What the Jews say about Hungary: the truth

Remove all ads!

Point is they didn't steal, and the extraordinary tax was found to be unconstitutional and thus illegal.

In all likelihood, the idea was getting back at the former administration, by retroactively taxing their severance pay. Even though the former administration raised these payments, they did so legally.

One of the reasons why the extra tax on the severance pay was unconstitutional must have been be that a law must be a general rule that applies to all, and not single out individuals out for taxation. Such a law defies the principle of equal treatment under the law, and defies the idea that private property is protected by law from confiscation without compensation.

Reason enough to change the constitution and deprive the court of jurisdiction, lest something like that happens again. If they enacted the same law again, there would be no way to stop its execution. Likewise, a law specifically taxing Jews, Gypsies, Baroniusses or Redheads would still be unconstitutional, but since there is no court to judge over that, there is no way stopping the execution of such laws.

 

Those who say that the Hungarian right-wing media overemphasizes the international pressure (or press coverage) are clearly wrong. I was checking practically the full spectrum of media in Hungary in these days, and can confirm that the leftliberal press is presenting international reports all the time. No wonder, the left wing cannot accept that it was banished from government. So they run to their foreign friends for help (as they did in history many times).

On a side note, since the international news/opinions are mostly negative, the right-wing press would have no interest to overemphasize its significance.

You may be right about this in terms of the press (in which case, I'm glad that there is less coverage and "international worries about Hungarian democracy" than how our left-wing media tries to imply it). But generally, it isn't true that there isn't international debate. As I wrote, there was a full day dedicated to Hungary in the European Parliament, last week. No, it's not a big deal, but obviously also not a local Hungarian issues (considering that a Parliament of tens of countries felt the need to debate it).

Actually, I don't doubt this. In fact, I mentioned antisemitism just because Ragusa used to post walls of texts in my previous Hungary topics in the AoDA/AoLS about how antisemitism increases in Hungary and how neonazi people march on the street due to "Jobbik" etc.

Glad to hear this confirmation; now I'm completely sure that only the left-wing media in Hungary tries to imply that international press cares much (due to the "worries of democracy in Hungary").

The Jerusalem Post's article reflects that they made a general examination of the matter in Hungary, asking leaders of various jew communities/churches. While it is certainly not perfectly representative, it is still a considerable fact that JP posted such an article (also considering how known and influential JP is).

 

Don't you know, when one guy says so, and B wants to hear it, it is compelling proof!

 

There is probably truth in that statement - that at least some people do care at some level. I'm also quite sure that your concern over this is both genuine and sincere. All I'm pointing out is the reason that no one appears to be rallying to your cause is many of us don't see what you state is happening.

There may be actual controversy and debate about this in Hungary, but most of the rest of us are blind to this issue, and it certainly would appear this topic is of much greater consequence to Hungarians than anyone else (justifiably). So what is good old Viktor's solution to this? (And is it different if it is a national versus international controversy?)

 

Baronius

I don't know much about any situation regarding Jews in Hungary but there is something that is questionable regarding politics in Hungary.

Such as putting a 98% tax just on members of the other political party.

I understand that 2 different parties disagree on what rules should be but that kind of thing makes me wonder if the current president isn't going overboard.

I understand that there is value in following the law and that sometimes justice doesn't seem to be served by what is legal.

But what seems to be his attempt to simply punish the other political party and members of the former administration seem to be neither just nor legal. That is something that would make it understandable to be concerned about.

I'm not going to say, at this moment, that Hungary's current president is a despot. Nor that the other party is purely flawless people. But if there is no legitimate reason (because the current president likes it and doesn't like the other party is not a legit reason) that can be sighted for that 98% tax on purely member s of the prior administration then there are reasons to say he has gone beyond what is reasonable in how he governs.

If they stole money then I can see a tax as a way to get that money back. But if they didn't then he is basically just trying to punish the opposition for existing-which is unreasonable.

 

Conclusion of my post (I put it here instead of placing it to the end):

90% of the worries about the current processes in Hungarian democracy are politically motivated, and are rooted in violated interests and ideological differences.

