|
8
Nerd-Its
|
|
current event
by Audiences laughed and groaned when Kevin Smith portrayed a modernizing church with "Catholicism - WOW!" and a hipper "Buddy Christ" in the movie Dogma. While not as upbeat, the Vatican did release a substantive dogma of modernization recently by identifying new, contemporary sins. New sins include drug abuse, pollution, genetic manipulation and acts of social and economic injustice according to Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti. These new sins do not equal the "seven deadly sins" introduced in the sixth century. Rather, they augment the growing list of venial sins which while bad, will not guarantee damnation to hell. As the church upgrades the list of sinful deeds, studies show that followers already avoid confession - up to 60% in Italy no longer even bother with the practice.
Add a Comment (14)
Email This
Message Author
RSS
new confessions could go a little like this: by VnutZ :: NR8 :: on 12 March 2008
Forgive me father for I have farted and added to the global warming crisis with my methane. I also sinned by driving my jalopy to 15 miles to church causing me to emit NO, CO and CO2 into the atmosphere while consuming 2 gallons of the precious oil. After a car accident this week, which turned my socially unjust Cadillac Escalade into a jalopy, I also partook in a genetically modified medicines in order to save my life. But I did give $2 in alms today.
Obscenely Wealthy by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
One of the sins the Vatican has added is being Obscenely Weathly. Arguabley the wealthiest man in the Old Testament was Solomon. Solomon was not only the ruler of Israel, but he is considered to be a wise man. He was also the wealthiest; some estimates put his annual income at $25-50 million in todays dollars. he controlled the Aegean trade route to Asia--equal to controlling both the Straits of Gibralter and the Suez Canal; along with the Panama canal.
Other 'obscenely wealthy' biblical people of note: Abraham, Job (lost all as the subject of a test between God and Satan, and subsequently rewarded double), and Joseph of Arimathea (put Christ's Body in the Holy Sepulchre).
It looks like the Vatican is ignoring some pertinent facts.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by scottb :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
Arguably the wealthiest man in the Old Testament was Solomon.
Even if we don't look to unconfirmed folk history, they're ignoring a really glaring pertinent fact. Arguably, the wealthiest man in the world today is Pope Benedict, himself. The church is still organized as if it were a monarchy, with the Pope as monarch, and the RCC is an absurdly wealthy organization, when you look at its overall assets.
It has massive investments in some of the wealthiest banks around the world - the Morgan Bank, the Chase-Manhattan Bank, the First National Bank of New York, the Bankers Trust Company, and others. The Boston Archiocese alone had an estimated worth of over half a billion dollars about a decade ago, and it isn't even the richest - and there are twenty-eight such archdioceses and 122 dioceses in the US alone. A priest once said on a syndicated talk show that the church's assets "must exceed those of Standard Oil, AT&T, and US Steel, combined." They buy and sell gold in lots of a million or more dollars at a time.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
Arguably, the wealthiest man in the world today is Pope Benedict, himself.
We talked about that last night too..I just decided not to use the Catholic Church itself, because it is more like a country than a single individual.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by scottb :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
Well, in general, the notion that wealth is intrinsically sinful completely misunderstands basic economics.
I mean, it's incredibly ironic that what may be the wealthiest organization on the planet has declared wealth to be evil, but it's also just plain dumb. Money is a proxy for value - if you have $10 and you want things that cost $20 (and nearly everybody wants things that cost more than they have), you're forced to decide which things you value more. The money flows towards those who produce that which is valued most by everyone else. It accumulates at the points that represent the most powerful generators of value.
Things get complicated from there, of course, but that's the foundation. Wealth isn't (intrinsically) a bad thing, it's an indicator of a good thing.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 12 March 2008
Wealth isn't (intrinsically) a bad thing, it's an indicator of a good thing.
