For starters, let's replace our CEO who looks like Palpatine with one who looks like Obi-Wan Kenobi.

[2ndAmForComputers]

(Only without the facial hair.)

Then, overhaul the Marketing Dept. ASAP. Big events. Focus groups. Let's start talking about the poor again - neglecting that was a bad idea. We're chock full of money, let's USE it to get customers, like every transnational conglomerate does.

(This, ladies and gentleman, is a marketing offensive done right. It started with the bad CEO's resignation.)

[hrmjustin]

1. Did you post this in the wrong room? This is the religion room.

[2ndAmForComputers]

2. No. I did not. This is the right room.

[struggle4progress]

3. Do you think you could clarify the religion connection then?

[Autumn Colors]

4. LOL

The OP is referring to the previous and current popes as CEOs.

I think the current pope looks more like Rudy Giuliani than Obi-Wan, though.

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. There you go. Compare the Catholic church to a corporation.

Do the math. I know what you'll find.

I remember this scene in Seattle, it was this nice old church in the downtown area, its spire reaching up to the heavens. It was located so that at a certain spot you could SEE the high rise buildings of the mega-banks stretching up behind it, dwarfing it, revealing the actual priorities of modern America.

And that's what you'll find if you view the catholic church that way: That they have way, way, less money than transnational corporations. I have about as much respect for people who "speak truth to power" to groups that aren't actually in power, as to government agents who set up dimwits with "terror opportunities" in order to arrest them and look like heroes.

The powers that rule the modern world rule from the top floor of those high rises, and there is no cross on top.

[edhopper]

8. The church never indulged

in large aggrandizing structures. Right?

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

And the Pope lives in a little parish with no ostentation.

[img][/img]

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. A few people have - the Catholic church is one of the largest American corporations

The Economist estimates that annual spending by the church and entities owned by the church was around $170 billion in 2010 (the church does not release such figures). We think 57% of this goes on health-care networks, followed by 28% on colleges, with parish and diocesan day-to-day operations accounting for just 6% and national charitable activities just 2.7% (see chart). In total, Catholic institutions employ over 1m people, reckons Fred Gluck, a former McKinsey managing partner and co-founder of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management, a lay organisation seeking to improve the way the church is run. For purposes of secular comparison, in 2010 General Electric’s revenue was $150 billion and Walmart employed roughly 2m people.

http://www.economist.com/node/21560536

For comparison's sake, Apple had $157 billion in revenue in Fiscal Year 2012. In fact, just 16 companies had more than $170 billion in revenue. But that's global revenue and obviously the Catholic Church has extensive operations in Europe and Latin America alongside its United States branch and smaller Asian and African outlets. One interesting issue is that, legally speaking, there is no Catholic Church. In the United States, each diocese is a separately incorporated entity with no formal linkages between the different diocese or the Vatican. The underlying spirital organization is different, but not reflected in the legal org chart. And religious institutions aren't subject to normal nonprofit accounting or reporting rule, so really understanding the underlying financial structure is difficult.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/13/catholic_church_revenue_one_of_america_s_biggest_businesses.html

[napoleon_in_rags]

17. You're tying in hospitals and charities? I'm talking about profit. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. No, you never mentioned profit, you talked about money and power

And the Catholic church has plenty of both. It has a huge portfolio of property, significant amounts of money, and a lot of power - both over its employees (for whom it restricts healthcare), people who find it won't provide a full range of healthcare, despite claiming to run normal hospitals (and taking over hospitals that did previously provide full healthcare - it takes money to do that, of course), and general power in society - constantly interviews in the media, given 'respect', asked to work with the government, given public funds for projects. And, to back it all, a sovereign state in Rome.

[hrmjustin]

6. Is this about the leadership of a religion?

[rug]

7. I prefer one who looks like Emma Watson.

[cbayer]

10. I prefer one that looks like Martin Luther

[rug]

11. Heh, I never noticed the resemblance before.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Too bad the RCC will never have an Emma as a leader.

And if the atheist "leader"--of which there is no such thing, but you know that--looked like Emma Watson, that would be cool. Unless you are making some comment that Dawkins is somehow less because he supposedly looks like a girl.

[rug]

13. Unlike the OP, I wouldn't start a thread based on anyone's appearance to attempt a point.

Why are you referring to a grown woman as a "girl"?

[Goblinmonger]

14. But you hopped on the opportunity.

And that photo comparison appeared 2009 at the latest. Which would have put her, if that photo of her were not any older, as 19. I believe the photo is older than that. Which would make her a girl. So now answer the point about your comparison. Why post that picture? Is it about making him into a girl/woman?

And that comparison is fake, you know.

[rug]

15. Are you now saying a woman of 19 is a girl?

The virgule didn't help.

[Goblinmonger]

16. No. I'm saying the picture is older than 2009.

Which puts here at 18 or younger. I'm guessing that picture is her at about 16 or 17 from my watching of the Harry Potter movies way too much.

But regardless, why is the comparison humorous? You seem to be avoiding that.

[rug]

18. It's not particularly more humorous than Palpantine.

Or any less stupid.

[edhopper]

20. rug

the picture have been photo shopped. Look at Dawkins' nose and mouth and Watson's eyes.

[img][/img]

[img][/img]

[rug]

21. Oh I know. This shop probably originated on reddit.

Still, there's a resemblance.

[okasha]

22. Of course it's been photoshopped--

unless Dawkins has taken to Botox injections.