestant Mainline" number.

6 votes

#3.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:22 PM EST

SW Missouri Mule

Does liberal/left and atheist/agnostic go together? I was a Christian until a couple years ago. Since I started in a Bible study class and discussing religion here on NV I have stopped believing in god and see more of the Earth and nature at charge. I still like Jesus.

9 votes

#3.8 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:04 PM EST

SW Mo Mule:

Does liberal/left and atheist/agnostic go together?

Strangely enough, at the mass or grass roots level, not that much. Almost everyone is nominally a believer and since we still have the Red/Blue split that emerged 12 years ago, most Dems are Believers, most Repubs are Believers. Doesn't matter that much.

But when you get to the elite level, where power and ideology matter to political office and intellectual discourse, it matters a lot. Probably almost all the power players and influential thinkers on the Right are Believers, whereas probably almost all the same on the Left are Secularists (and I include Obama in that regardless of what he says for public consumption.

9 votes

#3.9 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:20 PM EST

I was surprised at the number of atheists/agnostics at this point.

SW Missouri: Sadly I wasn't. This is newsvine after all. Where member religious affiliation (or not) in NO WAY even pretends to be reflective of our broader society. And:

Like flameaway, everyone deserves respect but the cloth does not command any greater respect for the wearer

Agreed. As a try to be "obedient" Catholic---I didn't appreciate the vestment line of questioning.....though I've a better understanding what the authors were trying to determine now. Asa try to be "obedient" Catholic......I'd have liked an answer that says: Respect needs to be EARNED.....which is similar how I feel about the office of the President. Respect the office yes......but the occupant needs to earn my respect for HIM on his own.

Jack and MYMYMY: I'm just beginning to read this comment thread so forgive me if you answer this elsewhere---what were the poll results you found most surprising (i.e., not affirmations of your ingoing assumptions?)

4 votes

#3.10 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:52 AM EST

lisa @ 3.10

Thanks for taking the poll!

I found the answer to #4 most surprising. I read response #1 as encompassing response #2. So, given that surmise on my part, it would seem that most agree the government should leave churches alone.

4 votes

#3.11 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:36 AM EST

it would seem that most agree the government should leave churches alone.

mymymy---a message that hopefully Mr Obama has received. Doubtful though.

4 votes

#3.12 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:44 AM EST

lisa:

I'd have liked an answer that says: Respect needs to be EARNED....

Well, that was implied in the "guides to spiritual and moral truths" answer. I haven't seen below this comment yet, so perhaps this isn't the place to say this yet. Except obviously for #s 2 & 5, we tried to have an answer in every question that a good Catholic could answer in good conscience.

#9 was a general screw-up and #8 screwed up the Catholic answer.

4 votes

#3.13 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:53 PM EST

Well, that was implied in the "guides to spiritual and moral truths" answer

Jack: ding ding ding: That was the answer I selected! And what specifically were you and mymymy trying to learn with question #8 anyhow?

4 votes

#3.14 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:07 PM EST

lisa:

I'm not 100% sure since my³ wrote the question and I wrote the answers, so you'll have to ask her for half, but the reason I divided the answers the way I did was to shunt everyone with a reflexive disdain for religion into the "When Hell Freezes Over" answer, then go for a finer grain among those who do respect religious leaders with the other four answers.

5 votes

#3.15 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:30 PM EST

lisa @ 3.14

With question #8, I was subtly trying to address media bias. I think that was an exceptionally unflattering picture of Archbishop Dolan. The belligerent set of his mouth is very unlike him. I say this because he was Archbishop here before he went to NYC. His brother had a morning talk show and Archbishop Dolan often was a guest. He is a very warm and genial person.

IMHO, a photo of Archbishop Dolan in street clothes would have been more appropriate to the article. If they had wanted to show him in full regalia, then one of his more official portraits would have been a better choice.

So I was hoping to gauge what the casual reader thought of the picture depicting him in his official robes.

4 votes

#3.16 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:13 PM EST

Well, that was stupid. My answer to the design of question # NINE, the one about "Respect," is above in comment #3.15.

The answer to the question she actually asked about # EIGHT, the one about the image of the Archbishop, is below in comment # 8.15.

2 votes

#3.17 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:35 PM EST

mymymy,

I didn't answer #2, because I'm none of these (or that is, I don't identify as any...tho, I thought about selecting Wiccan - as some people believe Catholicism is actually rooted to...but then, thought I'm not that either) as a lasped Catholic. Does that make any sense?

However, I answered #4 (exempt from federal taxes) because religious orgs. are "supposed" to technically be nonprofit corporations without profit motivated shareholder preferences.

My thinking is, if we begin to renege on one charitable organization's tax exempt status, then it opens the door to reneging other organizations that "do good work" for the greater good; and in turn perhaps making it harder for such institutions to keep their doors open.

6 votes

#3.18 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:38 PM EST

caltha @ 3.18

Good answers . . . as always:)

3 votes

#3.19 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:50 PM EST

So I was hoping to gauge what the casual reader thought of the picture depicting him in his official robes

Mymymy---for the record - I hate the completely unflattering picture. I respect the man. I think he's done one helluva job reprenting Catholic bishops vis a vis the attack by this Administration on religious liberty. And I'm sure the Pope gave him one heckuva an earful this week in Rome on the subject. And:

He is a very warm and genial person.

From what I've seen so far since he's come to NY---fully concur with your observation. I saw brief interview with him just before he left for Rome.....he was simply glowing with joy.

3 votes

#3.20 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:26 AM EST

jeanneg

i didn't answer #2 because I'm not not Catholic.

3 votes

#4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:05 AM EST

Hi jeanneg,

Thanks so much for taking the poll.

I think question #2 is for people who are not Catholic. (I have to confess, I skipped one of the poll questions, too, the first time around - I didn't like the choice of responses) - but I couldn't see the results for the question without voting, so curiosity got the better of me.

4 votes

#4.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:08 AM EST

my³:

Funny you should say that because I can answer for #4 because I did it deliberately. Dunno about #2.

This a genuine non-partisan bi-partisan answer. Both sides are full of it on Church/state relations.

Believers refuse to acknowledge that religion in this country is subsidized by tens of billions, probably hundreds of billions of dollars in foregone taxes paid by every other institution of similiar size and influence.

Secularists refuse to acknowledge how dangerously easy it is to intrude into the interior life of of others to illiberal effect but even semingly innocuous state action. Perhaps the state must intrude for public safety or whatever, but people have to have their worldviews. I may hate it, but it's essentially human.

But we as a society have refused to deal with that paradox, fighting this eternal endless squabbles around the edges.

I wanted to make people answer:

1. You can do what you want but you must pay taxes, or

2. You don't have to pay taxes but you must do what we want.

That's the ultimate choice in Church state/relations but it's rarely put that way.

5 votes

#5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:11 AM EST

jfx @5

religion in this country is subsidized by tens of billions, probably hundreds of billions of dollars in foregone taxes paid by every other institution of similiar size and influence.

I think people are good with that - knowing that the a church cannot be singled out and targeted for punitive taxation by legislation. And most churches spend any tax savings on charity in one form or another.

(It's really really really early for me, so I hope the above response sounds at least semi-coherent:)

4 votes

#5.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:20 AM EST

my³:

I would dispute that. Or perhaps make a related point--

I strenuously object to even one dollar of those tax savings being used to proselytize.

Which pretty much every religion does whether they also do charity or not. Except the Jews.

BTW: Did you see the "zero" under "Jewish or Muslim"?

5 votes

#5.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:29 AM EST

jfx @ 5.2

BTW: Did you see the "zero" under "Jewish or Muslim"?

I think Muslims and Jews look at the hooha and shake their heads and smile to themselves. As long as Catholics are drawing fire, the feds will leave them alone. Their clerics dress simply and drably so as not to draw attention to themselves (kidding, jeez).

4 votes

#5.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:09 AM EST

my³:

I figured IDF or Greenpagan would drop by. Maybe Squidward.

I just had a terrible thought. Instead of cadging pageviews from the Bishops/contraceptive threads, what if we had done a few Middle East threads?

:^{)>

4 votes

#5.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:22 AM EST

jfx @ 5.4

I say beg Greenpagen for his indulgence and see what happens. (Better you than me:)

4 votes

#5.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:26 AM EST

I strenuously object to even one dollar of those tax savings being used to proselytize.

Which pretty much every religion does whether they also do charity or not. Except the Jews.

Interesting - when I read that the first thing that crossed my mind was the analogy between the statement and the SGK/PP situation. It seems that some folks strenuously objected to SGK giving PP any money at all because while PP did a lot of other things, they also did abortions.

Perhaps churches that both proselytize and run charities could keep separate accounts of how much they spend for proselytizing the unwashed masses and reduce their tax savings by that proportion. Would you be comfortable with that?

6 votes

#5.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:27 PM EST

rls8r:

Two points. First, SBK strenuously objected that that was not the reason.

Second, I'm pretty much disgusted with the whole non-profit sector anyway. They should all lose their exemptions. Any entity big enough for the exemption to matter to the tune of millions of dollars is at heart a scam anyway.

And don't get me started on "non-partisan" "education" scams like, er, The Heritage Foundation. Or, to be fair, Media Matters.

10 votes

#5.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:20 PM EST

I've been poking around the Internet on-and-off for a while now - trying to find out why not-for-profit companies were 'invented' or 'allowed' in the first place. I've found plenty of articles that have told me what they are, how to form one, the rules for running one, etc., but no article that I've found has told me why certain organizations are given that special IRS status. I can understand why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate (I don't agree, but I understand the philosophy). However, I can't find a discussion of the philosophy of giving some organizations a special tax status. Can you suggest some readings?

