What would you do with £1.5 million?
I suppose if I were given it to spend just on myself and not feel bound to give it away, I could quite happily think of things. In order of priority - a new phone with all the latest gizmos (yes, I really am that shallow), a visit to a Tall Man clothes shop (you wouldn’t believe the difficulty a 198 cm man has in getting shirts, jumpers, trousers, and coats), a long holiday in Santorini for two (I went there about 25 years ago and really, really, really want to go back), a new computer, oh, and a nice pen to compose my handwritten letter of resignation to one of my employers - then, if there was anything left, I’d probably go looking for another house.
If I had to spend it for the public good I would find it much more difficult. There would be so many possible worthy causes:
- funding for better staffing and training at a local home for the elderly that I have had occasion to visit to improve care for the residents
- funding for better facilities at a charity for the homeless that I have been involved with in the past
- funding cheap quality counselling so that those on low incomes can access the services to help them move forward
- funding for more staff in the local school to help improve the quality of education
- funding for more nurses at the local cardiac ward to improve the quality of care.
The list could easily be endless and I would find it very difficult to choose. So many ways in which a relatively small injection of cash could dramatically make a big difference for a few people.
Although I would struggle to know what to spend the money on, I am certain that I would not give it away to a rich and increasingly irrelevant organization that panders to irrational beliefs and which keeps people from facing existential reality. I would not do what the British Government has just done and give £1.5 million to the Church of England.
In Not With My Money! (2) I wrote about how the Government was intending to raise tuition fees for those studying for second degrees in order to prioritise funding for those studying for first degrees. As the Church pays the tuition fees for ordinands, it would have to meet the extra costs in full. Trainee nurses, teachers, and scientists would be exempt from the rise in costs, and the Church of England was hoping to gain similar exemption for trainee ordinands.
The Church’s lobbying has been successful and the Government has agreed to suspend the increased expenditure for one year, saving parishes about £1.5 million, and to look at a way of solving the problem in the long-term. The gift is likely to be substantially higher over time.
As I argued in my previous piece, I object to the funding for several reasons:
- Theology is an esoteric, and academically dubious subject. As one of my original commentators (SilverTiger) wrote: For example, if it (the Government) helps students of theology, why not also students of astrology? Anyone who thinks astrology unworthy and religion worthy should take a good, long, hard look at himself in the mirror.
- Theology is a subject which is largely irrelevant to help clergy meet the real needs of people in congregations.
- The church is becoming increasingly irrelevant in a secular society.
- The church can afford to pay it’s own training bill and has a moral obligation to do so.
- If the Church of England is given at least £1.5 million, why not give an equal amount to every other religion?
If you live in the UK, next time you hear about a school not having enough teachers, or a hospital not having enough nurses, or a person with a mental health problem not being able to access counselling, or an old person being left to sit alone for hours, just remember that your money is being used to fund a healthy young graduate (probably male) so that he can study an ancient tribal text in the original languages and learn why the dietary, clothing, and sexual regulations described in that text should be applied to less than seven per cent of the country who might be in his congregation.
It really makes sense, doesn’t it?
I agree that it is outrageous and yet so few people know about it - I didn’t until I read your piece and yet I do stay awake occasionally for the news and skim newspapers on a regular basis.
I often have those idle daydreams about how I would spend large volumes of money if I won the lottery (which I don’t do!) and it is really hard to think what the priority would be in terms of worthy causes. I actually think that it would cause me so much stress and indecision that it would take years off my life.
I read some of this piece out to the people sitting here with me - a diverse crowd - and every single one of them agreed with your point of view and only one out of the dozen here knew that this happened.
Reluctant Blogger
Thanks for dropping by. I suspect that the people who can give significant sums to local causes have learned to be very blinkered (through necessity) and focus on a few things.
You wrote:
I read some of this piece out to the people sitting here with me - a diverse crowd - and every single one of them agreed with your point of view and only one out of the dozen here knew that this happened.
I am honoured to be read aloud. I think it could be the first time I have been ‘broadcast’ - perhaps a new career awaits!
The source of the information was The Times Newspaper.
I agree with what you have said too. I don’t have any problem with thinking about what I could spend the money on, as far as good causes go. Interesting from your own personal list, a mobile phone comes first over a house, that suggests to me not a shallow self but a greater depth of feeling that people and communication are more important to youthan posh houses. However, I will be talking to you personally about your reference to existential reality and the comment made about irrational beliefs to tease your brain.
I play the lottery regularly (when I remember). I have already sketched out how I would place the money, depending on the actual size of the prize.
But that is fantasy. Reality always turns out to be different from what you expect. Would I manage my affairs so soberly in the actual event?
The only reasonable answer, of course, is “Wait and see.”
[...] The government being forced to stop funding the training of religious clergy (see The Gift). [...]
Interesting post, Thinkingman.
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Mackinaw.
[...] Church of England’s position in the House of Lords) and financial privilege (see for example The Gift) still exists and should be [...]
[...] am angry that hundreds of hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money is spent on training clergy. I am angry that the Church of England has undue influence and power in government and has [...]