Plutarch wrote:guy sajer wrote:Now, I ask you, since when has “what is legally permissible under law,” been the ethical standard under Christian, and Mormon, theology?
You were the one who pretended to be an expert and used legal terms (disenfranchisement and accountability) to describe the Church's moral obligation.
You make the common mistake of conflating legal with moral.
Take a look at your original post. If you throw around legal terms where they have no application at all to a First Amendment organization, somebody's gonna ketch you on it.
As an example, I am pasting in a portion from the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Here’s the full link:
Very illuminating. The financial statements of the Roman Catholic Archbishop intentionally omit disclosure of "numerous separately incorporated Catholic organizations that operate within the Archdiocese of Boston." (2006 Statement, Note A). It is not a consolidated statement.
I also point out that the Archiodese's public release of its financial condition came only after it became the subject of public knowledge in litigation discovery; i.e., it was forced to release this data by sexual abuse victims. Cardinal O'Malley admitted that the public release was tied to the scandal in his April 19, 2006 press release. Many religious groups, including the Catholics, successfully shot down a proposal in the Mass House to impose financial disclosure requirements on churches.
It seems to me that if you don't pay tithing you have no standing to complain. Go to an anti-Mason board and complain about their dues. Why dontcha, Professor?
P
First of all, I am an expert on this topic. I work with several NGOs and international development organizations developing means to enable them to be transparent about organizational performance. I work on Corporate Social Responsibility and in helping organizations adhere with disclosure standards and in development of other standards. I know well the ethos in the non-profit and NGO sector regarding disclosure, financial and otherwise.
I've never made a legal argument, I never would, as my frame of reference in this case is entirely ethical. I know full well there is no legal requirement, per se, for the LDS Church to disclose its financial performance. I can tell you unequivocally that refusal to disclose financial statements to the public is outside the norms for mainstream non-profit organizations. It violates industry norms and standards, norms and standards developed for both practical and ethical reasons. This does not mean that every non-profit adheres to such practices, but most mainstream ones do.
And, numbnuts, accountability is not solely a legal term. It is a concept and term used in multiple contexts. Among those who work in the area of financial and other reporting standards, accountability is a common and well-understood concept. Its use in this context is entirely appropriate. Also, I explained the context for my use of the term disenfranchisement. Words are used in many contexts in different ways. Words are appropriated constantly from their original meaning or context to be used in other ways or contexts. That's the way language develops. The term disenfranchisement conveys the meaning I want it to have in this particular context. I think you will find, if you pull your head out of your ass, that many people use this term similarly and in different contexts and don’t feel constrained by the narrow strictures you’ve placed on it.
Regarding the Catholic Church, you missed the point entirely. Look at the language of the statement. The point is that it expresses an implied ethical obligation to report on its financial transactions “in a format and provide sufficient information to enable the Christian-faithful to understand and appreciate the stewardship that the diocese exercises with respect to the funds entrusted to it by the Christian-faithful.” Moreover, “in addition to generally accepted reporting practices, each diocese should endeavor to accomplish reasonable norms of accountability and transparency with respect to the financial activities of the diocesan offices.” This is not merely a policy statement, but an assertion of ethical duty. Note the words “norms” “accountability” (gee, and I thought this was only a legal term), “transparency”, “sufficient information” to “understand.” I’ve never claimed that publication of full consolidate financial statements is required to meet the norms of transparency and accountability. Plus, the reason for the financial disclosure is immaterial (if your spin sufficiently explains this, which I doubt), the point is that the Catholic Church strives to be compliant with what it says are “norms” of “transparency” and “accountability.” Whatever its motivation, the Catholic Church is light years ahead of the Mormon Church where it comes to adherence with industry norms regarding financial transparency and accountability. And this is just one example. Other mainline religions (not necessarily all of them) disclose financial information.
Finally, whether I pay tithing is totally immaterial. I don’t contribute to the coffers of Islam, but that sure as hell isn’t going to stop me from criticizing it. Having a financial stake in an issue is not a widely accepted standard for exercise of one’s freedom of speech. I will criticize who and what I want regardless of how much money I’ve invested in it. Just where the hell did you pull this standard from? It is just plain nonsensical.
Oh yeah, and by the way, I do pay tithing. My wife and I combine our incomes into a common pot, and from this pot, we pay the Mormon Church several thousand dollars a year in tithing, fast offerings, and donations to LDS Humanitarian Causes (at my wife’s request, I prefer not to, but it is part her money too).
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."