Hacker News Reader

Comment by glial | Hacker News Reader

Interesting to see the deep skepticism in the comments.

I attended St John's College - which is probably as close as a "real" school can get to the Catherine Project - and loved every minute. Grades were not given, and there were no professors or lectures.

Seeing criticism about the business model and lack of tests, worry about educational fads, etc, is missing the point, in my opinion.

Consider the possibility that a group of adults may want to engage in rich and historically important works of thought, but have no interest in the trappings of educational institutions, with their tuition, grades, etc. Like a bible study, but without the bible. If you feel threatened by this, ask yourself why.

View on HN

I had a law school professor who attended St. John's for undergraduate, and while most professors at my law school tried (more than many other law schools, AFAIU) to stick to the Socratic Method, the two classes I attended of his were by far the most engaging on account of his proficiency with and commitment to the method. While most professors' biases, including their politics, tended to bleed through to some degree, it was only after I graduated and took the time to read over some of his own published scholarly works that I realized he held some diametrically opposed political and legal views to my own.

I also had the privilege of attending some Great Books courses at my high school and always regretted not applying to St. John's for undergraduate. I would like to attend some discussions organized by The Great Books Council of San Francisco (https://www.greatbooksncal.org/), though it's difficult to find time.

> Like a bible study, but without the bible.

Yeah, exactly. Or hackerspaces. Or OSS. Or presenting at DEFCON. (And, yes, these folks will include this project in their tenure/promotion cases and therefore indirectly benefit professionally even if they don't charge just like in the cases above.)

My only real "criticism" of this model is that the people doing this work shouldn't shy away from asking for "tithes"... humanities professors are criminally under-paid and plenty of folks would pay to attend these sorts of seminars (in the same way that most people tithe at church).

Do most people tithe at church?

Even in churches without official tithes, there's a collection plate passed. Operations must be funded, employees need to be fed, housed, clothed.

I guess growing up people would toss a few bucks in the collection plate. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I learned that my Dad would write a significant check to the church every month in addition to the few dollars we passed in the plate (we were a blue collar family, but my parents prioritized tithing, which helped to subsidize the school that was affiliated with the church). My understanding is that the plate is not a significant portion of the church’s revenue, but maybe other churches put larger checks into the collection plate.

Our family put the checks in the collection plate. They certainly do get donations from other places, and of course they don't pay taxes.

> Dad would write a significant check to the church every month

That's also tithing (and is completely normal for regular church goers... bible says 10% to the church and a lot of folks follow that prescription)

Yes, of course. But I'd be surprised if the majority of churchgoers tithe 10%. My guess is that there's some Pareto principle wherein 20% of the congregation ("members" in some churches) seriously tithe and the other 80% might toss a little into the collection plate but aren't giving anywhere near 10%. Of course, I expect this varies tremendously from church to church and even from denomination to denomination.

Average is 3-5% last I heard. https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/wh...

Reality is, most non-profits' (church & non-church like NPR) budgets are funded by a small handful of very wealthy/generous donors. Not even 80%/20% rule, more like 80% of donations/sponsorships are from ~5% of the people giving money, the other 95% people giving's total is a small % of budget.

That's why in all non-profits, the leadership has to 'report' to a small number or rich donors. Piss off a couple of the rich, your non-profit will fold.

In the United States, most churches are open to anyone who wants to come in, but often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing (members typically have at least some say in church policy, while random congregants do not). Congregants (who may not be official members) also generally add something to the collection plate when it comes around.

Some countries still have "established" churches, which historically received direct government support from tax money (this is not always the case today... while the Church of England is still the "established" church in England, it no longer receives direct taxpayer support). Others may have a group of recognized churches that can receive taxpayer support (Germany is that way, I believe... you declare your religious affiliation, and if it is on the government-approved list, the government tax authorities will collect the tax and remit it to the church).

10% of income is the standard

That's just enormous, seems like a strong disincentive to join

Depends on how it is calculated, if it is after tax that isn't so much.

Also, people who are supporting church will often use a lot of their services so it's not like giving money to a charity you will never directly see their work (like environmental groups).

