The Catholic Church Should Burn

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,596
SLU Posts
18459
Tax status. It's the same reason people bitch about corporations who've applied for a PPP loan - legally - but are known to pay little to no taxes.

Benefitting from a system they don't pay into. Is it OK that some of us don't happen to like that?
But if Congress wanted to restrict access to the programme to particular types of non-profit organisation, or to corporations who pay in tax more than certain percentage of their turnover, or to make access to the loans dependent on some other criteria, then it was open to it so to do, surely?

Certainly it's reasonable to criticise legislators for passing ill-thought-out or badly-drafted legislation, which may well have happened in this case, but if the legislature passes a particular law that entitles organisations to financial assistance, I don't see how it's fair to criticise organisations simply because they successfully apply for assistance to which the legislature, through a law it's very recently passed, says they're entitled.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,596
SLU Posts
18459
The Catholic Church is worth $10 billion to $15 billion.
Mom and Pop Hardware Store who didn't get the loan because their spot got taken up by a church isn't.
As I recall, the programme was supported by both parties in Congress.

Was this potential issue flagged up at the time, and if it was, why weren't sufficient funds allocated to the programme and who decided to allocate what funds there were on the basis of first-come, first-served?

I understand why people are upset about the way the programme is working, but if the rules are being correctly applied, then surely it's the fault of the legislators who designed and voted for the programme, not that of people administering or benefitting from it?
 

Dancien

Ne'er-do-well
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
105
Location
Texas
SL Rez
2006
I think this may be more of an argument of could vs should. Could the Catholic Churches apply for and receive the loan? Yes. According to the way it was written they could. Should they have though? Highly debatable.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
5,596
SLU Posts
18459
I think this may be more of an argument of could vs should. Could the Catholic Churches apply for and receive the loan? Yes. According to the way it was written they could. Should they have though? Highly debatable.
Certainly, but did, in fact, any legislators from either side actually raise this when the programme was being devised?

We've got to work with the law as it is, not as we might want it to be, and I don't see how it's fair to criticise people or organisations because they've successfully applied for assistance to which a programme set up only a matter of weeks ago says they're entitled.

Criticise the members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, who voted for the measures, not the people administering or benefitting from them, surely?
 
  • 2Agree
Reactions: Sid and Aribeth Zelin

Free

Chapeau-ed Leader of the Free World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
9,263
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
Criticise the members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, who voted for the measures, not the people administering or benefitting from them, surely?
I have it in myself to criticize both, voluminously.

(Anyone administering the plan is just following the rules of their job, so to speak, so I'm not discussing them.)
 

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
4,113
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
October 2009
SLU Posts
65535
As I recall, the programme was supported by both parties in Congress.

Was this potential issue flagged up at the time, and if it was, why weren't sufficient funds allocated to the programme and who decided to allocate what funds there were on the basis of first-come, first-served?

I understand why people are upset about the way the programme is working, but if the rules are being correctly applied, then surely it's the fault of the legislators who designed and voted for the programme, not that of people administering or benefitting from it?
My theory: Evangelical (and otherwise religious) Republican senators drafted the bill with wording carefully crafted to allow funding for religious institutions and wealthy corporations. Democrats in both houses could not afford, given the current climate, to be seen as the party resisting preventing wage earners - the average Joes - from getting furloughed or laid off completely, so they quickly sign off on the bill without thoroughly dissecting it first. And Bob's your uncle.
 

Nostrildamus

New member
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
38
That, though, suggests that these "basic moral standards, lessons and acceptable ways of interacting" are based on pragmatic observation of what works and what doesn't, and that rules and laws that no longer seem particularly relevant -- particularly ones about ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness -- get discarded as no longer useful.

That's my position, too -- most ethical rules are absolutely necessary to a functioning society of any kind, since you can't have any sort of complex social structure, not even a small village or band of nomads -- without an agreed set of basic rules and a consensus about enforcing them, otherwise you end up complete anarchy as marauding bands wage constant war on each other.

However, it follows from all this that, as and when people no longer find a rule particularly useful, it falls into desuetude as more and more people ignore it.

Some rules are longer lasting than others, but none of them are necessarily permanent, as far as I can see, at least not in theory.

As any one time, of course, people will disagree about which rules are necessary and which are not, and differing views will tend to be influenced, to a greater or lesser extent, by the degree to which their general adoption benefits the person who holds them.

So, for example, prohibitions on murder and theft tend not to be particularly contentious, because no one wants to feel their life and property are in constant danger from everyone else, but rules on things like what you can eat, or who may marry whom, are discarded when they no longer matter sufficiently to enough people to be worth trying to enforce.
I think consciousness is at least as mysterious as the weird UFOs recorded by the fighter pilots.