Talk:Tithe

Well, how else are they going to pay for church materials? It's like taxes, only optional (if you discount the guilt trip). -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:57, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

And what about the food drives, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, mission projects, drug rehab centers, youth anti-gang programs, Christmas present drives, clothing drives, free furniture for the needy, visits to orphanages, retirement homes, hospitals, and care centers? Costs money too, you know. (Stolen from charity).

Also, by "scientifically challenged" I presume the author is referring to those Christian fundamentalists who believe in YEC. While this leaves out other religons (don't Muslims tithe? I seem to remember seeing that somewhere), it also neglects the billions of people who do not base their faith on faulty scientific reasoning. You know, those who base it on, well, faith. Lurker 01:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Agreed, Lurker. As usual for a religion-related stub on RationalWiki, it's unfairly negative. Later, though, it may get spiffed up. Hopefully. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:16, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I try to stay away from such stubs (which is part of the reason I've been so quiet lately) but accidentally clicked on this one. I therefore had to comment. Lurker 01:17, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, why don't you rewrite it? I won't because I'm a lazy bastard. What's your excuse? : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:20, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Prolly get reverted. Lurker 01:26, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, do it anyway, and I'll see if it's revert-worthy. If not, I'll make lobby for it to stay. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Consider it / rewrit. / I'm a poet and / I didn't realize it.

I kept in some snark while keeping the factual accuracy high. I also find it ironic that I replaced a largely individualist, pragmatic argument with a populist, general welfare argument. I must be getting tired! Lurker 01:37, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

O_O [1] I can see why you rub the others the wrong way. I'll uh, fix it up... to keep others from whitewashing it, ya' know. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:40, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Tolja. I even tried extra hard to be good on this one, too! You should see my WiGO edits.... Lurker 01:46, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

It hath been fixed. Check it out!—am I good or what? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:02, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't see what was wrong with mine, but I like how it is now. Well, I don't hate how it is now ;) Lurker 01:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Uhm....actually, in mediaeval times a tithe was originally a tax levied by the local lord of the manor for his use, not the churches. Church tithes were separate tithe paid to churches as a tax. The UK still has many tithe barns which were places for the peasants to deposit their shoddy offerings to the lord of the manor. Church tithes were dropped off directly at the local church, where the greedy clerics could get their hands on the goodies quickly. Spica the Hiver^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 05:02, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Actually actually ( ;-) ), it's the other way around - tithes originally belonged entirely to the churches, but a part of it (usually one third, depending on local church legislation) could be handed over to a nobleman for various reasons, usually as compensation for some other service, to support a privately owned church, or for political purposes. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:42, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps it was only way I described it in Engle-lande. ;-) Spica the Hiver^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:12, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

State administered

I was appalled to read WP's entry - I didn't know it was so widespread in continental Europe. SusanG 05:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't see what the problem is, honestly. It's church taxes, not tithes, and they're voluntary. If anything, a greater problem here in Denmark, at least, is not the church tax in itself; but rather the fact that the state also supports the national church out of the regular tax income as well, to pay for certain salaries and administrative costs and such. That's more criticisable in my opinion, since there's no way of opting out of those. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:42, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

yes, I only scanned WP's entry, further reading does show the optoutiness but in most (all?) cases you have to make a formal declaration in writing. Although Switzerland's divided. The UK & the US give tacit religion support by allowing them charitable status, with consequent tax breaks so we're all supportng them to some extent. SusanG 10:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

That's only fair as long as they actually do carry out charitable work, isn't it? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 10:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

As I understand it no. In the UK a bona fide church is a charity, I think. (I'll go check) SusanG 11:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Can't find re UK yet (the web's a bit Americentric but:

Some organizations automatically acquire 501(c)(3) status upon filing of proper organizational documents (e.g., articles of incorporation as a church), at least until annual income exceeds a statutory threshold. Others will not receive 501(c)(3) status until they file an application and supporting documentation to the IRS and have a certification letter issued. The IRS will examine the application and may request further financial and organization information prior to granting the 501(c)(3) status. To cover donations made before the letter is issued, the regulations require prompt filing of the application after organization, or after an existing organization satisfies the criteria for 501(c)(3), or after exceeding the income threshold.- Wikipedia

SusanG 12:03, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Alright, but in that case, I would assume that a corporation must be able to show that it is working for the public benefit to be recognized as a church. Wasn't Scientology denied status as a church in the UK a few years ago exactly because they couldn't show that? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Indeed the Charity Commission made it plain that Scientology is a business, not a church, mainly because it charges its members. Spica the Hiver^{If you tolerate this, then your children will be next...} 15:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Wherein human whines

This article really needs so work, it's kind of all over the place. Any possibility of separating the snark from the facts a bit so they can both be improved? Also, shouldn't it be called "Tithe"? human 14:42, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Would you like some cheese with that whine? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:43, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Don't you have homework to do? human 14:45, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

*Coyly* Maybe... -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:58, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, off you go, then! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Yes, mother. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:03, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Tenth child donated to the church?

I can't find anything to support the assertion that children were given to the church. I know here in Ireland it was certainly a common aspiration that a child would go in to the church, in fact that was the plan for one of my relatives, but this wasn't based on any kind of specific number. There just needed to be enough children to continue the family in order to allow for one or more to enter the church. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 08:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed that section during a rewrite. I can't seem to find any support for it, and google searching for catholics and children shows little about tithing, but oddly enough quite a few cases of children being raped by clergy. Go figure. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 10:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)