8 votes

#5.8 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:38 PM EST

rls8r:

Can't think of any offhand, but the direction you should go is back. WAY back.

What we think of as a Corporation grew out of the Mercantilist system but even then there were collective entities that operated as something like non-profits. Harvard College for example. Research will narrow this down, but I think "Harvard Corporation" has been around for a surprisingly long time. 18th century, 17th maybe even.

A complete history of Harvard administration might lead you down a fruitful track.

8 votes

#5.9 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:32 PM EST

Rats! OK - off to Universitas Harvardiana - Cantabrigiae in Repvblica Massachvsettensivm! Unfortunately - all my pre-1700 stuff is in storage, and I can't find my Latin dictionary, so this may take a while. I'll let you know what I find later in the week. Thanks.

Now - it's off to Valentine's Day dinner with my wife - and I really am in the field tomorrow (and probably Thursday as well). I'll be interested to see where the article goes - and where it is when I return on Friday.

5 votes

#5.10 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:58 PM EST

rls8r:

Have a nice dinner! Thanks for your wonderful contributions to this thread.

5 votes

#5.11 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:10 PM EST

my³:

We finally got a Jew or a Muslim!

8 votes

#5.12 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:25 PM EST

Jack -

Well - I've exhausted the folks at Harvard (and pretty nearly myself). I've managed to make it back to The Statute of Charitable Uses of 1601 which is not in Latin, but may as well be since it's in a form of English that doesn't look quite right to me (see pages 3-5). So - I'm relegated to reading what others have to say about it. For instance, I'm now plowing through Fishman's "THE POLITICAL USE OF PRIVATE BENEVOLENCE: THE STATUTE OF CHARITABLE USES". Interesting stuff - but slow going for me.

I've also started to look into U.S. legislation starting with the 1894 Tariff Act. It was ultimately struck down - but it was one of the first forays into an income tax, and it exempted certain charitable institutions. As you can imagine - finding first-sources of debates and discussions is pretty difficult - what little exist.

I'm getting a good understanding that institutions that are exempt from taxes are those that perform services that would otherwise be the responsibility of government if those institutions did not exist. Therefore, since the government is spared the expense - the institution is relieved from paying the taxes that would otherwise be used to perform those services by the government. That raises (or rather, focuses) the question in my mind as to what activities of religious organizations should be tax-exempt. i can certainly see hospitals, adoption centers, etc. being tax-exempt, but I'm increasingly uncomfortable about why the church, itself, should be tax-exempt. After all, expecially here in the U.S., the government is not being relieved of instructing religion.

So - I'm about to have a 180° pole shift in my thinking. I started out by thinking that "the church" should be tax-exempt but religious-based institutions like hospitals should not - but now I'm thinking just the converse.

Stay tuned.

7 votes

#5.13 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:39 AM EST

rls8r:

Holy moly! I thought I was stretching to push it back to the 17th century and you pushed it back to within a year of the 16th. That is, however, the line of cases and statutes I was referring to.

Don't waste that research. Write an article on it and link it here!

8 votes

#5.14 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:01 AM EST

Perhaps - but I'm not very good (or successful) at writing articles. I've come to the opinion that they are a great idea ... for someone else.

On another note - my fiddling with this question has turned your Poll Question 4 into something of a kaleidoscope for me. That is, if I look at it one way - I see one thing, and if I look at it slightly differently - I see something else entirely. Right now my studies have carried me out of the court of Queen Elizabeth I with all its religious intrigues and the Reformation and into the U.S. Supreme Court - specifically, to Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (397 U.S. 664). I think that you'd find that an interesting read.

I'm going to have to shut down now and get my 'day job' going. I have to look into RCRA regulations for refinery stormwater ponds (and maybe have to design an impoundment liner and cover), design a sub-slab vapor barrier and extraction system for buildings at Camp Lejeune, and work up my survey notes from yesterday. So, it's up and out of the rabbit hole for me for a while. Shame, really - your poll is leading me down some great avenues of thought. Thanks to you and to mymymy.

I'll be back...

8 votes

#5.15 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:00 AM EST

rls8r:

I'm not very good (or successful) at writing articles

Crap. Ninety percent of your comments as articles are superior to ninety percent of articles as articles. #5.13 is already an article.

9 votes

#5.16 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:09 AM EST

Jack,

Second, I'm pretty much disgusted with the whole non-profit sector anyway. They should all lose their exemptions. Any entity big enough for the exemption to matter to the tune of millions of dollars is at heart a scam anyway.

Heh. I suppose your view would also include "non-partisan" "education" nonprofits (PTOs and university educational foundations come to mind) that raise funds for public and private educational institutions.

As I indicated in my comment to mymymy at #3.18, nonprofits are "mission" oriented and are not generally profit oriented.

Indeed, these organizations designated with a 501 (c)(3) can make a profit, but it isn't as though the proceeds are split between their donors, as though they're shareholders.

I'm guessing that your primary objection to the nonprofits sector has more to do with the idea of providing tax shelters to the wealthiest.

Go thank GWB's tax policy for the rich; that has done more damage to the nonprofit sector. It diminished any "good" reason for the wealthy to donate their extra cash to "the greater good" and the nonprofit sector.

Death by a thousand cuts.Now the sector is reduced to producing and marketing a brand in the way SGK has.

rls8tr,

You might also read the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909, the Revenue Act of 1913, the Revenue Act of 1917, and the Revenue Act of 1921 (which formally incorporated the list of charitable organizations, established under England’s 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses).

8 votes

#5.17 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:09 PM EST

caltha:

I suppose your view would also include "non-partisan" "education" nonprofits (PTOs and university educational foundations come to mind) that raise funds for public and private educational institutions.

I wish it wouldn't, but it does.

:^{)>

Harvard's endowment is now so large that one of your econ bloggers (naked capitialism I think but I'm hazy) called it a "Non-profit hedge fund" rather than a "university."

6 votes

#5.18 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:51 PM EST

Jack,

Non-profit hedge fund

Interesting...

I wonder what one would call roughly the 600 PTOs here in NJ (or the scores of "friends of" nonprofit orgs that support the equal number of Charter Schools now cropping up everywhere in my state)...since Christie made substantial state funded education cuts. (Increasingly public school administrators turn to their nonprofit partners, like PTOs, for supplemental funding on, of all!, things like Promethean boards, while school board members like to blame the teachers union for shortfalls.)

If we eliminated all nonprofits IRS exemptions, then we might be looking at even greater financial crisis for "smaller" mission oriented organizations. Just sayin...

rsl8tr,

Here's a link (.pdf) you might like to read that provides a condensed historical overview of "tax exemptions for religious and charitable institutions" beginning on page 2. I forgot to insert it in my last comment.

7 votes

#5.19 - Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:32 PM EST

"Historical Development and Present Law of the Federal Tax Exemption for Charities and Other Tax-Exempt Organizations"

caltha -

Thanks for the leads. As you may have figured - I've trifurcated my reading into: 1) statutory/legislative references, 2) legal/case law regerences, and 3) regulatory (mostly IRS) references (I probably should have an 'other' category, as well). This is interesting stuff - I wish it came more easily to me.

I have about three more papers I'd like to read before I collapse my thoughts (Schroedinger-like) into something that is (hopefully) close to being coherent. The first two are the ones by Erika King and Chris Kemmitt cited in Livingston's paper for which you provide a link. I probably should throw Whitehead's paper into the mix since both King and Kemmitt cite his paper. I'm also trying to find a copy of McGovern's "The Exemption Provisions of Subchapter F". The final paper I'd like to review is Hansmann's "The Rationale for Exempting Nonprofit Organizations from Corporate Income Taxation". Unfortunately, all of these are law review articles and I don't have access to them over the Internet. So - I'll have to drive to Harrisonburg or Arlington to get these.

I find it interesting that some authors give reasons for giving some institutions tax-exempt status, and others say that the reasoning is unclear. Some authors consider tax-exemption to be 'settled', while others question whether the tax exemption laws should be revisited. I also did not appreciate the difference between non-profit organizations and tax-exempt organizations. Finally, I find it curious that tax-exemption scholars seem to have a fondness for deTocqueville.

A source of papers I've found that may interest you is the Joint Committee on Taxation of the House Committee on Ways and Means. For instance, they have produced a paper titled

Again - interesting stuff.

All for now.

PS: One of the hats I wear is one of a wetlands delineator. Caltha palustris is one of my favorite mid-Atlantic marsh plants. However, since you've been a big help it pains me to tell you that my overall favorite is the Hymenocallis occidentalis.

4 votes

#5.20 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:40 AM EST

rsl8r,

You're welcome. Yes, it is interesting stuff.

As you may have already guessed, I support the validity of the nonprofit sector. Some environmental nonprofits to which I volunteer my time and talents, do "good" work to preserve wetland watersheds...I'd hate to see their nonprofit tax exempt status jeopardized by those who think it would generate more tax revenue. I don't think that it would. Shrug.

Caltha palustris is one of my favorite mid-Atlantic marsh plants.

Yes, it's one of mine too. No worries. I've lost count of all my favorites.

7 votes

#5.21 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:58 AM EST

caltha:

That's not my primary concern, although I was kidding around with soph about that below.

My objection is to the abuse of the status, which, if it hasn't already overtaken the "good work" done by some non-profits, someday soon it surely will.

The obvious compromise is to somehow tighten the restrictions radically. Believe it or not, my first recommendation? Throw out "educational" purposes. I know there'll be some babies in the bathwater, but really, for Heritage or Bradley Foundations to "educate" me into the idea that right-wingers should dominate American public policy is just noxious.

Grandfather in primary schools that meet or exceed median standards and accredited colleges or something, and dump the rest.