I agree--it's what you DO with that wealth and how you GAINED the wealth that truly matter. Money itself is not evil.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by bitswapper :: NR5 :: on 14 March 2008
If I recall correctly, it was the apostle paul who said that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by ldsudduth :: NR7 :: on 14 March 2008
You are correct--but that does not make money itself evil; being wealthy itself is not a sin. It is when the acquisition of more money gets in the way of your relationship with God that is the sin. The full text of Paul's message taken in context is below. 1 Timothy 6:6-12
It's the *desire* to be rich that is the snare; Solomon never desired to be rich, nor Abraham, nor Job. God simply rewarded them for their faithfulness. When wealth comes as a reward from God; not as a product of greed, it's not a problem. While there are few wealthy people who are also Godly; one does not automatically preclude the other.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: on 12 March 2008
The money flows towards those who produce that which is valued most by everyone else. It accumulates at the points that represent the most powerful generators of value.
That really depends on your theory of value. A lot of people make a lot of money without really adding much to society--at least, not adding any more than many other people who are not paid nearly as much.
Whether or not wealth is bad also depends on how it is defined. If you mean general or overall wealth, then it is not a bad thing. But, if you are talking about one individual being wealthy relative to others who are poor by comparison, then you have an unfair (sinful) situation. Now, if you believe wealth always follows real value, then maybe it is not unfair, but I don't believe money always (or even often) flows to those who produce the most desired products. If it did, janitors, sewer workers, and garbage men would make a lot more than corporate executives or politicians.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by scottb :: NR7 :: on 14 March 2008
That really depends on your theory of value. A lot of people make a lot of money without really adding much to society--at least, not adding any more than many other people who are not paid nearly as much.
No, it doesn't. The whole point is that money "normalizes" values. It shifts from "what I want", and "what you want", and "what he wants" into "what we want".
When you say that someone who's paid a lot doesn't "add much to society", you're saying that you don't value their contribution - but clearly somebody values it enough to pay them. Moreover, that somebody themselves has enough money (has generated sufficient value) to do so.
I don't believe money always (or even often) flows to those who produce the most desired products. If it did, janitors, sewer workers, and garbage men would make a lot more than corporate executives or politicians.
It's not your, individual, desires that are relevant. Your desires aren't those of society as a whole.
Janitors, sewer workers, and so on, don't produce more value than corporate executives or politicians. That's just ridiculous. Anyone can do what janitors do. Very few can run a successful company. Scarce things are more valuable because they're scarce. People with strong leadership skills are far more scarce than people with janitorial skills.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: on 14 March 2008
No, it doesn't. The whole point is that money "normalizes" values. It shifts from "what I want", and "what you want", and "what he wants" into "what we want".
I'm afraid it does. The theory of value you're describing assumes that value can and should be normalized in the first place, that value and demand are the same thing, and that value is only measurable in terms of money (which implies that what money cannot buy is not valuable).
But not all values can be either normalized or measured in monetary terms. And demand can be influenced (through advertising or individual charisma) without changing value in an objective sense. There is a difference between value and the appearance of value.
When you say that someone who's paid a lot doesn't "add much to society", you're saying that you don't value their contribution - but clearly somebody values it enough to pay them.
That's a tautology; What you're saying is that people pay for what they find valuable, but that things must be valuable if people will pay for them.
When it comes to people's contributions, the fact that somebody pays them just means that somebody with even more money values their contribution; it does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the majority. Just because those with power value certain contributions over others, does not mean those contributions benefit everybody equally.
That's just ridiculous. Anyone can do what janitors do.
Yes, but they don't. Anyone may be able, but not everyone is willing to do what janitors or garbage men do. It's not skilled work, but it's dirty and difficult and society could not function without it. That makes it just as valuable as what an executive does.
Scarce things are more valuable because they're scarce. People with strong leadership skills are far more scarce than people with janitorial skills
That's not true--plenty of scarce things have low value. Sociopaths are rare, but are hardly valued by society. Also, a lot of scarce skills could be learned by a lot more people if they had equal access to education. Of course, that wouldn't work very well because if everybody were trained to be a "leader" there'd be no one to do the work.