Finally, the 10% rule comes from times where the state had a much lesser role in fighting poverty.

Exactly. At most churches, tithes mostly pay for the physical plant and the full-time staff (who provide services in the form of weekly lectures, counseling, misc. community organizing, and sometimes directly contribute to physical plant upkeep as well).

Tithing is more like a PBS membership or seomthing.

I’m pretty sure that’s more of an aspirational goal than a hard requirement at many churches. Though it frequently (usually?) is also pre tax, not post.

That's kind of the point. If you value a thing you'll be willing to pay for it.

Yeah, "tithe" is an old (Middle English?) word for "tenth".

I've never been in an American church that required any particular form of support, for what it's worth.

Most churches did give sermons on the subject, but there was never a direct consequence for ignoring that teaching.

Mormons have a special access tier of people who donate 10% of their income

It's the parish policy at many Eastern Orthodox churches in the U.S. that a member (which is to say: Someone who can vote at the annual meeting) have a pledge form on file.

> often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing

This sounds very suspect to me. Do you have any sources for this assertion?

I've never heard of a church requiring any form of support, tithe etc to be a member or at all. I've been attending church and have been a member of several for 20+ years.

Just a quick, non-exhaustive web search:

http://ascensionfairview.org/contribute/parish-membership/ (Orthodox) $450/year

https://www.templeshalom.org/dues (Jewish) $3,950/year (based on 2 adult household)

https://www.buddhistchurch.org/membership (Buddhist) $44/month

https://beulahbaptist.org/flc/membership/ (Baptist) $30/month

As I said, few churches (or others houses of worship) will charge you a fee for attending services (other than the plate coming around), but if you want a say in church governance you usually have to pony up, either with formal dues or a less-formal expectation that you will provide significant financial support.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, mind you.

Have you actually been involved in church governance in the churches you've attended?

Thanks for your response. Out of the four you listed, the only church in the traditional sense of the word is the Greek Orthodox parish. The next two are Jewish and Buddhist temples and the fourth one is community/health center offering things like ballroom dance lessons.

But if we expand the scope to houses of worship, then temples are included.

I think I've heard of churches charging nominal fees for church membership, but not requiring tithing. Tithing is very different from membership fees. It should be strictly voluntary. That's been my experience and observation.

I've worked as office staff of a church and I'm currently treasurer of the church I'm a member of now.

> I think I've heard of churches charging nominal fees for church membership, but not requiring tithing

Requiring tithing is not particularly common, but I'm also not surprised when I hear of churches where it happens. A lot of this probably depends on your tradition and geography. Requiring tithing is entirely unheard of in the mainline and very uncommon in the northeast generally, for example, but seems to be slightly more common among the particularly "charismatic"/"corporate"-style evangelical churches in the suburban and exurban midwest.

In any case, I think social pressure on members to tithe is MUCH more common than formal requirements. This might be the source of virulent disagreement. Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean that there isn't intense social pressure that creates a de facto requirement.

IMO both sides of this argument are correct -- formal tithing requirements are rare, but de facto requirements for members to tithe, enforced via social pressure, is probably quite a bit more common than folks who depend on that tithing for their salaries are willing to admit/realize.

> the only church...

The following rant is specific to the USA.

This irritates me beyond words. Christian churches avoid BILLIONS in taxes via laws such as the Parsonage Exemption, whose original de jure justification was "to spread the gospel" -- about as clear a violation of 1A as you can get (to say nothing of the role that "spreading the gospel" played in the cultural and sometimes actual genocide of native populations).

Judges uphold these incredibly generous tax laws because, they reason, words like "church" and even "gospel" aren't specific to one religion and ought to be interpreted broadly. Excessively broadly, in the case of "gospel". This review does a good job at explaining the case history and legal reasoning: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/51/3/Articles/51-3_...

Without that reasoning, laws like the one that establishes the parsonage exemption would be prime facie and blatantly unconstitutional. Most churches would lose substantial special tax treatment for many parts of their physical plant and fall into financial hardship.