4 votes

#5.22 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:35 AM EST

I find Heritage extremely useful, since I'm pretty lazy: a collection of checklist items *not* to agree with, all conveniently in one spot. I regularly say to myself, "Self, what should we think about this healthcare thing?" And after a quick visit to Heritage, I know!

4 votes

#5.23 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:44 AM EST

That's great, spiffie! I had a neighbor who served that exact function for me. He was also a good source of crackpot news that I would never have heard about, otherwise. Sadly, he moved away back in November. Every job he had, he seemed to end up with bosses who were radical liberals, or illegal immigrants, or lesbians, and he'd quit after being written up a few times. (This is his telling of it; what the truth of the matter might be, I have no idea.)

Now that he's gone, it's good to know that I can rely on the Heritage Foundation to fill in.

3 votes

#5.24 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:24 PM EST

Jack,

My objection is to the abuse of the status, which, if it hasn't already overtaken the "good work" done by some non-profits, someday soon it surely will.

I'm sure you have a point, but if we examine tax policy that governs for-profit entities - look to abuses of tax policy in this sector. I think it outstrips that of the non-profit sector.

I understand that you're concerned about the abuses (and I think it goes deeper than that as I alluded to in my comment #5.17 - "the idea of providing tax shelters to the wealthiest."). I also suspect you doubt the stimulative effect of "charitable giving" on the economy, which is overlooked as one of the true reasons why it was established in 1917.

But, good grief. Would you prefer a system based upon brand marketing, which would ideally benefit shareholder profit?!? I wouldn't. Legislators are just too damned fickle and lazy to stick with a program of "good government".

I beg to ask: who, or what, do you suppose will fill the vacuum, of the 83% of Americans who make charitable donations, to take up the charge of grantmaking to smaller charities?

I suppose I've seen enough from both sectors, and prefer the mission, goals and objectives within noprofit corporations any day to that of for profit corporations. Hands down. I guess it boils down to my preference to the idea of generous benevolence versus greedy bastards.

Yes. The nonprofit sector is enormous today, but where would we be as a civilization without it? I don't even wish to think on it.

3 votes

#5.25 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:09 PM EST

caltha:

Haven't thought it all through yet.

One brainstorm? A "too big to fail" policy for service providers. Anything so big that it requires an effective tax subsidy of $500 million or whatever is big enough that it should be a truly public, i.e., state function.

The nonprofit sector is enormous today, but where would we be as a civilization without it?

I assume rsl8r will provide us with the results of his extentive research and tell us.

:^{)>

2 votes

#5.26 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:21 PM EST

Anything so big that it requires an effective tax subsidy of $500 million or whatever is big enough that it should be a truly public, i.e., state function.

I'm assuming you mean healthcare service providers. You won't get any argument from me, as the subject pertains to healthcare.

I'm sure you'll remember how sorely disappointed I was with President Obama, and in -cough, cough - my so called liberal Democratic legislators; who completely brushed off the idea of a public option on healthcare.

As living organisms: We are born. We live. We get sick. We die. Why are these as they pertain to our wellness and health care, not protected as "inalienable" rights under the Constitution?

Like I said, our legislators (conservative and liberal alike) are too damned fickle to stick with a plan for "good government"; all at the expense of our own well-being. So, we turn to the non-profit sector for support.

4 votes

#5.27 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:19 PM EST

fireryone

I couldn't answer #2 because I don't fit in any of those categories. Interesting poll.

4 votes

#6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:34 AM EST

fireryone,

Thanks for taking the poll.

So, this would have been a question that cried out for 'none of the above'?

4 votes

#6.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:53 AM EST

fireryone

None of the above or just revising this option:

Wiccan, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist, Santeria, Animist or any one of those other really weird ones

Remove the "really wierd" part and replace it with maybe another option like...spiritual.

5 votes

#6.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:10 AM EST

fieryone @ 6.2 I can say this while Jack's back is turned. We ~~argued~~ discussed strongly some of the wording in the Q & A and so far, it is mainly his choices which are drawing criticism. he he he (Yes, I am a bad person, but then, he can take it.)

5 votes

#6.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:21 AM EST

fireryone

ha ha, that's funny! *sitting here chuckling away*

I would be the first one to say that my beliefs are wierd, but don't you dare say it or else! Hahahaha

4 votes

#6.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:56 AM EST

Yep, I'm with fireryone - #2 cries out for "None of the above", or "Other" (without the castigating remark).

7 votes

#6.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:52 PM EST

fireyone:

Nope.

I needed to be lightly transgressive somewhere in the first two questions. I was trying to loosen people up enough that they'd answer unguardedly throughout the rest of the poll.

That's what #3 was about. I was hoping to hit the sweet spot between "That's not as funny as you think" and "That's so infuriating I think it's despicable."

As for mymymy's absolutely outrageous accusations against moi, I guess she's referring to the wording in the picture question, which created some controversy off the public threads. We'll probably get into it downthread.

Fair warning. I gots me back me up now. I have no freaking idea why that didn't come up when we were feverishly hitting each other with, well, Google hits.

5 votes

#6.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:05 PM EST

I answered 2 but not 4. Could not endorse either of the choices in 4!

5 votes

#7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:35 AM EST

Soph:

What's the setup in England?

Do Religious institutions pay regular taxes, lower taxes or no taxes?

I'm try to get to paradox of one side insisting on total independence of action and total amnesty for taxation while the other side insists on constraints on action and full taxation.

5 votes

#7.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:40 AM EST

I think that #4 would be improved by adding "Both" and "Neither" to the selections. Also - if I look at it from a 22.5° angle and squint - the first choice seems to subsume the second choice (but I tend to overthink these things).

7 votes

#7.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:55 PM EST

rls8r:

Again. Nope.

I wanted to try to force people to make a hard choice. Adding "Both" or "Neither" gives Believers an easy answer (both) and Secularists an easy answer (neither).

To put it another way--for Believers, the real question is/was: Would you rather the state leave you the hell alone if you paid taxes in return? For Secularists, The real question is: Would you leave the Church the hell alone if they have to pay taxes?

5 votes

#7.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:12 PM EST

Do Religious institutions pay regular taxes, lower taxes or no taxes?

As long as they are registered as charitable organisations they are tax exempt - so no they do not. And of course we have the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords. Way less separation of Church and State. In fact the Church of England was a very large part of the reason why the coalition just lost a vote in the House of Lords for part of a new piece of legislation in regards to state benefits.

8 votes

#7.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:41 PM EST

Soph:

Hmmmmmm. With all that austerity stuff, seems like there's a ready source of new revenue at hand.

:^{)>

6 votes

#7.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:46 PM EST

For Secularists, The real question is: Would you leave the Church the hell alone if they have to pay taxes?

And a nuisance fee. That's just a personal thing based on experience.

6 votes

#7.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:46 PM EST

With all that austerity stuff, seems like there's a ready source of new revenue at hand.

Hell I have been thinking that for years! Even before we were skint. But at the end of the day we are not like America. Church attendance is at an all time low. Less than a million regularly attend so not sure how much we could wring out of them!

And a nuisance fee

LOL! A fine everytime they knock on your door?

9 votes

#7.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:52 PM EST

LOL! A fine everytime they knock on your door?

Yup. The fine goes up exponentially every time they argue with me and refuse to get off of my damn property. You hear me Mitt?

9 votes

#7.8 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:07 PM EST

Jack:7.3---our constitution means that the church must be "left the hell alone" whether or not they pay taxes. And whether or not charitable organizations pay taxes is an entirely separate can of worms that has NOTHING to do with freedom of religion and 1st amendment rights as provided to us by the constitution of the United States.

3 votes

#7.9 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:24 AM EST

lisa:

our constitution means that the church must be "left the hell alone" whether or not they pay taxes.

But it does not say they shall be exempt from taxes.

6 votes

#7.10 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:55 PM EST

Jack: I know others have made this point already but taxing these organizations would be direct negative impact to those less fortunate. For the record I picked "federal taxes" as answer to #4. I assumed the constitution was protection enough against having to worry about the alternate answer to that question. Though with this particular President---that's making quite an assumption, eh?

3 votes

#7.11 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:11 PM EST

lisa:

I don't think it's the Church's obligation to establish the minimum level of economic resources available in this country to the citizenry.

If the Church wants to do that, great. But I think the state must.

Not to go all derailery, but that's why I'm a lefty and .... you're not.

7 votes

#7.12 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:21 PM EST

But I think the state must

Jack: Don't disagree there. The difference between righties and lefties is not whether there should be a safety net but how best to define (for the good our society) the breadth and depth of said net and how to go about paying for it AND ensuring its solvency for current and future recipients.

4 votes

#7.13 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:48 PM EST

marlena21

The cost to paint the Sistene Chapel and what Michaelangelo was paid 500 years ago isn't quite the same as it is today. The church got quite the ROI. It is counted as an asset of the church, for sale or not

James,

1 vote

#7.14 - Tue May 15, 2012 2:55 AM EDT

Well I thought it was @!$%#ing hilarious. Each question made me smile and/or laugh.

I don't like being in the minority for #8 though - I wanna know how much everything cost in the image...from the chair to the chain.

6 votes

#8 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:03 AM EST

Santino:

That's really interesting. They've done some real research on that. When my collaborator wrote that question including that very answer, I told her that is the most common, mainstream response to questions of Catholic sacred art.

The fact that you're in the clear minority here tells me the NV population isn't mainstream.

Doh.

6 votes

#8.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:26 AM EST

I told her that is the most common, mainstream response to questions of Catholic sacred art.

Is that "mainstream" in/of the US?

The fact that you're in the clear minority here tells me the NV population isn't mainstream.