It's not your, individual, desires that are relevant. Your desires aren't those of society as a whole.
They are relevant--society as a whole is made up of individual opinions. The fact is, neither of us is qualified to speak of what society as a whole wants, it's immeasurable (even though economics tries).
But if what you're saying is true, and that only collective desires matter, then what you're effectively saying is that this self-justifying status quo--that the entire system of western economics itself--is socially defined. That means that any number of alternative systems could function equally well or perhaps better in its place, if enough people believed it were possible.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by scottb :: NR7 :: on 19 March 2008
You're almost entirely wrong. You make one good point, so let me address that up front...
plenty of scarce things have low value. Sociopaths are rare, but are hardly valued by society.
You're right - it's not scarcity alone that establishes value - it's just one factor.
The rest... it's a mess.
But not all values can be either normalized or measured in monetary terms. And demand can be influenced (through advertising or individual charisma) without changing value in an objective sense.
You're clearly equivocating on the term "value" - though it's something a lot of people seem to do. First, you deny that value can be "normalized", but then later you talk about "value in an objective sense".
If value can't be normalized, then it doesn't exist in any objective sense - you're left with just the purely subjective judgements of individuals. The "value" of something, then, means subjectively, what would a specific person exchange for it.
But you clearly recognize that there is some meaningful notion of value in objective sense. Therefore, it can be normalized in a useful way.
But individually, value is nothing more than willingness to exchange. If you want apples, and you're willing to give up one sheep for two bushels of apples, then that's your value for the apples. Adding money to the picture just means I don't have to take the sheep, I can take some amount of money, that I can use elsewhere to get the sheep - or, since I prefer beef, my neighbor and I can pool our money, buy a cow and split it between us.
Aggregated over all trades, the money exchanged in a transaction is exactly a measure of the objective value of the transaction. There really can't be any other meaningful measure.
Furthermore, that values can be influenced by advertising, or argument, is immaterial. Values do change over time. A century and a half ago, live theater was much more valuable than it is today. Over time, its role in entertainment has been supplanted - first by radio, then by movies, and now by TV.
Pointing out that values change through other mechanisms, too, doesn't affect the way in which money measures those values.
That's just ridiculous. Anyone can do what janitors do.
Yes, but they don't. Anyone may be able, but not everyone is willing to do what janitors or garbage men do. It's not skilled work, but it's dirty and difficult and society could not function without it. That makes it just as valuable as what an executive does.
This is just ignoring the basic notions of supply and demand. The reason most people aren't willing to do what janitors do is because there's something else they can do for as much, or more, money. That is, they can supply some form of labor that's more scarce or otherwise more in demand than janitorial services.
If there's no better work on offer, everyone will be willing to do janitorial work - the alternative is starvation.
Moreover, if the current janitorial staff of the world decided they agreed with you that they're "just as valuable as ... an executive", they'd be replaced almost immediately by a new batch of people who are willing to do janitorial work for the old pay rate. The supply of janitors at the current rate exactly meets the demand. If the demand goes up, the price goes up and more people will be willing.
Also, a lot of scarce skills could be learned by a lot more people if they had equal access to education. Of course, that wouldn't work very well because if everybody were trained to be a "leader" there'd be no one to do the work.
Not sure I really buy that argument. First, basic education is free to everyone in the US. Those who show almost any aptitude at all are generally encouraged to take it further, and there are plenty of scholarships and other programs to allow the "economically disadvantaged" to have "equal access" - at least in the cases where they can and will make use of it.
Beyond that, leaders fit into the supply and demand equations just like janitors. If everyone were "trained to be a 'leader'", we'd still only need a relatively small handful, and so the supply would far exceed the demand, pushing the cost at which we obtained that leadership down. We could pay our leaders the same as we pay our janitors.