The whole world is driven by interests, as we all know. Leaders of countries who seem to "worry" about Hungarian democracy in these days are representing the interests of their own companies and communities (e.g. Hillary Clinton represents the interests of the church she supports when she "worries" about Hungarian democracy). Nothing is done without interests, that is how it works. Talking about interests, not sure you know it but Pentagon also gives money to Hungary each year as 'military aid', in 2012 it is going to be $14 million. (Not a significant sum even for the Hungarian budget, but better than nothing.) This is also for obvious reasons (interests).


WARNING AND DISCLAIMER: if you aren't interested in Hungary at all, do not read below: Walls Of Text coming!

----

Now to answer what is happening in Hungary when Orbán seems to "punish" the previous governments:

The previous governing party (socialists) are the ideological successors of the oppressing (Soviet-friendly) regime that ruled Hungary until 1989. (In fact, most of their current leaders held high positions in the Soviet-friendly dictature.) In 1989, they weren't prosecuted at all; instead, they changed their political power to financial power: they gained billions of dollars (yes, in USD) via privatization (of course, combined with bribery).

Like a chameleon, they changed into MSZP (the socialist party), and many people kept supporting them (especially those who enjoyed the Soviet-friendly dictature until 1989 -- serving the communists). They made many people believe that they aren't the ideological successors of the dictature that ended in 1989.

Due to their financial power, even after 1989 (up to now) they ruled (and still rule a big part of) the media and press. They put their people to the executive boards of companies (even to subsidiaries of multinational companies). And so on and so on.

So the answer is simple: our current Prime Minister is getting rid of them (not physically, of course), and he has a great support from people. This is not openly told, but I know, and I support it. We don't need more chameleon communists. Is this supported by Hungarians? Yes, Orbán has great support: on Saturday, hundreds of thousands of Hungarians were marching peacefully on the streets, expressing their support for our Prime Minister.

So instead of trying to analyze what's perfectly legitimate and what isn't, I just say that we are getting back our true freedom from communists in these years, months, days. Orbán uses all constitutional tools for his goals, and yes, if needed, he changes the constitution (because his party has 2/3 majority), while respecting the international law and the european Charter of Fundamental Rights. Yes, sometimes there are overkills, but that is why the negotiations exist with the European Commission (who is the guard of freedom rights in Europe, even though also applying double standards very often: e.g. the Slovak Language Law or the Benes Decrees -- which are totally antidemocratic laws in Europe -- are ignored by the European Commission).

We need to get rid of chameleon communists. We trust Orbán. During his previous government (1998-2002), he decreased state debt from 61.9% to 55.6%, and improved the economy. At 2002, our state debt was 55.6%, and then two socialist government periods came (2002-2006, 2006-2010), and in 2010, it became 82% (!!!). Orbán has a damn hard job in these days, and at the same time, he needs to get rid of the communists from the important positions. Otherwise, Hungary will never regain its good old glory (heck, there was a time when we had the largest gold and silver mines in Europe!). These communists only care for their own wealth (not that Orbán's party members don't -- but they also care for the country and have a VISION about it); the Hungarian communists would sell even their own mothers. There are few exceptions only, so most of them are spineless and harmful people. All they need is POWER, but not for creating a flourishing country -- instead, all they do is filling the pockets of their family members and relatives. In Orbán's party, this abuse ratio is much smaller.

And before one might think I'm a fanatic right-wing person: in 2002, when the socialists won the election in Hungary, I didn't care about it. I naively believed they are not the former communists anymore, and that they have good experts. I wished them all the best. I was terribly wrong.

So, yes, what Hungarian people expect from Orbán is no less than returning the old glory of a 1000-year old nation. Even if he can do it partially, it will be an enormous achievement.

The controversy has a double nature: legal and political. The legal side is whether certain Hungarian laws are OK with the EU law or not. This will be decided soon, or if not now, then later: by the European Court, eventually. The European Commission is planning to take legal actions in these cases; more precisely, it is called 'infringement proceedings'. It is no big deal: there are hundreds of such proceedings against other EU countries at the moment. E.g. Belgium has several times more such legal issues with the EU than Hungary has.

The political side is another matter. "Critics" apparently have problems with the new constitution, new laws, etc. etc. They state that democracy has come to an end in Hungary (and Washington Post, The Economist etc. are assisting to this ridiculous hype). This has a double reason: (1) left-liberal interests are violated, even internationally; (2) multinational company (and thus foreign country) interests are violated.