That's all fine. Really. But don't try to have it both ways. In the USA, either (a) don't insist on using "church" in a religion/tradition-specific specific way, or (b) start paying a lot more taxes.

Anyways, that's all a bit off-topic. The actual point was that I think these folks should accept donations with large nominal "recommended donation" amounts, since I think what they're doing offers way more value than the typical church pastor.

I've heard rumors that a local "kilochurch" (not quite a megachurch, but still a pretty honkin' big church) actually expects to see a copy of the church member's income tax return. I won't name the church because, again, it's just a rumor, but I'll bet if you related this story to anyone in my town, they'd immediately guess which church it is.

As far as "having only one church" goes, I intentionally tried to get as broad a base as I could for the practice. There are many, many other examples, of all religions, and all branches of the Christian religion, as anyone who cares to do his or her own web search can soon determine.

> In any case, I think social pressure on members to tithe is MUCH more common than formal requirements.

Definitely. Even if there is no formal requirement, everyone knows who finances the church, and a wise minister goes out of his or her way to avoid antagonizing those people.

A non-finance related anecdote: several of the elders of a church some of my family members attended years ago decided to attend (Important Sportsball Game) in (Distant City) one weekend, rather than attending church.

The next Sunday the minister's sermon emphasized why attending church on Sunday should outweigh any worldly activity (such as attending Important Sportsball Games).

The next Sunday after that, there was a new minister.

> Just because there isn't a formal requirement doesn't mean that there isn't intense social pressure that creates a de facto requirement.

That may be the case at some churches, but I would assert that that kind of social pressure is wrong and unbiblical.

"Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - 2 Corinthians 9:7

So for a church where this social pressure exists, that is the fault of that particular church (it's leadership and/or people), not churches or Christianity in general. Anecdotally, I've never experienced this kind of pressure at any church I've attended or been a member of.

> To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual

> The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion...

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

Churches qualify for 501c3 tax exempt status because they are religious organizations and are non-profit. Same goes for mosques, temples, etc.

So why is using "church" in the traditional Christian religious sense and being exempt from taxes bad?

> So why is using "church" in the traditional Christian religious sense and being exempt from taxes bad?

It's not, per se. Although I do think the Parsonage exemption is wrong and should be repealed, and I do think "religion" as a criteria for non-profit status should also be removed from tax code. Just treat Churches like any other 501(c)3. What's the problem with that? (Answer: many churches spend untaxed money on things that would lose them their 501(c)3 status if they weren't religious organizations... which is almost always also unbiblical stewardship of church finances, so it's perplexing to me that any practicing Christian would oppose at least the latter change to tax law).

But, again, that's not what I was saying. What I critiquing was your characterization of Buddhist temples and Synagogues as "in the traditional sense of the word" (your owrds).

That traditional sense has no meaning in the USA. Go read court opinions. "Church" does not imply Christian. "Gospel" doesn't even imply Christian. Because, if those things did imply Christian, most of the tax benefits that are unique to churches would be struck down as state establishment of religion (protestant Christianity, to be precise). These aren't my opinions. They're the law. "Church" and "Gospel" are interpreted to mean, roughly, any group that meets regularly and has some sort of spiritual tenets.

Anyways, again, this is all far off-topic from my original post, which in fact characterized tithing in a positive light.

Tithing 10% comes from the laws of moses in the old testament, and most denominations agree that providing some material support to the church is an obligation, but dont formally specify the extent. Catholic parishes often recommend 5% to the church, and 5% to the poor / needy through one means or another.

OTOH, a nearby Unitarian / mega-style church made signing a form with your annual salary and a pledge to tithe a minimum percentage a formal requirement for membership. I heard they were active in enforcing it, but never bothered joining.

I.e. see https://www.uua.org/finance/fundraising/generosity/185418.sh...

Note under the "collection plate" header that they suggest you give in a way that has your name on it so it can count toward your pledge- they definitely track individual tithes.

Are tithes tax deductible?

Yes.

I'm in my 40s and attended a Baptist Church in my youth that required formal members to tithe. It was the primary reason my parents stopped taking us there.

> Do you have any sources for this assertion?