They are relevant--society as a whole is made up of individual opinions.
They're "relevant" in the same sense that the motion of an individual molecule is relevant to the temperature of the gas that contains it. Yes, it's part of the aggregate, but if you change just that one element, you still can't make a measurable difference in the aggregate.
The specific content of an individuals value judgements, no matter how they're varied, don't change aggregated desires of society as a whole in any meaningful way.
The fact is, neither of us is qualified to speak of what society as a whole wants, it's immeasurable (even though economics tries).
I disagree. Society as a whole tells us what it wants through its behavior - specifically, its economic behavior. Any fool could tell you that society wants action blockbusters, not documentaries. It's easy to see that it wants fast food, not gourmet. It wants air travel, not trains.
But if what you're saying is true, and that only collective desires matter, ...
You're now putting words into my mouth. Individual desires are irrelevant to the subject at hand - objective value. Of course individual desires matter in individual matters. That's a tautology.
Individual desires do not matter to the big picture of what society as a whole wants - again, in the sense that changing an individual's desires won't change the big picture in any noticeable way.
... then what you're effectively saying is that this self-justifying status quo--that the entire system of western economics itself--is socially defined. That means that any number of alternative systems could function equally well or perhaps better in its place, if enough people believed it were possible.
Yes, I'll buy that. Seems like it's yet another near-tautology - western society is socially defined. The specific details of our economics - the government's role in manipulating the money supply, the level of taxation, the current supply and demand levels in the market, and so on - are all socially defined.
The basic mechanisms of economics, however, seem (to me) to be a little less ephemeral. In any economy, supply meets demand to set prices. The supply curve is dominated by technological capabilities, and the demand curve just models what people want.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by NomadSoul :: NR5 :: on 20 March 2008
You're clearly equivocating on the term "value" - though it's something a lot of people seem to do. First, you deny that value can be "normalized", but then later you talk about "value in an objective sense".
And you are clearly missing my point. I said: "NOT ALL values can be either normalized or measured in monetary terms." I didn't say that none of them could. As for objective value, I think we are using the same term to mean different things. When I referred to value in an objective sense, I meant in the sense that the object (the good or service) itself was not changed by advertising, even though the subjective sense of value is changed.
So, I do not believe there is any objective measure of value in the way you describe. Subjective value is all there is--that, and the average (what you refer to as objective) measure of all those subjective values. But that kind of value isn't objective in the strict sense--it does not exist in the world independently of the observer, the way a rock exists. It's a social construct, subject to social forces--like advertising. Depending on how much advertising you can afford, the apparent value of something can be inflated without actually improving the real performance of the product.
Aggregated over all trades, the money exchanged in a transaction is exactly a measure of the objective value of the transaction. There really can't be any other meaningful measure.
But that's the point--not everything can be meaningfully measured; in fact, I would say that the most meaningful things cannot be measured. What if instead of apples or sheep or beef, what I want is peace, or wisdom, a clean environment, or family? Try to put a dollar price on any of these very important things. I'm sure people have tried--you can, if you like, put a dollar price on anything--like saying the price of family is what you pay in taking your wife out to dinner or what you spend on your kids' education--but those are kludges. In fact, putting a dollar price on something priceless undermines or destroys it.
Not everything is an economic exchange, but economics as a worldview tries to make it out as if it is.
Moreover, if the current janitorial staff of the world decided they agreed with you that they're "just as valuable as ... an executive", they'd be replaced almost immediately by a new batch of people who are willing to do janitorial work for the old pay rate.
That assumes that there's untold masses of starving people out there just waiting to do any old job. What you're effectively saying is that the current economic system could not function without large numbers of poor and/or unskilled people.
The supply of janitors at the current rate exactly meets the demand. If the demand goes up, the price goes up and more people will be willing.