Let's start with the second one: Orbán started his government with a ruined economy and a state debt of 80%+ in 2010. To deal with the financial issues, he had two choices: put more burden on people (simple citizens), OR put more burden on banks and huge companies (who had large extraprofits in Hungary). He went #2, and introduced special taxes on the profit of banks and big companies (companies with an income greater than 500 million Hungarian Forints). This violated the interests of many countries, e.g. Austria, Italy, Germany, USA, who had great banks/companies in Hungary.

About left-wing and liberal interest violations: Orbán's party is a conservative party; it is very rare in Europe that such a party gets a 2/3 majority in a parliament in Europe. It can serve as a dangerous precedent in Europe to left-liberals, who lost their power in other countries as well. Yet, they still have majority in the European Parliament, so they do their best to support their Hungarian fellows and reduce the influence of Orbán and his laws. If they need to spread lies about Hungary, then they do it.

And there is an ideological debate as well. While the new Hungarian constitution grants rights for everyone (regardless of religion, sexual orientation etc.), it also includes conservative values that are refused by liberals. E.g. it defines that marriage may only be between a man and a woman. (Registered relationship between homosexuals is certainly allowed in Hungary, but not marriage.) Well, this is one of the points where liberals say that Orbán is "oppressing minorities". On the other hand, we in Hungary do not think that defining marriage in such a way is a dictatoric thing. It is how we follow our traditions.

The "worries" that the Hungarian judicial system is endangered by the current government are also part of the international hype and panic fueled by Hungarian left-liberals and their European/American fellows. For example, the Association of Hungarian Judges themselves (!) have recently rejected an accusation they received in Hungary (they were accused of collaborating with Orbán's government, and were threatened that those of them who collaborate will be sanctioned/prosecuted during the next socialist government). You can read their official English statement here here (it's short, and a very useful read). The judges themselves protest against the ridiculous attacks!

To sum up, Orbán is not our "dear leader", but if anyone then he can be our leader who returns Hungary's glory. He has the necessary abilities, experience, support, and connections. And he has mistakes, of course; there are several things I dislike in him. But he already proved a lot to me and to many others.

As a small addition, I was also glad that Orbán's government managed to agree with the Russians and purchased back all Russian shares (21.2%) of the largest Hungarian company, MOL. Energy is a strategically important sector everywhere in the world, so it's good that the Hungarian state also got some control over our largest company.
(MOL is the second largest company of Eastern Europe, with a market capitalization of $14.5 billion, employing 34,000 people worldwide. It has interests in Yemen, Kazakhstan, Croatia, Cameroon, Iraq, Russia, and Pakistan.)

By the way, I just heard that the Sunday edition of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (a well-known German newspaper) presented a portrait about Orbán. The author there also presents Orbán as a person who cannot be stopped in reaching his goals, comparing him with Jacques Chirac, Helmut Kohl, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, and Gerhard Schröder. So it's not just the Hungarian people ("victims of Orbán's populism", as some people might say) who think that Orbán is an extraordinary politician who will reach his goals.

 

What church does Hillary Clinton support? I always considered her a very secular person. Certainly she is there for US interests, but why bring a church into this? Last I checked most Hungarians are Catholic, and Hillary isn't. I doubt she came on behalf of any church.

 

I have already asked you about the - only for the sake of argument using the number you arbitrarily defined - "10%" justified criticisms. If these are serious enough that is ample reason for unrelenting criticism - and again, what immediately comes as quite serious to my mind are the very far reaching constitutional and legal changes that were enacted under Orbàn.

This is even more inane nonsense than usual. So, since everybody pursues interest, everybody is tainted and thus there is no objective truth?

​

The new Hungarian constitution is problematic from a constitutional point of view. You only need an interest in effective constitutional governance and legal soundness to criticise it.

And as for Hillary, B has, in his inimitable way, again omitted necessary context: What he is apparently referring to, even though no one can ever be sure in such matters, and what Hillary's letter apparently is about, is the requirement for churches to register or lose legal status.

A church that is rejected in parliament doesn't have church status in Hungary. It means practically that rejected churches probably will have to operate under rules for businesses, and pay taxes like a business. That probably will put smaller denominations 'out of business' and will severely curtail their financial ability to operate. For instance, a very probable consequence then is that they would have to pay taxes on money donated to them. That is inherently problematic from a constitutional point of view - the law allows for arbitrary discrimination of non-listed churches by parliamentary vote.

