Which is worse—a corrupt banker or a corrupt priest?
Kathy Mueller: Either way, you’re gonna take it in the ass.
John Paul Brophy: A corrupt banker only gets your money.
Kolbie Stonehocker: When someone tries to justify their crimes through the “word” of God instead of taking responsibility for that they’ve done is a sign that something is terribly, terribly wrong.
Austen Diamond: If this is a post-Halloween reference, I’d take a “sexy” corrupt banker over a “sexy” corrupt priest. Mainly because I prefer top-shelf martinis to cheap red wine.
Margaux Lodge: I think a corrupt priest is worse than a corrupt banker. I always have my guard up when it comes to money and, statistically, I would expect a banker to be more corrupt than a priest. Sadly, I think people are in a much more vulnerable state and far more easily taken advantage of when it comes to religion, so a priest can do a lot more damage.
Joseph Childs: A corrupt priest is worse because many religions and people hold to the power of a higher being and can use that to further their own cause, whereas a banker deals in more tangible things that many religious people view as temporary anyway.
Scott Renshaw: Since banking appears to be our state-supported national religion, it would seem that the distinction is meaningless.
Susan Kruithof: Being the good atheist that I am, I believe no one can corrupt my soul. I have no soul. Thus it is much worse to be a corrupt banker. I do have money—not much, but what little I have, I’d like to hold onto.