EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
What exactly is the role of the modern state in the spiritual life of people? Isn't it time for the right to be a believer to stop being taxed?
The passing of Patriarch Maxim gives us an occasion for a brief commentary on the relationship between church, clergy, state, and funding. Without attempting to infringe on everyone's right to believe in what they want, we consider this moment appropriate to highlight some of the factors that distort the essence of religious faith.
As often happens, the basis of this distortion is the attempts of certain groups of people to distribute power and public material resources for their own interests. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church has long become one of the many social institutions that has attached itself to the feeder, filled with the taxes of productive individuals and organizations in society. For a huge part of the people, the church is of no use. In many respects, it is even a more unnecessary public institution than many others, but nevertheless we are all obliged to pay for its existence. In a slightly more extreme context, ensuring its existence through the tax system can be considered a contradiction of one of the so-called God's commandments - "thou shalt not steal". The reason is that the taxpayer is not asked whether he wants to pay for the state service "church". The tax is a fact, regardless of the religious beliefs of the payer.
The topic of archons and the distribution of this title is interesting. Despite the public discontent with the kind of people it is awarded to, its existence is perhaps the most positive development in the recent history of the church institution. To be a truly moral organization, the church must exist as a true representative of the believers, supported, maintained, and guided by them.
The main pillars of financial stability should be precisely donations from wealthy Christians, perhaps even voluntary tithing (as in the Mormon Church) and support through numerous properties and commercial activities. In this sense, a title (be it “archon” or “Jedi master”) is a recognition and incentive for religious people to support the activities of the faith.
If the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were a true community of believers, and not a club for those with access to material resources seized from society, the process of granting titles and appointing priests would be much different. In other words: when existence is ensured by the state, we will always have the church we know. If the latter is justified by the ideas and will of the believers, however, the situation would be different. There are such religious groups, and the differences with the native Orthodoxy are stunning.
What exactly is the role of the modern state in the spiritual life of people? Isn't it time that the right to be a believer stopped being taxed? Not only because it is immoral to take from others and present yourself as righteous, but perhaps because there are believers who would like to see a different kind of church. A church of the people for the people.
Nice article. It led me to the question of which religious institutions are supported by our taxes. I'm curious which religions have settled for this luxury and why others haven't. Does anyone have any information? 🙂
Mr. Vladev, it is common practice in most Catholic and Protestant countries to collect church tax -10%. In this case, it is transferred directly by the employer to the church board declared by the employee. Often, declaring the religious parish in which you attend church is part of the employment contract. For some provinces in Germany, for example, the employer only provides data on how much church tax the respective employee owes to the respective pastor, and if the employee does not pay within the month, his name appears on the door of the church as a debtor and the entire parish starts to avoid him.
As for state subsidies in Bulgaria, they are given not only to the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, but also to the Chief Mufti's Office, the Jewish and Armenian faiths.
Mr. Stoyan Pechev, you have obviously studied economic history, but you have not remembered much. Anyway - this is not the topic of this article. I will just ask you, do you know when the American Navy (I mean the US Navy) fought its first war in the Mediterranean Sea and what was the reason? And is this reason an expression of free economy and trade?
Regarding the article, I am sincerely surprised by your ignorance in characterizing with the philosophical concept of morality religious categories such as Church and creed, which educated people speak of in theosophical terms. As for the fact that you do not like the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, you have the freedom to choose any other Orthodox church or other Christian creed you want - in Bulgaria there are enough Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical communities that you can join and experience the reform you want according to the latest trend of modern philosophy and marketing. But please, do not accuse the laity of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church of not being true believers, given that you obviously neither go to church regularly nor have any idea what Orthodoxy actually is.
I can write a longer answer later, but I will note right away that you only confirm what was said in the article. You do not in any way try to answer the connection between the forced collection of a tax that is given to the church and theft. Moreover, you support the church levy, i.e. you support the taking of what belongs to others by force in order to give it to the church. In such a case, any morality disappears from your position. Not to mention that I do not have the freedom not to associate with the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, because the state finances it with my money, without my permission.
I also didn't understand how you prove that you understand anything about business history.
The author very quickly came to the conclusion that no one needed a church in Bulgaria. I haven't checked yet what kind of bird he is, but usually they are all former State Security informants! Like Indjev, Koritarov, the Armenian, etc. At one time they served the regime of Todor Zhivkov and monitored who went to church. Now, since there is no use in monitoring anymore, they started to trumpet in one voice that, you see, no one needed the Bulgarian Orthodox Church!!
I read a very, very dangerous commentary on this topic here. This logic is at the heart of all philosophy today. In order to continue it properly, we must also refute the family as an unnecessary burden for the individual, moral values as opposed to profit, the spiritual as existing at all. It is at the heart of our culture being at such a level, where beggar professors are scrounging for money, and rotten tumors like our current DS "elite" are prospering on our backs, Veneta Markovska is the most recent example. Because none of the great powers has become great with a market economy. Look, in Congo for example, a country with all the prerequisites for world power, thanks to the free markets of the IMF, people are living slaves.