That criticism is sound irrespective of which church the person speaking it out adheres to (i.e. for this to be a valid argument it doesn't matter in the slightest in which particular church Hilllary is). The requirement for churches to register to be able to operate must be anathema for anybody taking the American tradition serious. As a result, Lawrence Eagleburger, Warren Christopher, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice would have probably written the very same letter. But what do I mention such trifles - clearly Hillary's petty slander against Hungary is motivated by nothing but her self interest and vile bias. To say that is also far easier than addressing the substance of her (justified) criticism, if we generously assume a theoretical ability to do so.

 

http://www.politics.hu/20111219/us-...idesz-leader-says-legislation-to-be-adjusted/

She is told to support the Baptist and Scientologist church, which -- among many others -- did not get an automatic church status in Hungary (and must go through an official church registration procedure).

Either way, what the hell she thinks that she can tell "that the law curtailed freedom of religion." Just because there is an official registration procedure that churches younger than 100 years must complete? Is anyone in Hungary lacking freedom of religion just because the state (from the money of taxpayers) does not automatically support them?


----


On a side note, I just read Ragusa's post. Just one note: he misses two important points:
(1) the list of state-accepted churches is not too big in other Eastern European countries, and EU/USA never had issues with that
(2) these churches also get money from the state, FROM TAYPAYERS MONEY

So it would be a bit strange if anyone could just start a new church and wait for the taxpayers' money...

 

Yeah, how can she ... you don't get it? Really? Why am I not surprised?

 

Baronius, i'm not very familiar with Hungarian politics so maybe you can shed some light on something for me. These "communists in disguise" you are talking about, what exactly have they done that made Orban change the constitution just to go after them?

 

At the risk of going off-topic, I like this making of religious groups having to register to get tax-exempt status. Here in the US the IRS has been having a hard time with that as there are tax scams that involve declaring yourself a "minister" of a congregation and then doing all sorts of things and claiming them to be "tax exempt".

 

Snook, in the US they have very loose criteria, as laid down in law, that define when a group gets church status. As a result a embezzler like for instance Kenneth Copeland can live large, and do so tax free. Our law works in the very same way, albeit with more strict criteria (thus the complaints of discrimination by the for profit enterprise that is Scientiology). The point is - the status is a reflex of meeting the criteria. You meet the criteria, you get church status. There is no debate about it, and indeed, it isn't necessary. It's just like with citizenship - you meet criteria, you get status - there certainly is no poll about it.

What Hungary has done is to list some organisations as churches, and have put other churches eligibility up for vote. There is no reflex. And to the best of my knowledge, the law also doesn't enshrine criteria, which, if met, compel the parliament to grant status. It's purely 'aye or nay'. That's why and how the Hungarian process allows for arbitrary discrimination by parliamentary act. You can very well meet all criteria for being a church, in Hungary it doesn't matter unless the parliament grants you the status.

Keep in mind that church status and the resulting privileges are a reflex of freedom of religion - America has always held the latter in very high regard (probably to excess, and if you think so, I'd agree with you), thus their looser criteria for meeting the status. The best can be said about the law is that it is poorly thought out and worded, although my impression is that the law and the resulting problems were enacted with full intent.

B,
it doesn't matter that they receive taxpayer money. If Hungarian law allows churches to be subsidised, it has to allow all churches to be directly or indirectly (by them not having to pay taxes) subsidised, lest it wants to treat them unequally without justification (which would violate the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law). You cannot circumvent the problem of limiting the right to church status by putting it up for vote - under the pretext that this is after all about fiscal matters, and thus falls into the responsibility of parliament to decide.

Afterthought: The question of discrimination against non-listed denominations will likely first hit the courts over tax matters - they will likely refuse to pay taxes, claiming church status, necessitating judicial review; since the constitutional court has been deprived of jurisdiction over tax and fiscal matters; since courts have been re-staffed by loyalists (everybody's retirement age was raised, except for that of judges (communists in disguise?), which has been lowered, artificially creating job openings ... for loyalists) ... oh, how fortuitous.

