A Judgy Nun Walks into a Bar…

I want to have a drink with these two!

Sister Florence has a problem with her nephew. She has sworn a vow of poverty, and her nephew is a banker who makes north of a million dollars a year. He helps some companies buy and sell other companies while his company takes a slice of the proceeds in return. Sister Florence sees little if any social good coming from her nephew’s efforts and all those wasted profits..

What Sister Florence misunderstands, is that her nephew doesn’t make profit for his employer, he makes revenue. There is a huge difference. Revenue is the fuel that allows a company to run. It is the fuel that is put into the tank, powers the organization, and pays the employees, rent, and taxes. It is what pays for the airline tickets as well as the staples.

Profit on the other hand, is what is left after all those costs and bills have been paid. Many companies do not make any profit some years. Those that do find that number is often very small – typically less than 10% of revenue. So for every revenue dollar that comes in, maybe one nickel or dime ends up being what  the company makes – the profit.

Corporate profits are used to help a company grow – through acquisition or paid in bonuses and perks to the employees who help increase the revenue. Most companies also donate a proceed of their profits to civic causes that make better places to live and work.

Should be post be renamed, “Sister Florence Goes to UofC and gets an ECON Degree“?
Nah. I really like that image up there.

Sister Florence may have mixed emotions about what the company does with its profit, but she should understand that its revenue is almost completely directed at the public good. That revenue allows the Company to employ people. And not just high paid bankers like her nephew, but also the executive assistants, the financial analysts fresh out of college, and the fellow in the mailroom.

These people pay taxes, support their local schools, and tithe their churches. The Company pays rent to the building owners who support her community. All of these people buy things from the local stores which employ local people. Every penny the Company spends – even that which some may considered wasted – benefits a person somewhere who has the capacity to use it for good.

Meanwhile, the Company pays taxes which allow for the existence of the social programs that Sister Florence supports. 

Still, Sister Florence may question why the bank needs to pay her nephew so much. But certainly she would prefer that he receive it rather than have his employee keep it. It was already noted that she is ambivalent with what the company does with its profit, but she certainly cares what her nephew does with his earnings.

Rather than being critical of her nephew for making so much money, she should be gracious of a system that allows him to do so well. Rather than passive-aggressively shunning him, her energies would be better spent cheerfully pressing him to increase his annual giving.

Discussing same-sex marriage

I stand in favor of same-sex marriage and equal rights for homosexuals, including adoption and reproduction. I have many gay friends and have attended all of their weddings. Those were some great parties! As a result I have historically been intolerant of religious conservatives who do not share my view.  From my perspective as a non-believer, there was no consequence to them and their enmity just seemed mean spirited if not wholly bigoted. Furthermore, I was intolerant of the argument that this is a religious freedom issue.  It made no logical or Constitutional sense that one person deserves the freedom to worship while another person is denied the freedom to marry (or buy a cake without prejudice).

But I have come to the realization that to some believers, there is a reasonable foothold for opposing same-sex marriage. They believe there is a consequence for their support and it is based in their respect for the laws of their church and more importantly in the penalties for breaking those laws.  They believe acting to support that which their church opposes will cause them real harm. Of course from a secular perspective it is difficult to understand what that harm could be. Yet the church is clear: obey our laws or your internal well-being in danger: you will go to hell (no kidding).

Most of us went to church as children and were educated with two sets of laws. There is the law of the land – or the government – and there is the “law of God”. The law of the land promises penalties for violation, including fines and jail, but the “law of God” promises penalties in the form of the disapproval of our peers and punishment in the afterlife. To many people, these are just as powerful.

Ideally the law of the land and the law of the church would correspond perfectly, but on a few issues they do not. Some believers manage the conflict by cherry picking the church’s laws that work for them. But others do not believe they have the right to decide which of the Church’s laws can be ignored. A good number of religious Americans believe that you follow the rules of the church as dictated or there are severe penalties. We are not in a position to tell them that they are wrong, and I believe the Constitution supports that.

I continue to disagree with my religious friends who cannot support same-sex marriage, but I no longer question their motives. I accept that they have been educated by a wrathful teacher and have genuine fear of breaking their church’s laws. My hope is that their religious leaders come to a more rational, fair, and contemporary position. In the meantime, I think the religious right would be well-served to re-frame the discussion to underscore the penalties they genuinely fear rather than relying on a lopsided and prejudice-charged argument of religious freedom.

My Christian Guilt (gone)

First Presbyterian Church In Rockford Illinois

Although I am a non-believer, I enjoy talking about, reading about, and writing about religion. This may strike some as hypocritical, but on the contrary, a belief in god is not a requirement for caring about religion. In fact there is a joke at the University of Chicago’s Divinity school that being an atheist is a requirement for receiving one’s PHD.

I was raised in a Christian house, went to church every Sunday and Wednesday, was the youngest (and highest revenue generating) usher in my church’s history (there is absolutely no data to back up this claim), sang in choir from the earliest age until I went to college, and was fully confirmed. The dwindled congregation of First Presbyterian has since disbanded and the building has been sold to a performing arts organization, but I can still walk the halls of that grand building in my head and see the details of every room, corner, and hiding place.

I also went to a liberal arts college where I let go of my religious beliefs when I realized that the universe could be just as cool without the existence of a sentient creator. Yet, at the same time, my courses in philosophy, history and the study of ethics instilled a deep curiosity about religion.

So…I may have been able to shake my Christian guilt, but I am a sympathetic critic.