This is a great idea. If I were rich, I'd leave my fortune to the three biggest religious leaders in my city (I am an atheist). The condition is that every decision to spend that money would have to be unanimous and public.

Now, that would be hilarious to watch!

That's not 'atheist' - that's 'deeply cynical' and obviously completely misunderstanding religion.

For example, Catholic, Protestant an Jewish leadership of any city, given those terms, would have little problem finding a project to spend that money on. Either one of numerous charities or here [1] to start.

I think the title of the article, is not informative either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_Center_of_New_York

Let's try not to downvote true statements we don't like

They divide the money in 3 piles and agree that they can spend their pile as they want.

Not sure why that would be hilarious?

"every decision to spend that money" sounds pretty specific to me. The decision to split the pile isn't sufficient to escape that requirement.

They can still just split and launder the money, the mechanics are not interesting

I think there's a lot of intersection, even among religions. (Feeding the poor, for example. Or helping widows and orphans.)

I imagine the 3 would quickly reach agreement, but they'd also agree to keep your views (atheist) out of the announcements. Can't advertise good deeds of that nature, of course!

Thats just cruel lol

It's a gift, one can always reject it.

What? I'm confused

Things get funny at the right perspective. Our lives are too short, living on a pale blue dot of a space rock floating on some galaxy we dont even know much of.

At that scale you realize how insignificant we are and how pointless it is to be petty about taking things too personally instead of finding resolve and cherishing our short-lived lives lol

People prone to serious hatred should be trolled until they stop taking their hatred seriously. They themselves are who actually makes them unhappy.

>I don't understand what is funny about it.

No offense intended, but if you can't see the link between sadism and humor you're probably not looking hard enough.

the psychoanalyst Edmund Bergler once said 'every time a person laughs they are expressing a guilt-ridden need to get revenge upon society'.

I wouldn't go that far, and the journey to discovery is your own.. but humor/sadism/malice have been intertwined in the human psyche since as far back as anyone knows.

If that is cruel then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy would be banned.

It probably should be.

Here's a quote from that link:

The Judge Rotenberg Center is a school in Canton, Massachusetts that uses the methods of ABA to perform behavior modification in children with developmental disabilities. Before it was banned in 2020, the center used a device called a Graduated Electronic Decelerator (GED) to deliver electric skin shocks as aversives. The Judge Rotenberg center has been condemned by the United Nations for torture as a result of this practice.[10] While many human rights and disability rights advocates have campaigned to shut down the center, as of 2020 it remains open. Six students have died of preventable incidents at the school since it opened in 1971.

> And maybe your uncle was just asshole

Have some respect for the recently departed and how the OP may feel about that.

I agree, hurting someone in a funny way does not make the whole thing less cruel.

You are sounding a bit like Kyle from South Park on that one.

First World Problems are almost always funny.

"Oh no... I have something worth a lot of money that most people in the world would envy and its such a huge problem!!!"

The actual three men could be played that way for amusement precisely because they are not "First World".

First world people would and could just throw middle finger once narcissist starts to play that way. The third world men in question could be used this way, because they are poor.

> because they are poor

Not necessarily so... they definitely aren't rich, otherwise it wouldn't be a draw. But that doesn't mean they are "poor". They could be middle class and want to live on the island. The house could be worth a lot more than anything they could afford - even if they aren't poor. The area could be attractive and otherwise unobtainable...

And more importantly... "poor" is subjective... Someone in America who is poor is still more than likely in the top percentile of those alive today around the world.

Edit: And... looking deeper because your comment actually got me interested...

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2017/02/last-laugh-m...

"To wit, Millar bequeathed (for their lifetimes) his Jamaican summer house to three lawyers, T.F. Galt, J.D. Montgomery, and James Newerson, he knew hated each other, but would now be forced to share a common vacation home. He noted that “upon the death of the last survivor of them I direct my Executors… to sell the same and give the proceeds to the council of the city of Kingston, Jamaica, for distribution among the poor of that city…”

So 3 lawyers had to share a vacation home? Which was later sold for charity?

Without editing my previous comment... I seriously doubt 3 lawyers that have to share a vacation home are "poor" by any stretch of the imagination.

So yes... I stand by my original comment that first world problems are funny.