 

The constitution was based on an 1949 version, from the Soviet era. It had amendments, of course, but Hungary was the ONLY post-communist country in Eastern/Central Europe which did not accept a new constitution after 1989. The new Constitution grants freedom for everyone and also includes conservative values (such as the definition of marriage). Critics have a problem with the latter part, of course.

damedog: several things; one of them is declaring that the current socialist party (MSZP) is the legal successor of the pre-1989 socialist party (the one that served the Soviets). Of course, the left-liberal media tries to present this as a problematic case, e.g. here:
http://esbalogh.typepad.com/hungari...al-successor-of-former-communist-parties.html
While the reality is, the idea wasn't only supported by Orbán's party in the Parliament, but by other opposition parties as well (except MSZP itself, of course).
Another left-liberal rant:
http://thecontrarianhungarian.wordp...-the-hungarian-government-un-orthodox-method/

Funny that they call this collective guilt, but they never say a word about the Benes Decrees (which declare the collective guilt of two nations, basically), and are still in effect in the European Union.


There are also many lies in the above articles. For example, it is implied that MSZP's ideology is far from MSZMP's ideology, while everyone knows that it consists of the same spineless people (with a few exceptions). And that is what matters.
Moreover, calling Jobbik a party of sharing "neo-nazi" ideology is also a lie. They keep the Hungarian law (which is conform to the EU law, of course), while, of course, they have an antisemitic tone (just like many other parties in other countries, obviously). No neo-nazi parties are allowed in Hungary, they are illegal.

So the whole thing is just a hype against Hungary, due to violated interests. It will end, just like all hypes end.

---------- Added 0 hours, 15 minutes and 54 seconds later... ----------

About religions: it is not so simple as Ragusa's post implies it. It is a multilevel system, e.g. religious "institutions" (not sure about the English translation, I know it only in Hungarian) are also allowed to function, and they do get state support (money) too. Then, if they meet the criteria of becoming a church, then they can apply. (So yes, there are objective criteria, too; and the Parliament decides about them after consulting with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, as far as I know.)

It is about the money of taxpayers. And while in the USA, there is plenty money for "everything" (at least compared to Hungary), in Hungary there is an economic crisis (due to previous socialist governments), so it wouldn't be nice if all sorts of churches would suck the money of taxpayers while the medical sector, education sector, public transport etc. are in ruins.

Moreover, the biggest "trick" when worrying about religious freedom is that they put an equation mark between "church" and "religious freedom". Everyone, EVERYONE can freely practice his or her religion in Hungary. BUT, the list of state-supported churches is limited. This is how it should work, otherwise all sorts of churches were sucking the money of taxpayers.

You're free to choose your religion, but not free to get state money.

 

Oh, there just isn't the money to treat all denominations equally? Is it because the economic crisis has hit Hungary so hard that they have to limit church status to just a handful of groups?

 

You had a socialist government? Does that mean the people who worked in the factories and other places owned them and made decisions about how to use their means of production?

I'm a little divided after the links you've shown me. If they are truly successors of the soviets I suppose I don't have any problem not allowing them to be part of the political process, but to take away their financial compensation illegally that was allotted to them tells me Orban doesn't care about the law too much either. I suppose I just have to do more research on the matter.

 

So when the Baptists are being denied church status, they are not listed after all, that's just because there is no money left for them? And the only reason they complain is that they want to suck money from the government tit, and are sore losers for not having been listed? Are you serious?

Ever heard that word, pretence?

 

In that sense, we didn't have such socialist governments after 1989 (since we changed to market economy in 1989). Only the party who was governing e.g. between 2002-2010 is called Socialist party, and yes, they are the successors of the oppressing Soviet-friendly regime.

If you refer to our pre-1989 government: it was much worse than socialism in the way you described. It was a dictature. Secret service, torture, thought police etc.

Noone's status is "denied". There are traditional, historical churches who are AUTOMATICALLY accepted. Others need to register themselves. And registrations will not be denied without a reasoning and explanation. Noone was "denied".

You liberals/leftliberals seem to have a habit, which is simply ignoring the significance of "historical traditions". Things which don't need logical reasoning. Things which deserve exceptional status just because they do. (Of course, they shouldn't cause harm to others. But this point is subjective, and can be twisted easily. For example, does it harm gay couples that they cannot be in MARRIAGE in Hungary?) So it's easy to say to Orbán's acts: "they harm the minority". But it's all just about twisting the facts and lying. Orbán's current government does not oppress anyone. It's just the hype, the left-liberal hype.

