Is Religion Causing Unequal Pay Among Women?

Jimmy Carter (39th President of the United States) has just recently wrote a new book called A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power in which he investigates the the link between religion and the abuse of young girls and women across the world.

Source

He goes on to say:
Source

But according to Christian Today:Source

So now if less Americans are losing interest in religion, how can Carter claim such a thing if such a thing exists? Or do you think people still behave the way religious leaders think on a very subtle, subconscious level?

Thoughts?

the real question should be, Is religion causing ignorance in people.

Oh look, another book from Jimmy Carter attacking men, religion, and pretty much everything Republican.

Because he has to correlate women, wages, and religion somehow.

I think people behave how society demands them to.

Since religion has been ingrained in society for so long, it will be just as long for religion to be taken out of society. We have gone a long way for doing that, but it will still be with us for a while.

Humans aren't ignorant, mobs are.

Humans individually are a smart, logical race.

Group a bunch of humans together and you start losing intelligence and they start making illogical decisions. Group enough of them together and they become very manipulative.

Religions have served their purpose politically for centuries. They have brought a mass of people together for the monarchs in local governments to control easier. Since we don't live in a monarchical society anymore, religion has begun to lose it's meaning. Which is the main reason why it is fading.

I wonder if that will ever be possible. Especially with all the money the top churches bring in. For instance, the Vatican isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

There's actually a physiological term for that called Groupthink.

I'm all for getting rid of religion in due time.

I am even more in favor for equal pay for equal work.

I also think we're a very misogynist culture in the U.S., as are most in the world. Some far worse than the U.S.

And even I think Jimmy Carter is stretching things a bit.


As much as I hate agreeing, this is true. Even for those of us with the impulse to buck the trend. Pragmatism often trumps gut instinct.

I'd be covered in tattoos in most visible areas and then some from the neck down if it weren't for the fact that, while I have a very secure job, none of us know what the future holds and I wouldn't want to be bearing that much ink and looking for a job in a society that still views it as anything more than a personal choice.

I didn't know that either men or religion were wholly owned Republican franchises.

For once going to defend KN here. That was my initial thought as well, but I think he was citing those as three seperate things Jimmy Carter is attacking.

Taxing churches would be a good start. Give them tax breaks for anything they do that's actual charity work (food pantries, etc.), but tax their income as you would any other entity.

In this day and age there's no reason for religion to operate in such a business-like fashion and be impervious to the same tax codes to which every business is subject.

There's also stories like this one that like to subtlety portray women as uncaring individuals through main stream media. As far as I can tell, Huffington Post in a liberal publication.

So it's not just conservative franchises that add fuel to the fire. Missing of course is the subconscious link to religion. It's more of the absence of, that conservatives reading the Huffington post are supposed to infer... maybe... who knows on this one?

well seeing as factions in the Republican party hijacked religeon for political purposes in the early 80's.

Agreed. Not taxes churches is a very antiquated idea.

The problem with Carter's thinking/reasoning is, he is portraying that because an employee is a women, they automatically get a paycut. He used CEO positions, where they are all not equal in terms of workload, as his basis of his reasoning.

The CEO of Walmart has completely different responsibilities and a different workload than the CEO of a restaurant chain owned locally in a small town or city.

He used comparable positions (Fortune 500 CEO pay) but even then, they are not equal. He also forgets (or neglects) to mention that these positions have negotiated contracts. Another issue, he used a biased and unreasonable method of means testing. If you are going to compare wages of the top CEOs in the world, you don't use the average of 21 people vs. the average of 479 people. Especially when it comes to negotiated contracts.

He is created drama where there is none, and he is trying to lap up the usual liberal base to do it. His book is at best fiction.

Now I'm curious if in the book he compared lower wage jobs as well. I will have to see. He may just be trying to make a quick buck with sensationalism.

I'm pretty sure the only conservatives reading the Huffington Post are those picking it apart to attack it.

That said, I think that article is more indicative of a shot at that particular person, not of women in general. It's a stretch to say there's any sort of attack on women. It could easily be a guy in that situation.

They do, in fact, report some things fairly impartially. Or, at least, as impartial as any other news outlet these days.

I'm glad you pointed that out.

Guess what everyone! Just because you are a tax-exempt IRC 501(c)(3) organization doesn't mean that you are completely tax exempt.

There is a provision in the code called unrelated business income, and in extent, unrelated business taxable income, that is taxed at ordinary rates when a church receives income not related to the charity they receive.

The code section is IRC 512 if you want to delve further into it. Publication 598 does a good job at attempting to explain it also.

So, in essence, Churches do get taxed on anything they receive that is not charity or intangible religious benefits to society.

I don't think any news source today is completely impartial. They all seems to drive a specific narrative. It's really up to people to research all sides, but then you start to make connections where one might not exist by doing so, like in that example I did.

Jimmy Carter is that the guy that started Jif peanut butter ?

If the belief is that culture is a large influence on what has created the pay gap between men and women (that is, women generally choose lower-paying professions), then I think you'd have a hard time arguing religion doesn't affect that even if you didn't have direct interest in it.

That being said, the fact that Carter is still going to the tired 20% pay gap statistic without explaining further just makes me think this is sensationalist crap. Wouldn't someone writing a whole damn book about it at least know about the common arguments against him?

I am not, in fact, well-versed in tax code. Quite the opposite. And I cherry-picked that with a search function on religious terms. So please correct me if I'm wrong.

But really, it'd be essentially easy for the church to employ a clever accountant and file just about everything under those charities/intangibles, wouldn't it?

And there's the issue of property tax that's murky due to various things, but the bottom line is that the majority of their land holdings are untaxed.

Jimmy Carter wasn't exactly known for dealing well with political opposition.

I believe the phrase frequently referenced is that he was and is, "a better person than politician".

When was the last time you thought to yourself what is Jimmy Carter up to ?

(before you read this thread)

Depends on how ethical that accountant is.

But if a church is willing to hire an unethical accountant, then that church shouldn't be in existence period.

Most, if not all, CPAs will not be willing to under report UBTI. You will lose your license if your client is convicted of tax fraud and they throw you under the bus with them. Not worth the risk, and we are a risk-adverse group of people.

The property tax issue has to deal with local municipalities. Too much difference to point out a general code to go by.

This morning. :P

EDIT: But to be fair it was because I was watching an old Simpsons rerun, where they call him the history's greatest monster.

I'll search him every now and then. He actually is a pretty decent human being who uses his status to try to help others.

He's just sort of old now and has never been known for approaching things in the best fashion. So sometimes the things he does amount to a swing and a miss.

This book is most likely in that category.

Reminds me of Chomsky these days.

I was recently reading about Chester A Arthur. Is he still relevant ?


His recently released book is called: Chester A Arthur we hardly knew ye.