It's how they got the money (typically manipulation[0][1] and free-will donations) and how they spend the money (politics, for-profit ventures) [2][3].
[0] http://johnlarsen.org/mormon-expression/ Episode 250
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/7p09zl/today_i_le... LDS Philanthropies produced a video encouraging wealthy people to leave inheritance with the LDS church to keep their kids in line.
There may be a plethora of valid reasons to dislike the organization, but it doesn't follow that they shouldn't have a lot of money unless you think nobody should have a lot of money.
And if that is your argument, you should also consider if that includes the US government. We are talking about organizations in this instance, not people.
What I would prefer to see is at least some honest respect for one's enemies. "They are my enemy, but they at least have the same rights as anyone else."
Presumably, the person who wrote this is against religion/mormonism/christianity. If that is they case, they are an outsider and don't really have a valid say in what an organized religion should want. So it comes off as what I wrote in my comment, which is backed up by what they wrote in their next sentence, which is in essence, "organization I don't like has a lot of money, and I think they shouldn't have a lot of money."
Your criticisms about how the Mormon church spends its money is irrelevant to how much money they have (and the $100B figure in the article). Your criticisms about how they got the money are relevant though. Although I can't really judge how much of an issue manipulation is, as it is both subjective and rampant in the almost any exchange of money (sales, advertising, and arguably taxes), and as you also mentioned people freely give to the Mormon church.
I'm not religious, yes, about that you would be right. I presume you are religious but it makes no difference. Where you fall off though is in assuming I'm anti-Mormon or anti-Christian. Not at all. I have friends that are religious and respect the right to be so 100%.
This is very different from a church with apocalyptic teachings or teachings that at some point the church will become government or political teaching amassing a 100 billion+ warchest tax free. That is flat out fucking dangerous and wrong should not be permitted. Really no other way to put it. My other comments on this thread clarify my position if you care. I'm not in favor of confiscation.
Apocalyptic teachings or teachings that the church will become part of a world government are part of religion. (I happen to disagree with these things, if you are referring to what I think of).
What you still seem to be saying is that those beliefs disqualify them from being allowed to amass wealth. You aren't saying it is ill-gotten wealth. You are saying their beliefs disqualify them from having wealth. I refer to my original point.
But dangerous apocalyptic cults do exist. They harm adherents and harm society at large. So yes, it can and it does happen.
The ability to accumulate massive wealth is not needed for spiritual practice, provides severe moral hazards (often contrary to the stated purposes of the religion) and provides means to carry out social agendas which affect non-adherents. So the simple and common sense solution is to legally prevent this accumulation.
There are already restrictions on freedom of religion (and speech, and firearms etc). You can't slap a "Church" label on a prostitution ring and have it fly (this actually has happened). Nor in my estimation should you be able to slap a Church label on a business or real estate company and have it fly. You are one or the other, you get to chose for tax purposes and amount of wealth the organization is allowed to accumulate.
A bit off topic but for the record, I think it is manifestly dangerous to allow individuals or corporations too much power (financial or otherwise) also. But religions have a history of behaving much more irrationally because it is such a personal emotional issue and is less regulated by rational self interest. Thus it can be more dangerous. Keep churches churches and they will be better churches. Make them businesses (or even worse governments) and everyone is screwed.
Also someone downvoted you because they apparently don't agree. For whatever it's worth I'm reversing that because I think your points are worth considering.
Look, I got no problem with what people believe or how they pray. But 100 billion isn't needed for that so the purpose is??? Will it involve me? And the tax treatment complaint is also perfectly reasonable.
None of this is hatred for private property nor religion.
I think a tax policy based on “reasonable” confiscation is not very sound or sustainable and probably worse policy than allowing churches to collect money tax free.
At the same time there are laws in the US at least about how charities must use their cash and if they’ve broken these laws it would be a very serious case for them.
Generally a “reasonable” discussion on HN would involve details of the case and further our understanding of the issue. But that really wasn’t on your mind was it... “My throwaway”?
Your confiscation point is valid. I don't know that is an equitable solution because private people did pay into the program at one point.
I suppose what I'd like to see is religions limited to some multiple of working annual budget in assets. This avoids an entire set of perverse negative incentives.
Grandfather it in and prevent further investment or collections until the assets come back to the level specified.