They need to meet certain conditions to get from the taxpayers money, just like everywhere else in the world. So yes, those who don't meet these conditions should not get money.

On a side note, when there are limited resources, you need to decide who to support and how. In almost all things, everywhere in the world (USA, and yes, Germany, too), money is what decides. Not the human rights etc. Otherwise, how come that Czech Republic and Slovakia still didn't remove the Benes Decrees from their law? It declares the collective guilt of Germans and Hungarians, and gave a base to their deportation. The answer is easy: Czechs are afraid that people whose ancestors were deported would demand money. Very. Much. Money.

Or why does Germany support EU so much? Because of the nice principles. Oh not. It was calculated recently that it would be much much worse for Germany without EU.

So yes, despite of what the press and media tries to imply often, practically everything is about money (unfortunately). You lawyers like to live in your illusion worlds, but law is not perfect. Even constitutions are not perfect. If needed, even constitutions (especially post-soviet ones like in Hungary) must be changed. With a 2/3 majority, of course.

The fact Slovakia didn't get warned by the EU and no legal action was taken against it for the Slovak Language Law is also about money and diplomacy. Slovaks didn't do what Orbán did: they didn't put huge taxes on international companies and banks. This is no conspiracy theory: this is the truth. What does Merkel do when she worries about Hungarian democracy? (yes, she also had such a statement). She represents the German companies. And that's correct, that is what Germany expects her to do. What does Orbán do? The same. He represents the Hungarian people.

Back to the matter of double standards:

Did the EU raise its word in 2006 when peaceful people were shot with rubber bullets in the streets of Budapest? (Oh yeah, the leftliberal media tried to misrepresent those events, implying that only hooligans were on the street. But just go and ask the families, fathers, moms, grandparents in Budapest, who were protesting peacefully. People who were going home from work, and were getting shot.)

Did the EU raise its word against the Slovak Language Law?

Did the EU raise its word against the Benes Decrees, or that Czech Republic only accepted the Lisbon Treaty by asking itself to be an exception from the Charter of Fundamental Rights?!

Does the EU raise its word against the frequent beatings of Hungarians in Serbia and in other countries? No, no. Just the Romas. Always the poor Romas.

Is there an international conspiracy against Hungary? No, there isn't. But there are interests and there is diplomacy. Hungary never was afraid to tell its opinion openly, even if it violated certain interests with it.

Do you guys here know whose Prime Minister suggested the cancellation of Warsaw Pact for Eastern Europe, in Moscow? And Czechoslovakia promised that they will support the Hungarian idea IF it gets an acceptable welcome in Moscow... Conditions, conditions. Only József Antall, the Hungarian PM dared to stand up in Moscow and suggest the cancellation of the Warsav Pact.

I could list further things what Hungary did for Europe even in the 20th century (e.g. who was the country which first opened its border at the end of the Cold War and allowed East-Germans to escape into Austria?). But it's needless.

It sounds funny but if you want to avoid the double standard in the EU, you need to make your sovereignity stronger (or, like the Slovaks, make yourself a servant country). That is what Orbán does.

The above paragraphs aren't for "self-sorrow". I merely pointed out that Hungary did more for Eastern European democracy than anyone else. And now EU dares to apply such disgusting double standards? I wouldn't say a word if they also threatened a legal action against Slovakia. But they didn't. And yes, they allowed an exception from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Czech Republic), in exchange for voting yes to the Lisbon Treaty.

When a Swiss businessman friend told me a few years ago that EU is "dictature" and has a dictatoric leadership, I just thought: "oh, these oddball Swiss people". In these days, however, when the double standard has shown itself (and German, Italian and other journalists drawn the attention to it too -- not all press materials are anti-Hungary in these days), I start to believe him.

Even those who criticize Hungary in these days seem to admit that the bashing of Hungary is an overkill. E.g. Spindelegger, the Austrian vice-chancellor and minister of foreign affairs, said so:

In German:

 

Listen B, I have the distinct feeling that what the concept of a status means and entails is entirely lost on you.

When any of the non-listed denominations are not voted on the list with a 2/3 majority in parliament, a high hurdle, then they ARE BEING DENIED church STATUS. STATUS! You put it as if the only thing that vote effects is eligibility for taxpayer money. That is false - at best. Church STATUS is about far far more than just that. For starters ...

 

Bush and Cheney must have had second jobs in Hungary. Better you than us.