It's still early on though right...wonder if that will change.

5 votes

#8.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:09 AM EST

Santino @ 8.2

It's still early on though right...wonder if that will change.

We wondered that, too, so we took screen shots before opening the comments and will take another set as we go along.

5 votes

#8.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:24 AM EST

redsfan

I am Catholic....converted as an adult, tried for awhile, lapsed now. The accoutrements of the office never really bothered me...I know it's just a holdover to the "signs" of office. I will say that I know my parish priest couldn't stand wearing them...he much preferred jeans, t-shirt and tennis shoes and didn't care to whom he expressed that opinion.

6 votes

#8.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:05 PM EST

Santino:

Oh, you're going to make me do two days of research GRRRRRRRRRR but I saw a poll once either of tourists at the Sistine Chapel or of informants shown images of the Sistine Chapel, and the most common answer to an open-ended question about impressions was "I wonder what it cost?"

8 votes

#8.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:16 PM EST

Oh, you're going to make me do two days of research

lol...no not at all. I was just curious as to what "mainstream" you were referencing.

but I saw a poll once either of tourists at the Sistine Chapel or of informants shown images of the Sistine Chapel,

Sorry but if you don't provide a link from that poll in the Sistine Chapel it can't be true. /s/

Being the shopping cart Catholic that I am - I love going to my churches across the globe. They are so lavishly beautiful and you know damn well that some of it has to come with a hefty price tag.

6 votes

#8.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:35 PM EST

I wonder if there is a vestment Wal-Mart? It ain't here.

6 votes

#8.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:49 PM EST

and the most common answer to an open-ended question about impressions was "I wonder what it cost?"

Jack: The correct answer of course is: It's not for sale.

3 votes

#8.8 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:30 AM EST

The correct answer of course is: It's not for sale.

Ummm yes it is - did you click on the link neenie provided?

4 votes

#8.9 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:15 PM EST

Santino: Ceiling of Sistine Chapel? Not for sale.

4 votes

#8.10 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:43 PM EST

The question of what it cost has nothing to do with whether it is for sale and what the value is today. The cost to paint the Sistene Chapel and what Michaelangelo was paid 500 years ago isn't quite the same as it is today. The church got quite the ROI. It is counted as an asset of the church, for sale or not.

5 votes

#8.11 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:00 PM EST

Ceiling of Sistine Chapel? Not for sale.

Ha...that's for sure.

Confusing little thread here (or I got confused) - originally we were discussing the image from the poll but...ooops that's right, I forgot we switched.

3 votes

#8.12 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:02 PM EST

Beauty in the life of the Church
A reflection on how liturgical vestments, symbols should lead faithful to God

lisa:

Jack: The correct answer of course is: It's not for sale.

I hear ya. It absolutely blew my mind. The funniest part it, I don't know whether it's the part of that's supposed to be Catholic that was offended or the part of me that's an intellectual with a terminal degree in the Arts & Humanities.

If you missed this link in the wash of comment, please read it:

2 votes

#8.13 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:03 PM EST

Jack--I had missed that link so thanks. It's an interesting perspective as written by a man of the cloth. "Beauty" is not what's top of mind for me in describing Catholic Church (all beautiful churchs and cathedrals and sacred art aside).....to me it's more about tradition and the personal comfort I find in prayer and in celebration of our mass. I liked this passage from your link:

In other words, there is a stream of consciousness that tethers us as Catholics with those gone before us in an unbroken tradition. The vestments and vessels we use, the words we say and pray, the music we sing, the buildings we worship in and the art we craft and display are all a part of the sacred patrimony that connects us as a People of God.

But again....I'm still baffled at what you and mymymy were trying to get at with #8.

2 votes

#8.14 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:28 PM EST

lisa:

What I was trying to get at was the idea expressed in that article and the "grandeur of God," which is an established Catholic thought. Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote a famous poem of that title, but I bumbled the vocabulary and screwed up the research. I did find a Catholic source the referenced "dignity" as the deeper meaning of the vestments but it was too vague to to be useful.

I didn't like my³'s answer, which I felt boiled down to "because it's his uniform" which isn't deep enough, but because it's technically true and we couldn't agree (I think we fought for four hours over that? mymymy? That right?) that's what we went with.

3 votes

#8.15 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:41 PM EST

It may not be for sale, but I wonder what it's insured for. :)

7 votes

#8.16 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:56 PM EST

spiff:

Intriguing question. My guess: zero.

3 votes

#8.17 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:38 PM EST

That wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure there are lots of things considered priceless that are basically uninsurable, in themselves. France probably can't insure the Eiffel Tower, but they (France or the city of Paris) might carry personal injury liability insurance or something.

Of course, if the Catholic Church could insure the chapel ceiling, you'd think 500 years of on-time premium payments would merit some pretty good customer service from their agent.

6 votes

#8.18 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:53 PM EST

spiff:

you'd think 500 years of on-time premium payments would merit some pretty good customer service from their agent.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's funny.

6 votes

#8.19 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:35 PM EST

Santino:

Here's something interesting for ya.

We're taking screencaps so we can see if opening comments changed the results, and it looks like your admission that you voted "what it costs" changed the percentage of people who voted that way.

That's a good thing. It means you got people to reveal a hidden preference, i.e., they had voted what they thought were the more socially acceptable answers until you reassured them that they could vote their true preference.

Is that cool or what?

And while the polls above are not scientific, what I just described is a monster problem for scientific pollsters.

4 votes

#8.20 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:08 PM EST

We're taking screencaps so we can see if opening comments changed the results, and it looks like your admission that you voted "what it costs" changed the percentage of people who voted that way.

It might've happened without my comment...right?

And while the polls above are not scientific, what I just described is a monster problem for scientific pollsters.

I have next to no knowledge regarding the science and/or inner-workings behind polls. Definitely interesting though. Just never enjoyed the idea of data collected in polls being applied to the individual.

4 votes

#8.21 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:20 AM EST

Santino:

I have next to no knowledge regarding the science and/or inner-workings behind polls

I have more knowledge than that, but a whole lot less than a trained social scientist.

It might've happened without my comment...right?

It might have, sure, but I'd say the chances of that being the case are less than 5%. But to re-emphasize, it's way cool that you did that. In fact, it's in large part because of the revealed preference that I just sent this page to a real social scientist with a note like "I know these results aren't scientifically valid, but I still think I might have something in this instrument. I just don't know what."

5 votes

#8.22 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:31 AM EST

But to re-emphasize, it's way cool that you did that

It's funny/ironic - as much as I don't like polls being applied to the individual, I do enjoy taking polls to see where I stand on issues compared to others. Most be some sort of "personal litmus test" or something...

I just sent this page to a real social scientist with a note like "I know these results aren't scientifically valid, but I still think I might have something in this instrument. I just don't know what."

Would be interested in reading their response.

5 votes

#8.23 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:10 AM EST

Jack--I see why you're excited about the impact of Santino's answer there.....but major polls are done blinded---meaning respondents cannot see how others are answering.....that said I do believe that "fear of answering significantly differently than everyone else" is indeed a factor in polling.

3 votes

#8.24 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:42 PM EST

pog8

Just to confuse the issue - - my 1st thought on #8 was that he looked a little like Mickey Rooney. Obviously, I do not keep up with Catholic news.

My 2nd thought was "how much did it cost?" But because I relate the opulence of the church with the poverty of their followers, I do not think it is beautiful. I appreciate the music and art and architecture, but really do not care for the clothing.

The link above about the "beauty" of tradition, where "Pope Paul VI noted: “The secular, the cheap, the inferior, and the inartistic are not meant to cross the threshold of God’s temple” is not something I agree with. I don't mean any disrespect toward believers, but it just isn't for me. I prefer Mother Earth and nature and animals any day. So that's why I voted "it's something funny."

6 votes

#8.25 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:13 PM EST

lisa:

but major polls are done blinded---meaning respondents cannot see how others are answering..

Exactly. Which is why, analogizing from my unscientific polls to scientific ones, a scientific poll would have missed the fact that twice as many people secretly wonder "How much does it cost" relative to the number willing to state as much for the record without reassurance.

2 votes

#8.26 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:51 PM EST

Shub Tnediserp Remrof

I'm in the car with Marge

7 votes

#9 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:41 AM EST

Roy Batty

Me, too.

By the way, here is another take on "religious freedom."

7 votes

#9.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:25 PM EST

Shub:

Slamming it into gear ferociously as you holler at the the top your lungs at that bastard who thinks that joke is funny while Marge is saying, "Calm down, dear, you'll get in an accident"?

6 votes

#9.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:25 PM EST

jfx

Interesting article and perspective and while humorous I found most of the questions provided a "learning opportunity" as I contemplated my answer and then again when I saw how others had answered.

I consider myself religious, but not zealously so as I stray more often than I am proud of and try to do better each day. I think everyone shuld be free to be or not be religious as they see fit.

Most importantly for me, I do not want government involved on my religiion and I do not want religion involved in my government.

Is that possible? Seems like it ought to be to me.

The most telling of the pol questions to me was #4. IMHO religious organizations should have freedom from government interference in their activities, but the price of that freedom is no government money and no tax exempt status.

In fact I think that there should be no "tax exempt" organizations; non-profits should have leeway to write-off a lot of expenses for the "common good", but in the end should pay taxes like other organizations.

Thanks for a very thought provoking article.

8 votes

#10 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:04 PM EST

Robert:

Most importantly for me, I do not want government involved on my religiion and I do not want religion involved in my government.

In some ways, I think the USA has handled that better than any other country in the world, in some ways, one of the worst among the liberal democracies.

The most telling of the pol questions to me was #4. IMHO religious organizations should have freedom from government interference in their activities, but the price of that freedom is no government money and no tax exempt status.