Does it exactly meet the demand? What if it exceeds the demand? What of the surplus people? The point I'm trying to make is that in this case the demand you're talking about is largely subjective--based on the perception by many people (the people who decide what to pay janitors, for one) that janitors are lower than them. The problem with economics is that it justifies these sorts of unequal relationships by putting a dollar value on a person--something which should be priceless is reduced to a replaceable part.
...there are plenty of scholarships and other programs to allow the "economically disadvantaged" to have "equal access"
That is largely a matter of opinion. And once again, the type of education that is useful depends largely on what the people/organizations with money are willing to spend it on. Typically they want to spend money on things that will make them even more money--so the "leaders" in question are not necessarily the ones that will do what is right, or meaningful, or helpful to society, but those who will make the shareholders the most money.
The specific content of an individuals value judgements, no matter how they're varied, don't change aggregated desires of society as a whole in any meaningful way.
Not if you only change that one individual, but that's why advertising is so insidious--because it doesn't target single individuals, it targets many at once--the more the better. It is an attempt to control the aggregated desires of society as a whole by changing many individual minds at once. Far from being an objective measure of society's wants, the flow of money is largely in the hands of those who already have enough money to advertise or promote their own interests.
Society as a whole tells us what it wants through its behavior - specifically, its economic behavior. Any fool could tell you that society wants action blockbusters, not documentaries. It's easy to see that it wants fast food, not gourmet. It wants air travel, not trains.
Again, you're almost stating my point for me--supposedly society wants action blockbusters, but movie makers want us to want action blockbusters. Fast food chains want us to want fast food. I'm not saying that advertising controls everything--but I am saying that it helps perpetuate a feedback loop of social interests--a feedback loop steered toward whatever is cheapest and easiest to produce and sell.
Yes, I'll buy that. Seems like it's yet another near-tautology - western society is socially defined. The specific details of our economics - the government's role in manipulating the money supply, the level of taxation, the current supply and demand levels in the market, and so on - are all socially defined.
The basic mechanisms of economics, however, seem (to me) to be a little less ephemeral. In any economy, supply meets demand to set prices. The supply curve is dominated by technological capabilities, and the demand curve just models what people want.
The basic mechanisms of economics are just as socially defined, they just seem less so because they seem to be measuring something. But supply and demand curves don't apply in gift economies or barter economies--situations where self-interest is not the only motivator (or may not even be relevant), where systems of mass exchange don't matter, and technological capabilities are irrelevant. Do you see what I'm saying? Built into any economic system is a whole worldview about politics, social status, and personal ethics.
The problem with Western economics (or really any system of monetary exchange) is that it tries to reduce everything--even supposedly ephemeral concepts and relationships--to self-interested monetary exchanges. Everything becomes about greed and competition. It doesn't have to be that way, but Economics says it does, and so it justifies itself and reinforces a pattern of social inequalities that are essentially arbitrary.
RE: Obscenely Wealthy by PowerPointSamurai :: NR7 :: on 14 March 2008
Scott, that argument pretty misplaced. Ok, so arguably the Pope has control over the holdings of the Catholic Church around the world. So what? For one, he also has the liabilities--you are only looking at one side of the ledger. What do you suppose it costs the Church to keep all those churches around the world open and the upkeep?
Secondly, it is trivially simple to prove the charity work that the Church does with that money. Everyone likes to bash the Catholic Church, but if you look at the history of, say, Nicaragua, as well as several other neighboring Central American countries and the Philippines, it was the Catholic Clergy that were the Catholic Church that was in the lead for social justice.
That second part is important, because do you really believe the Pope can just arbitrarily spend that money as he choses? He can't just liquidate a few chapels and go buy himself a Benz. He is not obscenely wealthy at all. If he is the titular head of some massive empire, then he sure is getting the shaft out of the deal, because he cannot use any of it himself. This obviates the "obscenely" and makes them just wealthy. That said, I think the opulent and grandiose aura the Catholic Church presents brings it this kind of attention.