At the same time, it is true that the church should be close to the people, but how can this be done when there are no believers, when at the moment the spiritual emptiness is omnipresent? Yes, any efforts for more presence will not be bad from the institution, but let us not forget that it is not the church that needs the believers, but they need it. It is simply the necessary management that the society of lay people itself wants to have, in order to preserve the tradition of 2000 years ago. Because each person chooses for himself where to go, and if the church becomes effective, the hordes of victims of the new-age mentality (reference - see Lambo's son) will behead it. This is a paradox that everyone resolves in his soul, if only it were so easy and outwardly. I hope the author of the article will discover that a person never becomes an expert, on the contrary - he knows less and less. All the best from me!
P.P. I hope this is just an unusual delay in the system, censorship would be ridiculous, after the author's expressed opinion on freedom of civil positions.
Only the first comment posted from a given profile/email is approved, the rest should appear automatically.
Just two notes on what Peter said.
1. Great powers since the 17th century have become such through their free economy. With the exception of the USSR, which was a tyrannical dictatorship with a broken planned economy.
2. Is this serious for Congo?
3. Some believers need a church, others don't, and still others are not believers. This is a matter of personal choice. As for the Orthodox laity wanting exactly this type of government, I doubt it.
🙂 Thanks for the reply!
Free economy? - hmm, right after the 17th century, European powers have been known for such strong protectionism and military and economic sanctions against their opponents that I wouldn't exactly use the word free economy. Not only the British, the Dutch, the French (before the revolution, at least) but also the Americans are known for this - that's why the revolution broke out there, because of the desire of the English monarchy to sell, through the Bank of England, money with debt to the Americans,
or in other words - heavy economic and commercial pressure.
Well, Lincoln starts printing the greenback himself and, if we want, imposes nationalist measures himself as well.
Regarding Congo - there are families there whose not children, but grandchildren could even pay off the debts taken from their fathers. And although it is not the most brutal victim of the IMF in Africa, it is definitely a suitable example, because although ethnically unstable at the moment, it has resources such as silicon, uranium, oil, diamonds, chocolate (last year chocolate became more expensive only because of the split of the Congo), in such quantities, at the same time it is a country with a huge and fertile territory, which if it were not for the Western colonialists (namely the IMF at the moment) should have been at least a regional if not a world power. I can talk about this topic for a long time if there is interest, but I do not want to make the comment unnecessarily long.
Of course, I am nowhere denying the colors of the rainbow/the right to personal choice, on the contrary, I defend it, it seems to me? Any type of governance is inherently undesirable, but in this case the church is not the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, so that there is some resource that needs to be taken into account. Well, the example with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is probably not good, because one can only take into account nuts and bolts, but science/culture/spiritual culture - something is not easy at all. Indeed, the church does not need believers - it is an educational institution, if you will, whose "services" we need ourselves, to whom life has led to faith in God, to whom not - that is the beauty of freedom! Because militant atheism is the same kind of fanaticism as religious fanaticism when it is forcibly imposed, reference - our history. And if we start governing it - it is as if grandmother Tsetska from Mirkovo wrote the educational program in nuclear physics. Which is not bad at all! Woe to the talented physicists, however.
This is what people who have not studied economic history know. The British Empire, as well as the American States themselves, are huge free trade zones. Similar to the original idea for the European Union. The British Empire itself waged wars to expand its sphere of trade. Not to mention the lack of intervention in the economy and the small weight of the state. If we are looking for more recent examples of a rich state created by the free market - Hong Kong, as well as other East Asian wonders.
So the connection between mineral deposits and a strong economy is not particularly strong. The richest and most sustainable world economies are not based on natural resources. Not to mention that the main problem of all African countries with IMF intervention is the complete inability to politically implement the prescriptions. I can explain in detail about Zambia (which is very rich in copper) why and how it failed to transition to a market economy in the 80s, collapsed and then recovered. The lack of institutions is failing Africa, not the free market.
I'm missing your logical thread, but the church certainly needs laypeople to exist, because they are its building block. The article talks about several things. First, that it is immoral to finance the church through taxes, second, that there is nothing wrong with archonship, and third, that the current appearance (which is purely subjective to the author) is unpleasant and stems from the state roots of the post-socialist church.
Thank you for the discussion, these are many and long topics and I suggest we stop here. In conclusion, I would like to recall the reason for commenting - my resentment towards the coldness of the neoliberal philosophy, seeking a market principle in the Church; Emphasizing the conflict between morality and profit; indirectly challenging Christianity in general as a European value, as a building block of our identity (we pay taxes as Bulgarians, living in an Orthodox country, if nothing else, and the fact that we cannot influence its long-depraved leadership is a completely separate topic).
At the same time, after reading your article once again, I definitely agree with the position that this is an opportunity for change there. But this change must be made with the awareness of preserving the core of Orthodoxy - the love of Christ, which can easily be replaced by the easy, animal, pagan "new" values. And thus the entire function of the Church as our Guardian becomes meaningless.
You may find it offensive to write this to you, but its meaning remains - "...by their fruits you will know them". And here I think of a fruit - the infamous interview of the banker from the City of London, who made the jaw of his BBC interviewer drop, frankly saying that he does not care at all about the people suffering from the crisis, he only cares about himself and the opportunities for profit that have opened up to him from the global financial "opportunity". I have never met a more unhappy person than him, although there probably are.
And yet, how infinitely modern our Christianity is in its philosophy, how Buddhism, atheism, and even the scientific method cannot even step on its little toe (believe me, I know them) ... and ... how doomed it is!