Don't be that person. Take or leave the anecdote, but don't make an asinine request of evidence for something clearly anecdotal.

> clearly anecdotal.

Take a look again at their statement

> but often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing

note the word "often". How is that clearly anecdotal? If the commenter had framed it as their own experience at a church they attended, I'd have no problem believing them. But clearly that's not the case. They are making a general assertion about most (or many) churches.

And please be a bit more respectful and charitable. It's more conducive to discussion and common decency.

> be a bit more respectful and charitable

Helping people see that their behaviour is not acceptable in a relatively mild manner is very respectful. The charitability thing is not really all that relevant here, because the words were not taken in a bad light - both of you agree on what was said. What you don't agree on is whether or not it should have been said, which no amount of charitable reading will fix.

> Helping people see that their behaviour is not acceptable in a relatively mild manner is very respectful.

The premise of andrew_14's correction, that the gp comment is anecdotal is totally wrong. I thought I'd made that clear.

So I'm genuinely curious, how was my behavior unacceptable?

Here is the flow of discussion:

Turing_Machine: "often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing"

Me: (paraphrased) That doesn't seem true that often being a member of a church requires support such as tithing. Could you give me some sources for this?

Again, please explain to me why responding to a blanket assertion by asking for evidence is unacceptable behavior? I see it here all the time.

> relatively mild manner is very respectful

Describing my request as asinine which means extremely stupid is relatively mild and respectful? Relative to what? Getting punched in the face?

I beg to differ that is was mild and respectful. Even if he put it in a respectable way like "I don't think your request is reasonable given the statement was anecdotal", again, the premise of his comment is totally wrong so his correction of my behavior is fallacious.

> The charitability thing is not really all that relevant here, because the words were not taken in a bad light - both of you agree on what was said.

I'm confused by this. I don't think both of us agree on what was said (your words). But since I don't quite understand what you are saying, I can't comment further. What words were not taken in a bad light? That he said my request is really stupid? I take that in a bad light. And what was said that we both agree on?

I agree students should be encouraged to donate if they are able. However, charging something close to "market rate" for this kind of thing would definitely affect who ends up attending.

I don’t understand all the negativity either. The article I read described a group of people who were genuinely interested in learning, so much so that the organizers do it for free. Sure there are no grades or degrees, but who cares? The education is the point, and really it’s the only point.

It feels like a lot of the comments boil down to “well my education was different so I can’t take this seriously.”

Hey it's a Johnnie HN thread. There are dozens of us. Dozens!

I've been very loosely involved in Interintellect[0], which itches a similar scratch and looks spiritually very similar to the Catherine Project, with perhaps less of a focus on great books and a wider, more modern gamut.

For anyone considering Catherine Project, Interintellect, or St. John's College, I heartily recommend them. Diligently reading through deep written work, then discussing it with other people genuinely interested and invested in the work and the dialogue is a wonderful experience and one that's hugely shaped me.

[0]https://interintellect.com/

> Interesting to see the deep skepticism in the comments.

I think if we look at the title and ignore the content of the article itself, it explains why the reaction was so strong.

A title that contains the word "liberal" and mentions experimenting with education is not going to bring out the most level-headed readers.

I'm guessing you mean this St. John's:

https://www.sjc.edu/

(If so: Color me jealous.)

That's the one! They have a graduate program that you can participate in part-time...something to consider!

Or the Catherine Project :D

Never heard of SJC. Reading about it and their curriculum makes me happy and also jealous ;)

That's awesome I always wanted to talk to a St John's alumni. I heard most universities have a "great books" style course, do you know the difference? I'd love my daughter to do something like this.

The entirety of the four-year undergraduate curriculum is centered around great books, and there are no specific majors.

https://www.sjc.edu/academic-programs/undergraduate/great-bo...

What's your favorite book?

I think it's a 3-way tie between Aristotle's Ethics, Spinoza's Ethics, and Euclid's Elements.

Given that these types of schools (at least in Europe) have a long history of delivering students not ready for jobs or subsequent education, the scepticism is entirely warranted.

The article's not about a school.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com