I completely agree. And boy are you smart and man am I pissed off. That's exactly the issue I was trying to bury in that question and you dug it up.

If this were a scientific poll (it's not) and those were the results of that forced choice, I would guess there is more of a constituency in this country for your position than a few loud voices to the contrary might have us believe.

8 votes

#10.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:35 PM EST

jfx

Many of the controversies that we face in the arena of church and state are IMO because some of the religious organizations in the U.S. (and their members and supporters) want to have it both ways.

IMO that is not reasonable or fair.

Thanks again for a very enjoyable article and poll

5 votes

#10.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:34 PM EST

#1 - Not Catholic (easy question for me). Although I've dated many sort-of-Catholics and even married one. However, we were divorced (not due to religious differences, however) - after which, now that I think about it, I seem to have dated sort-of-Jewish girls and am currently married to one.

#2 - Didn't answer. The question would be improved by adding a "None of the above" choice.

#3 - May not have answered this question either - can't recall. About this time I was wondering if I wasn't getting the purpose of the poll. I could have answered "I don't get it" - I'd be surprised if I answered this question and didn't choose that response.

#4 - Didn't answer. The question would be improved by adding "Neither" and "Both" as additional potential responses. Too bad the polls can't have checkboxes (that allow multiple selections) rather than radio buttons (that restrict responses to a single selection). Besides, "religious institutions" covers a lot of territory as we've seen recently. Are we restricting them to churches, or do they include hospitals, charities, etc.? Personally, I'd like to see them taxed and regulated - but I haven't noodled through the ramifications enough to see how that would be consistent with the Constitution. I don't think I've given it enough thought so I can discuss this topic comfortably.

#5 - I answered "No" - not because I didn't want to see "Neither" and "Both" as options - but because I wasn't "pissed off" (which is what the question asked). I think I was still trying to figure out where this poll was going - so, like reading a novel, I wasn't going to obsess over quibbles - hoping that I'd obtain true enlightenment in the final chapter.

#6 - I voted "Food Fight" - largely because I couldn't understand why all the controversy wasn't brought to the surface in July 2010, when the policy was first alluded to - or in August 2011, when the policy was announced as draft and called for comments. This has been brewing for almost two years - and certainly didn't come as a surprise to the Clergy (or, hopefully, to the GOP). Therefore, perhaps I could be convinced that it was strictly 'political' - but my first instinct (and my first instincts on multiple choice tests have always turned out to be my best) was "Food Fight".

#7 - I voted "Enough already". I've seen that brought up time and time again as a blanket smear against the church - and it seems to me that it sloshes over any man who opposes contraception. I don't credit myself with enough psychic powers to delve into the psychological "what-ifs" of those folks, and it hasn't come up in any conversations that I've had with opponents to contraception. I can't address the issue competently - so I'd rather not have it brought up (at least, not to me).

#8 - I voted the 4th option (although, it was a pure guess on my part). I was puzzled by the first option - what was the "that"? Was it the cost of the photo itself (as, to me, is implied by the question), or of something in the photo? Didn't think the others. Finally, I'm certainly not someone to ask about what color best suits a person.

#9 - Again, voted the 4th option. I was a bit troubled by the question because of the premise that they do deserve respect. Option 5 allows the person being polled to contradict that premise - but just like the question, it seems to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I think I would have liked this question to ask whether or not I felt that some religious leaders and members of the clergy deserved respect, and if so - why? About here is where I became convinced that I didn't see the purpose of the poll - and comforted myself by saying that jfxgillis and mymymy would explain and make things right in the end.

#10 - I voted the first option. i would have probably modified the question so that "...but" would be followed by "... @!$%# 'em if they can't take a joke." - but I wasn't asked. i also think that portraying the 'counterintuitive' aspects of any religion can be done humorously and without 'mocking' - the intent is everything. Of course, some folks can't take a joke - even if the humor is not meant to be mocking.

P.S.: Jack - as you can see - I'm not in the field today. The laser doctors couldn't complete the annual physical on my total station by yesterday. So, I'll pick it up today and go into the field tomorrow. That's why I can take a break from work (from time to time) and contribute (such as it is) to your discussion of the poll.

5 votes

#11 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:45 PM EST

rls8r:

Wow. Thanks for that great response.

I'm going to hit one paragraph, then see if you get some other replies to other aspects, then weigh in again. This:

#7 - I voted "Enough already". I've seen that brought up time and time again as a blanket smear against the church - and it seems to me that it sloshes over any man who opposes contraception. I don't credit myself with enough psychic powers to delve into the psychological "what-ifs" of those folks, and it hasn't come up in any conversations that I've had with opponents to contraception. I can't address the issue competently - so I'd rather not have it brought up (at least, not to me).

Is pretty much how I feel except I voted the "Didn't you hear me the first time?" version because it's funnier and as long as I was going to only vote once and I wrote it, I wanted the funny one to win.

8 votes

#11.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:19 PM EST

You're right - that would have been funnier. But - as I explained, I often go with my first (aka 'knee jerk') impulse on many of these sort of 'multiple choice' questions. I probably would have joined you in picking the 4th option ... if I had read past the 2nd one. But ... since the 2nd one pretty much was the one I initially felt (even before reading any of the options) I thought it would probably trump all others - gave the pollsters a silent 'well done' for their perception - and I stopped there and voted.

5 votes

#11.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:39 PM EST

rls8r @ 11

Regarding your point #6 - there was a little difference of opinion on the part of the pollsters about the wording of the answer you chose. That was actually one of the questions I wrote (I wrote very few) and the original wording of the response you chose was: As spectacle, to be generally enjoyed. Mr. Gillis, being far hipper than I changed it to "food fight". (He did it in a Friday document dump, so I let it go. It's exhausting tussling with jfx sometimes, giggle)

Would you have been more or less comfortable with the original wording?

(Thanks so much for taking the poll and your considered comments on it.)

6 votes

#11.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:42 PM EST

Ah, it seems that you have known jfx for some time so you undoubtedly have noticed (as many of us have) his sometimes tendency to Poloniusism - so it should come as no surprise to us that understanding brevity is the soul of wit he would act upon that notion.

I feel uncomfortable in refereeing two 'Viners who I have every inclination to like and admire, so I'm going to dodge the question. I do like your version because "spectacle" conjures up visions of the Roman Circus, gladiators, and other spectacular (but pointless) entertainment. In that way, I like it very much. But ... jfx's terse "Food Fight" conjures up "Animal House" - with all the correspondence between the actors and their real-life counterparts in politics.

So - I am equally content with either.

6 votes

#11.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:02 PM EST

rls8r

re: #4

As I noted in a comment to jfx

The most telling of the pol questions to me was #4. IMHO religious organizations should have freedom from government interference in their activities, but the price of that freedom is no government money and no tax exempt status.

5 votes

#11.5 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:03 PM EST

rsl8r:

jfx's terse "Food Fight" conjures up "Animal House" - with all the correspondence between the actors and their real-life counterparts in politics.

That's scary.

7 votes

#11.6 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:07 PM EST

rsl8r @ 11.4

Aye thankew, King Solomon:)

4 votes

#11.7 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:09 PM EST

Robert -

Perhaps I read too much into the question and confused myself. I'm not sure why churches have tax-exempt status, but I'm reasonably sure that they do not get government money. Perhaps they should pay property taxes (tell the truth, I'm not sure if they do or they do not) - but not income taxes. If ministers collect Social Security and are eligible for Medicare/Medicade - then they should pay payroll taxes (again, I'm not sure whether they do or they do not - there's a lot about church operations that I don't know).

On the other hand - I believe that "religious organizations" (e.g., hospitals, etc.) should be treated just like any other commercial enterprise. I'm at sea about charities. Perhaps they should be allowed to have not-for-profit status - but because of what they do, and not because of who their owners and directors are.

7 votes

#11.8 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:18 PM EST

rsl8r:

#5 . . . I think I was still trying to figure out where this poll was going - so, like reading a novel, I wasn't going to obsess over quibbles - hoping that I'd obtain true enlightenment in the final chapter.

Ooooooooh. I like that. Or, although Lord knows this doesn't happen very often, if I may speak for mymymy, we like that.

Did you? Obtain true enlightenment, I mean?

8 votes

#11.9 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:27 PM EST

See #2.3.

Om.

5 votes

#11.10 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:55 PM EST

rls8r:

I don't need that kind of pressure! Help!

6 votes

#11.11 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:33 PM EST

IMHO religious organizations should have freedom from government interference in their activities, but the price of that freedom is no government money and no tax exempt status.

Robert---imho--the price of that freedom was already paid for by our ancestors who fought and won the revolutionary war.

4 votes

#11.12 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:38 AM EST

lisaed

I understand where you are coming from, but while I totally agree with freedom of religion, I also think that churches, and faith based organization should not have ax exempt status and should not receive government money.

I do not want the government involved in my religion and I do not want my religion involved in my government

8 votes

#11.13 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 2:54 PM EST

I do not want the government involved in my religion and I do not want my religion involved in my government.

Worth repeating. Over and over.

6 votes

#11.14 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 3:02 PM EST

Vlad's dog

I enjoyed the poll and a couple questions made me sit and think a while before answering, I liked those ones because they made me think first before voting.

7 votes

#12 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:43 PM EST

Vlad's dog - @ 12

You deserve a big big hug. This was a main goal in the poll. Jack has a very clever way of wording things to achieve that contemplation you mention.

5 votes

#12.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:47 PM EST

Vlad:

Thank you!

A comment like that means the effort was worth it.

6 votes

#12.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:48 PM EST

mightyj

Didn't do the poll (maybe later). I laughed (the most) reading the final question.

