This comment is only borderline HN-worthy, since it is going to mix religion, philosophy, and politics:
1) We historically give religious organizations wide discretion in the accumulation of wealth and how they dispose of it. This is controversial in some quarters, but even if one were not inclined to be religious or to see present value in relatively wealthy religious institutions, one could justify it as respecting "the democracy of the dead" and not overturning their distributional preferences on the mere strength that you happen to be living right now and they do not.
2) A Catholic or Protestant church suddenly discovered to be wealthier than expected would not be expected to surrender that wealth to the government in virtually any Western country, which is (per 1) for the best. If it were a country I had any political say in, I would be strongly inclined to grant Hindu temples the same courtesy.
3) Poverty in India sucketh royally. Contrasting that with a particular rich temple makes sense if, and only if, one has an efficient gold-into-anti-poverty engine. There may exist a system which fits that description, but the present government of India is manifestly not it. In the absence of evidence that windfall taxation would be treated differently than India's other sources of revenue, which get redirected to corruption and cronyism with some regularity, I would be inclined to leave the gold in the ground. Giving it to the government does not guarantee that it does not get looted, to put it mildly.
Also, religions have historically been particularly focused on helping the poor. One can argue if they're being effective, you can argue if they're doing enough, you can argue that they hold on to too much wealth--but many religions do in fact have a mandate to help the poor. Whether this qualifies as a "gold-into-anti-poverty engine is somewhat debatable.
2 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 14.1 ms ] thread1) We historically give religious organizations wide discretion in the accumulation of wealth and how they dispose of it. This is controversial in some quarters, but even if one were not inclined to be religious or to see present value in relatively wealthy religious institutions, one could justify it as respecting "the democracy of the dead" and not overturning their distributional preferences on the mere strength that you happen to be living right now and they do not.
2) A Catholic or Protestant church suddenly discovered to be wealthier than expected would not be expected to surrender that wealth to the government in virtually any Western country, which is (per 1) for the best. If it were a country I had any political say in, I would be strongly inclined to grant Hindu temples the same courtesy.
3) Poverty in India sucketh royally. Contrasting that with a particular rich temple makes sense if, and only if, one has an efficient gold-into-anti-poverty engine. There may exist a system which fits that description, but the present government of India is manifestly not it. In the absence of evidence that windfall taxation would be treated differently than India's other sources of revenue, which get redirected to corruption and cronyism with some regularity, I would be inclined to leave the gold in the ground. Giving it to the government does not guarantee that it does not get looted, to put it mildly.