Are clergy economically productive?

Let's assume arguendo that you don't believe in the narrative of any one particular religion.

Is it nevertheless productive to cater to people's perceived spiritual needs? Money donated to churches and redistributed when spent or given away by the church would seem to have a similar economically stimulative effect (maybe even more so) to other forms of commerce.

Even assuming a religion's narrative is false, is anyone comfortable pronouncing the activities of the church (vis a vis the spirituality of the congregants) useless? Can we really define useful activity in a way that precludes religious activity?

I think few would argue that movie producers, directors and actors are not economically productive. Yet they're peddling entertainment that it useful only because the viewer enjoys it. Can the same be said for the spiritual services provided by clergy even if the congregant only "needs" or "enjoys" the services due to his belief in a false narrative?

As long as you are making money you are being economically productive.

I'd classify clergy as a service industry.

Originally posted by Eladar
As long as you are making money you are being economically productive.

I'd classify clergy as a service industry.

Tell that to the Confeferacy.

Originally posted by sh76
Let's assume arguendo that you don't believe in the narrative of any one particular religion.

Is it nevertheless productive to cater to people's perceived spiritual needs? Money donated to churches and redistributed when spent or given away by the church would seem to have a similar economically stimulative effect (maybe even more so) to other forms of comme ...[text shortened]... if the congregant only "needs" or "enjoys" the services due to his belief in a false narrative?

Entertainment and counselling etc are indirectly productive in that they maintain and improve productivity.

Is Jiffy Lube economically productive?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Entertainment and counselling etc are indirectly productive in that they maintain and improve productivity.

Is Jiffy Lube economically productive?

Any service that derives its revenue from voluntary payments can be assumed to be productive.

Originally posted by Eladar
As long as you are making money you are being economically productive.

I'd classify clergy as a service industry.

Do you think a Tarot card reader who makes money from the gullible is "economically productive"?

If so what is the economic difference between that charlatan and a thief?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Do you think a Tarot card reader who makes money from the gullible is "economically productive"?

If so what is the economic difference between that charlatan and a thief?

Service industry that can't get people to contribute are not fulfilling a service. The money determines if the industry services people or not.

It's an interesting question. Does teaching false ideas serve a useful purpose if they provide (temporary) comfort? I would suspect that teaching people critical thinking skills (and thus rejecting religion) would make them more productive on the long term, so I would not consider clergy to be economically productive.

Needless to say (except for some in this thread...) productivity and currency are not necessarily connected. Someone who is at home cooking and cleaning, while lazy, is certainly more economically productive than someone who sits at home all day doing nothing. Likewise there are many people who make significant sums of money (also legally) but are not productive or even have negative productivity.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's an interesting question. Does teaching false ideas serve a useful purpose if they provide (temporary) comfort? I would suspect that teaching people critical thinking skills (and thus rejecting religion) would make them more productive on the long term, so I would not consider clergy to be economically productive.

Needless to say (except for some ...[text shortened]... nificant sums of money (also legally) but are not productive or even have negative productivity.

Does teaching false doctrine? Listen to him!

Take that kind of discussion to the spirituality forum.

Originally posted by sh76
Let's assume arguendo that you don't believe in the narrative of any one particular religion.

Is it nevertheless productive to cater to people's perceived spiritual needs? Money donated to churches and redistributed when spent or given away by the church would seem to have a similar economically stimulative effect (maybe even more so) to other forms of comme ...[text shortened]... if the congregant only "needs" or "enjoys" the services due to his belief in a false narrative?

Even if you do believe in a religion, there is room for concern on this topic and always has been.

Maybe you will recall the decision by Henry VIII of England to abolish monasteries and confiscate their (fabulous) accumulated wealth? It bankrolled a splendid period of Renaissance. Without knowing the reference from memory (Byzantine history is tedious!) the monasteries in the Byzantine empire were also famously a severe and harmful drain on its economy. Historically, religious donations have drained productive resources and not proved economically beneficial. In my view, they are best compared with the unproductive spending of the idle rich on status objects which have little or no intrinsic value.

In the USA, the growth of religious radio and television has made their owners and a generation of televangelists immensely wealthy at the expense of the gullible and the desperate.

Two former employees of the world's largest Christian television channel Trinity Broadcasting Network are accusing the non-profit of spending $50 million of its funding on extravagant personal expenses.

Among purchases, the network founded by Televangelists Paul and Jan Crouch, is accused of misappropriating its 'charitable assets' toward a $50 million jet, 13 mansions and a $100,000-mobile home for Mrs Crouch's dogs.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2119493/Private-jets-13-mansions-100-000-mobile-home-just-dogs-Televangelists-defrauded-tens-million-dollars-Christian-network.html

L. Ron Hubbard (Founder of Scientology) once said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." While our modern day evangelists have not started their own religion, they have unquestionably improved on Hubbard’s idea. Capitalizing on Christianity has proved to be far more lucrative than starting a new religion.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html

Originally posted by Eladar
Does teaching false doctrine? Listen to him!

Take that kind of discussion to the spirituality forum.

I made "teaching false doctrine" an assumption of the question. Without that assumption, the issues are vastly different.

Originally posted by sh76
I made "teaching false doctrine" an assumption of the question. Without that assumption, the issues are vastly different.

That is a useless assumption since you can't prove what is false and what is not. It is all opinion.

Of course someone like yourself would assume that all religious leaders are spewing false doctrine since you like many others around here believe in a Godless Society.

Originally posted by Eladar
That is a useless assumption since you can't prove what is false and what is not. It is all opinion.

Of course someone like yourself would assume that all religious leaders are spewing false doctrine since you like many others around here believe in a Godless Society.

Since there are all sorts of religious leaders spewing forth all sorts of mutually exclusive doctrines it stands to reason that some of them must be false. That would follow whether someone believes in a "Godless Society" (whatever that means) or not.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since there are all sorts of religious leaders spewing forth all sorts of mutually exclusive doctrines it stands to reason that some of them must be false. That would follow whether someone believes in a "Godless Society" (whatever that means) or not.

I didn't say that there are not religious leaders spewing false doctrine. I simply said it is impossible for us to know who actually is.

Originally posted by Eladar
I didn't say that there are not religious leaders spewing false doctrine. I simply said it is impossible for us to know who actually is.

Yes and who could you trust to make a judgement on who is and who isn't?