5 votes

#13 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:23 PM EST

I just ran into this poll tonight. I have not read the comments, I will do the right thing and come back tomorrow night to find out more.

I will say this.....interesting questions......looking forward to tomorrow. And a few I did not answer.

5 votes

#14 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:23 PM EST

Pat:

Beautiful! Thanks so much, and see on the morrow.

6 votes

#14.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:27 PM EST

So here I am again. I have read all the comments to this point so far.

Did the poll give you the expected results?

I did not answer 4

4 because it is not a simple yes or no answer for me. If the Church wants to be seperate from State and be tax exempt then they should keep their nose out of politics. If they stick their nose in politics than they should pay taxes. If they utter a specific politicians name in mass then they should be taxed.

Now on the other side of that. If they can keep to their ministering and out of politics then I think the feds should stay out of religion.

Can't have it both ways.

And I ROFLMAO at 7 and any that referred to it. How true that.

Thanks for this.

6 votes

#14.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:13 PM EST

Pat @ 14.2

I thought Jack did a great job with that question (#7). I had noticed that joke (or variations of it) on a couple of threads - one of them mine. I noticed the effect it had on the discussion. What it does, as rls8r so eloquently put it:

I've seen that brought up time and time again as a blanket smear against the church - and it seems to me that it sloshes over any man who opposes contraception.

It derails the discussion about the conflict between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church over the contraception issue - instead throwing in the red herring of the sexual abuse scandals. Being funny (I laughed too), it draws readers to the poster's point of view and again, negatively affects the general discussion because it implies that the Catholic Church has no moral standing because of the abuse scandals.

I hope some did pause over that question:)

4 votes

#14.3 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:29 PM EST

I still haven't read all the comments, my format screwed up and I would rather not post incorectly.

I am a former Catholic, my family is very religious, we have a few cousins, 2 priests and a nun in the family and most of my male cousins were altar boys. And I can guarantee their views on child abuse is not taken as lightly as the church heirarchy. They are outraged at this.

That is why that question is really tormenting me. Even now knowing what the basis of it is....I still cannot answer it.

I am pissed at the Church for the way they handled/are handling abuse.

I am pissed that they are sticking their nose into politics without paying taxes.

For the vast majority of Catholics they are good upstanding citizens.

Still reading comments, hope my NV format doesnt mess up again....

Good job!

6 votes

#14.4 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:41 PM EST

Pat:

And I ROFLMAO at 7 and any that referred to it. How true that.

my³

I thought Jack did a great job with that question (#7)

Thanks to you both. It's especially rewarding because I worked really hard on that, and that question risked ruining everything we were trying to do if we had screwed that up.

And Pat, I feel especially glad having read your second comment because I know this is a painful and personal subject for you to consider and I could have hurt you unintentionally. Making you laugh makes my day.

5 votes

#14.5 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:48 PM EST

If you had hurt my feelings it would have been unintentional therefore easily forgivable and I am tough I hang on the Vine

thoroughly enjoyed this and your reasoning and the results (and comments). All around well done!

6 votes

#14.6 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:01 PM EST

Pat:

Thanks again.

Well, @!$%#, now I know what you mean about navigating with the format all screwed up. Chrome is worthless and Firefox almost so. I got it to load well enough in Explorer to post this but it still doesn't feel right.

6 votes

#14.7 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:22 PM EST

Oh no......I didn't intend to jinx you : (

5 votes

#14.8 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:36 PM EST

Pat:

Firefox is working well enough now to post and vote comments.

Usually that means they're messing with the code. Should go away soon.

7 votes

#14.9 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:22 PM EST

Tim Boothby

You have taken gaming polls and made it an art form lol

5 votes

#15 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:26 PM EST

Tim:

Au contraire, mon ami.

I may have failed or succeeded, but I was trying to un-game the usual "internet poll" game.

I think mostly, and overall, it worked great.

6 votes

#15.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:33 PM EST

Tim:

And if you wanna sass me for gaming something, do the headline. We knew it wouldn't be on the front page because it was tagged meta and that we would lose the convo tracker because we wanted to close comments for the first day, so we needed every trick in the book to draw eyeballs.

6 votes

#15.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:36 PM EST

Tim Boothby

And if you wanna sass me for gaming something, do the headline.

LOL that wasn't sass! That was a compliment! The headline was icing on the cake. I've seen the poll style, I've seen the headline style, but you blended it all together nicely.

4 votes

#15.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:18 PM EST

Chasing

I don't honestly recall if I answered #9, but I suspect I didn't, as "deserve" is an uncomfortable word and I no more feel obligated to answer a particular question than I am to respect a particular person.

6 votes

#16 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:16 PM EST

Chasing:

Good answer. And I took a similar point frome flameaway on #9 above.

THAT question we undoubtedly failed with. The other complaints we've had were either by design or I at least anticipated them, knowing that if I had to err on one side or the other, the side I erred on might generate complaints.

The complaints on question #9 blindsided me, though. Oh well. Nine out of ten ain't bad.

6 votes

#16.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:30 PM EST

Chasing

I'm also admittedly shaky on the term "respect", itself: I respect my neighbor who mows his lawn twice at each go - mowing once in each direction. I think it's a bit pointless and silly, really, but I respect it anyway, and I know my father would certainly approve. If someone wants to jump through the hoops necessary to achieve spiritual office, good on them, and I can respect that effort, but that won't necessarily translate to my respecting them on the whole, or, more to the point, to respecting their views.

6 votes

#16.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:41 PM EST

I took the poll around midnight Monday, and I think it's terrific!

Question: What was the purpose of disallowing comments until Tuesday morning?

4 votes

#17 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:24 PM EST

Arnold:

There's a general, abstract, somewhat abtruse philosophical/psychological reason for it (or so we suspect), but that is based on a specific empirical observation we made simultaneously.

I don't want to do the heavy stuff right now, so I'll provide the observation. What we noticed was that on the other Catholic threads, once someone or two people came on and started telling the trashy, crude jokes about priests diddling boys, the thread collapsed into general worthlessness. The good comments got swamped by the stupidity.

And question #7 in fact tells the joke. We couldn't avoid it because that was one of the phenomena we were trying to gauge. In fact, maybe the single most important one. So we had to tell the joke. But we wanted to forestall (or see if we could forestall) the inevitable wave of stupidity by not allowing people to leap in with another stupid joke after just having experienced the first one.

7 votes

#17.1 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:46 PM EST

Makes complete sense. I've been posting on a Catholic thread over the last couple of days, and I can fully appreciate your point. If you're hoping to discuss anything besides child molestation by priests, you're pretty much out of luck, what with the constant derails.

I'll be following your experiment here with interest. Nice work so far.

5 votes

#17.2 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:33 PM EST

Arnold:

We thank you!

One idea I had over the last couple days for seeds on such themes (because you can't close comments on seeds) but that I haven't had a chance to try because I was writing/monitoring this article, is to kick off a Catholic seed with three or four tracking comments with substantive comment in each.

That might disperse the commentary; or, in a pinch, if one of those subthreads turns stupid, just delete it. It's your own comment at the top so there's nothing for the stupid people to appeal.

7 votes

#17.3 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 10:43 PM EST

I like it! I'll give it some more thought, but just straight out of the box, I love this idea. The only drawback that comes immediately to mind is that there are sometimes excellent exchanges in a thread that eventually sours. When you croak that thread, you can lose some worthwhile stuff.

5 votes

#17.4 - Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:05 PM EST

Starting to all makes sense to me now. Still reading.

3 votes

#17.5 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:22 PM EST

Charlie Courtois

Hi All,

I fall in the orthodox category, and there is no doubt that we are in the very small minority; but, I appreciate the fact that I live in a country where I can practice my faith the way I choose to believe.

From the time I was a little boy until now my beliefs and practices have gone from "hated religion, ignored religion, didn't talk about it, to returning to the Church when I was around 60." I suspect age, along with the Holy Spirit, played the largest role in my decision.

As a senior citizen I have believed that religion and government were two entirely separate issues, and that the government had no business delving into religion.

Tax breaks for charitable organizations have served their purpose for many years. We don't need to tamper with them. About 80% of the relief of the needy, and the poor, are taken care of by Christian and other religious organizations. Those groups are some of the most helpful in the world, so let's leave well enough alone.

The government should stay out of the any area that pertains to religion. Things have worked well for 200+ years and I see no reason to mess it up now.

The current administration has opened up Pandora's box, and it will probably prove to be only another failed political maneuver, I hope.

I thought the survey was interesting, and for my part, it just pointed out that practicing faithful religious are an extreme minority. I left California in 1973 for Georgia, because the land of the fruits and nuts was having a bad effect on my children. Georgia turned out to be better.

Finally, this survey tells me that Newsvine is a poor place to discuss religion, and it is getting worse day-by-day.

Thank you "Jfxgillis" for your revealing survey.

5 votes

#18 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:44 AM EST

Charlie:

Thank you for taking it and for your generous response. But I can't take full credit. mymymy and I collaborated on it. Okay, collaborated and collided on it. But still, she did it, too.

However, this:

The government should stay out of the any area that pertains to religion.

Is simply not possible.

Religions as such claim the authority to govern sometimes seemingly arbitrary conduct in every area of human and social behavior, from Jews wearing yarmulkes to Muslims needing breaks five times a day for prayers to the Bishops' objections to a national set of standards for health insurance. That leads to overlapping claims of authority in fields such as saftey, labor law and insurance regulation.

It's not necessarily bad or good that religions do what they do or that governments do what they do in any field of endeavor. It's just impossible to expect each to "stay out of" areas regarded by the other as their rightful domain.

8 votes

#18.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:59 AM EST

Bishops' objections to a national set of standards for health insurance

Jack: Had Obama done the right thing vis a vis first amendment and given Catholic organizations the waiver any bishop objection to the national standards would have had zero legs. But obama's "compromise" is no compromise....and so the bishop objection will continue to have legs whether Jack Lew and Team Obama tell us the matter is now "resolved" or not.

4 votes

#18.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:53 AM EST

I hadn't even thought about labor laws and such in regards to that question.

That was a tricking phrasing on your part. Very very good.

There must be a reason I didn't answer it ......didn't feel right

2 votes

#18.3 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:27 PM EST

Pat:

Very very good.

Thank you! The funny thing is, even though you object to it, it instigated the train of thought I was hoping it would instigate.

If you don't mind my asking, how did you answer #5, the question about being pissed off about #4?

3 votes

#18.4 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:45 PM EST

haha I answered Yes.

4 votes

#18.5 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:53 PM EST

whereas probably almost all the same on the Left are Secularists (and I include Obama in that regardless of what he says for public consumption.

Jack: Here I love your honesty. You're more honest than our President. Course you knew I always felt that way about you! This is one of many reasons why I feel the Obama he presented to the public in 2008 was a fraud. Seems to me too that actively misrepresenting one's belief system to get elected oughta be one big fat SIN. I apologize this comment is completely misplaced on thread...I dunno what happen. Thread is acting whacky for me.

3 votes

#19 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:00 AM EST

lisa @ 19

Jack's honesty (even if he has to be elbowed a bit) is what makes it so refreshing to collaborate with him. He being a raving lefty and me being a moderate (cough cough). Teasing of course.

His knowledge of the nuts and bolts of Catholicism is astonishing. You can't know the extended wrangling that went on over question #8. He's still smarting from my refusal to use a phrase referring to grandeur to describe the Archbishop's (soon to be Bishop) attire. I just felt that the true meaning of the term (and it is respectful and explains much about the gorgeous robes the upper clergy of the Church wear) might be misunderstood by the average poll user.

3 votes

#19.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:42 AM EST

His knowledge of the nuts and bolts of Catholicism is astonishing

mymymy: Indeed it is. And while he sadly is no longer one of us....he understands my Church and its teachings far better than most "obedient" catholics do. And I respect his respect of the continued power of both Catholicism and my Pope as they relate to matters of policy and morality not only in USA but across the globe.

Jack: I read this thread but am confused on your response to #1....did you say you answered "supposed to be"? I would have thought you'd respond as "lapsed"? Which is it? And regardless of your answer.....as I Catholic I must say here publicly that your consistent and excellent work as close watcher of my Church is indeed most appreciated.

3 votes

#19.2 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:58 AM EST

lisa:

I did answer that way because I do feel that way. Lapsed doesn't quite cover it.

Since I got to write the poll, I got to put answers in that I knew I would answer when I got around to taking the poll.

Unlike mymymy (and a family relation who saw the picture of Dolan) I did not think when I saw that picture that the media outlet must be trying to make him look bad (although that may in fact be what they were doing). I felt a jolt of authority.

First I thought, "Where the hell did that come from?" Then I thought:" You idiot, you're an altar boy. What else are you supposed feel upon encountering an image of an Archbishop in full vestments?" Then I wondered "It can't be St. Patrick in January, so why is he wearing Green?"

4 votes

#19.3 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:17 PM EST

Unlike mymymy (and a family relation who saw the picture of Dolan) I did not think when I saw that picture that the media outlet must be trying to make him look bad (although that may in fact be what they were doing

Jack: Oh I totally agree with mymymy on this one. Media generally loves to put up unflattering photos of everyone who falls to the right of obama.

3 votes

#19.4 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:16 PM EST

Actually, lisaed, I think they like to put up unflattering photos of anyone they can get unflattering photos of. I've seen just loads of really ugly photos of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore, and others. Not just in right-leaning venues, either.

Of course, we are talking about mostly late-middle-age to elderly politicians, for the most part, so most photos of them are probably unflattering. Mitch McConnell would be hard to flatter in a photo, I would think.

Of course, the gold standard would be Rep. Henry Waxman. I maintain it would be impossible to get a flattering picture of that man. If there is a less attractive human being on the planet, I don't want to know about it.

4 votes

#19.5 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:27 PM EST

Charlie Courtois

#18.2

Hi Liased,

This blooper is a two edged sword. One, Obama has opened-up Pandora's box with by stamping on everyone's 1st amendment and freedom of religion rights. Not just Catholics, so the issue becomes a challenge to ObamaCare, hospitals, colleges and universities, and virtually every employer, organization and many we can't even imagine.

Internally in the Church, there are already hundreds of law suits filed by Catholic entities to challenge the constitutionality of many parts of this trampling on our rights.

On the other side of this sword Obama may have purposely made this statement to curry the favor of the Catholic women who give only lip serve to practicing their faith and the tenets of the Church, because they would love to have gratis ways to get treatments associated with contraception, the day after pills, and all the rest.

The government needs to stay out of our personal lives, PERIOD!

4 votes

#19.6 - Sun Mar 4, 2012 8:35 AM EST

On the other side of this sword Obama may have purposely made this statement to curry the favor of the Catholic women

Charlie--as a Catholic woman.....I can assure you that the President should not be messing with my Church.....and my Church has one heckuva rock star taking on Mr. Obama ---our brand new Cardinal Dolan. Obama calling that woman Sandra Fluke to show his "support" in her dem activist crusade to take on her Catholic University's insurance policies was jumping the shark in my opinion. He's continuing to put the Catholic swing vote on the line.....and he does so at his own re-election risk. There are plenty of women on Georgetown Campus who are outraged by Sandra Fluke's activities to undermine their church's teachings and are speaking out that she does NOT speak for them.

4 votes

#19.7 - Tue Mar 6, 2012 12:06 PM EST

Charlie Courtois

Hi Lisaed,

can assure you that the President should not be messing with my Church.....and my Church has one heckuva rock star taking on Mr. Obama ---our brand new Cardinal Dolan

I agree that Cardinal Dolan is a no nonsense prelate and he has a wonderful track record thus far in his life. I read his biography last year, and his experience in Rome as spiritual director of new priests training in Rome was tremendous preparation to be a key spokesperson for the church now. Pope Benedict XVI, will be counting on him heavily I think.

Sandra Fluke is an Obama plant, and diversion to change the subject of his manifold failings. Lies and deceit is all the BO crowd know how to dish out. They have no accomplishments, and from now on out them will blame, lie and defer the negative attention by creating Sandra Fluke like incidents.

4 votes

#19.8 - Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:36 PM EDT

Sandra Fluke is an Obama plant, and diversion to change the subject of his manifold failings.

*rolls eyes*

Yeah and Limbaugh is a democrat plant set to fuel the fire....good grief

8 votes

#19.9 - Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:51 PM EDT

Pope Benedict XVI, will be counting on him heavily I think.

Charlie - yes, indeed. And:

Sandra Fluke is an Obama plant

She is all part of the very cynical master Obama campaign plan to gin up the female vote.

5 votes

#19.10 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:13 AM EDT

She is all part of the very cynical master Obama campaign plan to gin up the female vote

Obama doesn't need to campaign the Republican candidates are doing it for him!

2 votes

#19.11 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:49 AM EDT

the Republican candidates are doing it for him!

Renee---that's a broadbrush statement that's simply not true.

3 votes

#19.12 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:05 PM EDT

Really? I work with a lot of extremely politically conservative people, needless to say I try to avoid politics at work, however since they are all of like mind they feel free to discuss them all of the time. From what they have been saying my guess is they will refuse to vote at all because of the loony tunes being put out there for them to choose from.

One who regularily bashes Obama, "Obama doesn't even need to campaign, all of the Republicans running against him are such idiots, you'd think they could have found at least one decent candidate."

Just observations from a silent observer.

2 votes

#19.13 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:13 PM EDT

Renee---Romney is vastly underrated as a candidate. He (keeping fingers crossed he wins primary) will be even stronger as general election candidate. Latest WaPo poll has him beating Obama.

3 votes

#19.14 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 12:41 PM EDT

Somehow I doubt those polls take into account that the vast majority of Americans are Christians, even more so the GOP, Mormonism is every bit as abhorrent to most Christians as a Muslim, maybe more so since it is actually a bastardization of their beliefs.

As a women if he were a Democrat and was running I wouldn't vote for him, check out how the Mormon religion views women. Then tell me given the current attitude of the GOP towards women that you don't think he would be a huge risk to all of the rights women have fought so hard for.

Remember he is not just a Mormon but an elder of the Mormon Church. Start researching Mormonism see what you think. I live in an area with a very high Mormon population, gotta tell you you'd be hard pressed to find a more oppressed group of women short of the Middle East, and Sharia Law.

1 vote

#19.15 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:28 PM EDT

Renee---I don't buy into the whole manufactured by CREEP GOP war on women bit so your arguments are ringing on deaf ears over here. Sorry.

2 votes

#19.16 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:35 PM EDT

renee219-2390107Deleted

you'd probably do fines as a good little Mormon wife too

Renee--"good little Mormon wife"? No. Good little Catholic wife? Yes. Try to be.

2 votes

#19.18 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:43 PM EDT

I didn't say you were, I said you would qualify. But if you are truly a good Catholic wife I doubt the Catholic Church will support your choice for the Republican candidacy.

1 vote

#19.19 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:47 PM EDT

I doubt the Catholic Church will support your choice for the Republican candidacy.

renee--why would you think that? Catholic vote in key states has been going to Romney, not to his Catholic rivals.

3 votes

#19.20 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:49 PM EDT

renee:

you'd probably do fine as

Un-cool and un-CoH.

4 votes

#19.21 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 PM EDT

Sorry you are absolutely right!

I apologize lisaed I really am sorry for being so snarky.

Look it up lisaed the Catholic Church views Mormons as a cult, not Christian, I doubt they could in all good conscious support a Mormon for the Presidency.

Again sorry to both lisaed and you jfxgillis!

3 votes

#19.22 - Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:18 PM EDT

renee:

No sweat.

To the extent the Church holds a partisan position in the American elections (and it does), it would be represented by the US Conference of Bishops, and there's absolutely no way Dolan, et al., would dream of suggesting that Mormonism is disqualifying for President. Zero chance.

Oddly enough, Rick Santorum is too Catholic for most Catholic voters.

4 votes

#19.23 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:47 AM EDT

the Catholic Church views Mormons as a cult, not Christian

Renee: Apology accepted....and no Catholics are not taught that Mormonism is a cult. I've been taught as a Catholic by the Catholic Church to be tolerant and respectful of persons of other faiths.....some evangelicals on the other hand are indeed taught that mormonism is cult and that's just sad. And Jack in 19.24 is spot on. This Catholic couldn't have said it any better herself!

Oddly enough, Rick Santorum is too Catholic for most Catholic voters.

As you know...I've been surprised myself and (thank GOD) that this phenomenon so far has held true.

4 votes

#19.24 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:13 AM EDT

lisa:

I've been surprised myself and (thank GOD) that this phenomenon so far has held true.

Not to get too possibly personal, but doesn't every Catholic family have an aunt or cousin or grandparent who takes it all just a little too far? We can love them and even credit them, but ... do we want them in charge?

4 votes

#19.25 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:29 AM EDT

but doesn't every Catholic family have an aunt or cousin or grandparent who takes it all just a little too far?

Jack--yeah...but they're not running for President!

4 votes

#19.26 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:38 AM EDT

To the extent the Church holds a partisan position in the American elections (and it does), it would be represented by the US Conference of Bishops, and there's absolutely no way Dolan, et al., would dream of suggesting that Mormonism is disqualifying for President. Zero chance.

So let me ask you a different question since you are implying the Catholic Church wouldn't disqualify him based upon his leadership in the Mormon Church, would they disqualify a Muslim? A Buhdist? A Taoist? In other words would they support a non-Christian?

The Mormon religion is not considered Christian by any, and that includes Catholic, of the Christian Churches. They do not follow the Bible, they have added their own books to the Bible, they have distorted the holy trinity, they believe all men (and by the way men only) can achieve godhood through their life's works and all kinds of tenants that go completely against Christianity of all denominations.

1 vote

#19.27 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 11:51 AM EDT

reneee:

would they disqualify a Muslim? A Buhdist? A Taoist?

Cardinal Dolan, et al.? He's not an idiot. They would probably do exactly what they've been doing for twenty years at least now. Pick the most pro-Life of the available candidates and hint at support or the most pro-Choice candidate and hint at opposition. Or both. If that pro-Life candidate happened to be Muslim, they'd support him or her.

The Holy See has actually been tilting a little pro-Mormon the last few years for an interesting reason. Russia and a few other countries have been cracking down on proselytizing and similar mission work and they usually start off with the Mormons because they're smaller and more out of the mainstream. Roman Catholicism or the Evangelical Protestants who perform missions are too strong an adversary. And the Vatican wants to be able to convert people worldwide.

4 votes

#19.28 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:44 PM EDT

The Mormon religion is not considered Christian by any, and that includes Catholic

Renee--link please. Why do you present yourself as such an authority on Catholicism? Are you Catholic too?

3 votes

#19.29 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:45 PM EDT

I am not trying to present myself as an authority on Catholicism. No I am not Catholic, my mother was I was raised Missouri Synod, I currently consider myself non-denominational because I do not believe any of the organized Christian religions uphold the teachings of Christ, NONE!

I don't believe the Catholic Church has made any "official" denounciations however they have denounced Mormon baptism based on the very reasons they are not considered a Christian religion.

Heres another where there's info from a few Christian Churches and their views along with the Catholic statement on Baptism.

Another article you might be interested in

3 votes

#19.30 - Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:59 PM EDT

Renee--it is not official Mormon policy to do those baptisms anymore so Catholic Church position on such is not really even relevant.

3 votes

#19.31 - Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:42 PM EDT

PS--my post should have clarified (my knowledge here is indeed limited) that I was referring specifically to LDS proxy baptisms particularly victims of the holocaust.

3 votes

#19.32 - Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:54 PM EDT

The Catholic Church does not recognize the baptism performed by the Mormon Church period. Anyone wanting to convert to Catholicism must be re-baptized and re-instructed in the tenets of Christianity. They do not believe in the holy trinity, they believe they (males) can attain a state of Godhood, they believe that Jesus was a man and a literal son conceived by God the way any other man is.

1 vote

#19.33 - Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:18 PM EDT

The Catholic Church does not recognize the baptism performed by the Mormon Church period

Renee--and I wonder if Mormons likewise recogize those performed in Catholic Church. Who really cares? And:

Anyone wanting to convert to Catholicism must be re-baptized and re-instructed in the tenets of Christianity.

Yes - that makes sense to me. Don't see any problem there.

4 votes

#19.34 - Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:42 PM EDT

Really you choose not to look at what I said was the reason the Catholic church does not recognize the Mormon baptism. That being they do not believe in the main tenants of every major Christian denomination, the tenants considered sacred to all of Christianity. The holy trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They believe in their own Godhood by their works on earth, they believe the only way that a woman can reach the higher realms of heaven is by invitation of her husband. But if you want to believe they are Christian go ahead that is certainly your prerogative.

1 vote

#19.35 - Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:44 PM EDT

pog8

Interesting, and certain "sets" of questions deserve their own separate discussion. Several of my objections have already been addressed such as @3 was answered @6.2.

@3.4 why didn't you choose "that's the way I was brought up."??

I did not answer #4, for various reasons stated. And because @7.3 you can't make me! I agree with some of the answers given, such as @10. I would choose to tax them, then make sure they follow all constitutional laws ie, do not murder children during an exorcism, do not murder children by denying medical care, do not harass people with hate speech, etc.

I STRONGLY disagree with Charlie @18, who wrote, "About 80% of the relief of the needy, and the poor, are taken care of by Christian and other religious organizations. Those groups are some of the most helpful in the world..."

But I think that statement and the whole #4 question are both so big that I won't go into it on this thread. I'm looking forward to further analysis!

4 votes

#20 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 5:28 PM EST

pog8:

And because @7.3 you can't make me!

Oh yeah? Yeah. Oh yeah?

I'm looking forward to further analysis!

Great. More pressure for a followup. Help!

Please, go right ahead. My collaborator had a couple of questions that she was particularly interested in and I had a couple I was especially interested in, and we had a mind meld on the rest. #s 4 & 5 are my baby.

I agree with your assessment of Charlie's response and would say the world is too big now to count on voluntary associative action to alleviate poverty. While in previous epochs the Church and similar institutions may have been the ultimate safety net, that's simply not possible now.

What we need is systems embedded in our political economy. Actually, those systems don't have to be left wing in the popular sense of the term, i.e., socialist in design. But they have to be social. We--plura--embed systems to ensure a modest dignified life for every human.

7 votes

#20.1 - Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:31 PM EST

While in previous epochs the Church and similar institutions may have been the ultimate safety net, that's simply not possible now.

Jack: I think Obama (and you) discount the importance of Church--Catholic or otherwise in helping the least fortunate among us and not on the back of taxpayers---that's why they're CHARITABLE. This discounting is evident by this president's total disrespect for the Catholic Church. And that disrespect is going to continue to haunt him. You know what they say about trying to unring a bell that's already ringing---faux "compromise" or no.

3 votes

#20.2 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:01 PM EST

Jack & MYMYMY---excellent job......very thought provoking poll on a topic that all too often in the blogosphere goes nuclear.

3 votes

#21 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:22 PM EST

lisa @ 21

Thanks for the kind words. Thank you (and all the other commenters) for your participation here.

3 votes

#21.1 - Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:26 PM EST

The Archdiocese prepares the lay to a "conscience vote" for the presidential elections

Hmmmmmm. I think I kinda sorta accidentally stumbled on another variation of the phenomena we we're trying to get to here. I impishly seeded this

With a few names and locations excised (first hint) and a warning in comment #1 (second hint) and couple of other hints in replies to replies.

Anyone already on this thread please don't give the game away on the linked thread?

2 votes

#22 - Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:43 PM EST

Correctly Political: If Little Boys Could Get Pregnant, What Would Be Their Demographic Category?

My analysis/explanation of Question #7 and other points is up:

3 votes

#23 - Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:46 AM EST

Tax FUNdamentals and ReFUNds: Second Annual Exploit Your Fellow Viners for Research Poll

Our Second Annual poll is up!

Everyone invited!

4 votes

#24 - Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:37 AM EST

Fake Social Science Analysis: FUN with Death and Taxes

Announcing: We're going to try to make this a regular feature. We've done two annual polls this month and have the third going. We don't know how regular a feature because installments will be based partly on events in the world and partly on the fact that these are really hard to construct. The secret and patented disgronificater and patisserie catalyzer we use to construct these instruments is a precision machine that needs constant maintenence and still keeps breaking down, and repairing it leaves both of us a bloody mess.

We've adopted the term "Fake Social Science to Make Real Arguments" as our motto and created an archive by that name. If you like our Fake Social Science, please Watchlist the Group and the tag "fake soc sci" so you won't miss one. Thank you and Enjoy!

Analysis of Tax Poll is done:

3 votes

#25 - Fri Mar 2, 2012 2:02 PM EST