Religion and Politics

[giblets]

well using that logic then there is no such thing as charity. as all 'charities' provide a service and are paid for by their donors and the donors select their own price.

No, for an actual charity, the people receiving the service are not the donors. The donors actually help someone else instead of using the money to give themselves a fancy building to use.

[Jon Miller]

You don't have to give if you don't want to. And the red cross and other charities ask for donations, it isn't only churches.

So, no, most churches (Mormon maybe not) you are not paying for a service.

So we should take away tax exempt status for habitat for humanity too? I mean, I am sure that there are people out there who don't think that others need homes built for them. How about we remove the tax exempt status for red cross too.

There is nothing other than your own value judgement of religious services which make you want to remove tax exempt status for religious organizations and not habitat for humanity or red cross.

How about we either not have such things as tax exempt organizations, or have tax exempt organizations but allow you to pick which ones you think are providing good services by which ones you give to rather than by removing tax exempt status by your own biases and preferences? Just because you don't value religious services doesn't mean that others do not.

JM

[Jon Miller]

No, for an actual charity, the people receiving the service are not the donors. The donors actually help someone else instead of using the money to give themselves a fancy building to use.

That is what happens with churches too. Anyone can come to the church, not just the donors. The pastors (should) go to anyone, not just the donors.

JM

[Jon Miller]

No, for an actual charity, the people receiving the service are not the donors. The donors actually help someone else instead of using the money to give themselves a fancy building to use.

So if the red cross gives blood to donors than the red cross is not an actual charity?

JM

[giblets]

So if the red cross gives blood to donors than the red cross is not an actual charity?

JM

If the red cross mostly used its money to give blood to people who donated, it would not be a charity.

[C0ckney]

No, for an actual charity, the people receiving the service are not the donors. The donors actually help someone else instead of using the money to give themselves a fancy building to use.

well anyone can go to a church, whether they donate or not. also churches undertake lots of charitable activities which are not directed towards church goers.

[giblets]

That is what happens with churches too. Anyone can come to the church, not just the donors. The pastors (should) go to anyone, not just the donors.

JM

Sure, but how often do people actually go to church with giving any money?

[giblets]

well anyone can go to a church, whether they donate or not. also churches undertake lots of charitable activities which are not directed towards church goers.

If they want a tax deduction for charitable activities, that's fine...

[Wezil]

Religion is a business. If IBM donates to charity that donation can be tax free. No one is arguing IBM should be entirely tax free due to some charity work done.

[Jon Miller]

Sure, but how often do people actually go to church with giving any money?

Most the time, I think.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Religion is a business. If IBM donates to charity that donation can be tax free. No one is arguing IBM should be entirely tax free due to some charity work done.

How is religion a business when it doesn't require money for services or membership? What makes it different from habitat for humanity or red cross?

*Ignoring Scientology and maybe Mormons*

And you arguing that because some donors to a church gets benefit from it means that it isn't charitable is the same sort of reasoning that says that because some donors to the red cross get benefit from ti means it isn't charitable. In otherwords, biased irrationality.

Most churches have a fairly high percentage that goes to paying for pastors, hospital workers, care givers, teachers, missionaries, building costs, disaster relief efforts, orphanages, and so on. These are all charitable efforts.

JM

[Tuberski]

You don't have to give if you don't want to. And the red cross and other charities ask for donations, it isn't only churches.

So, no, most churches (Mormon maybe not) you are not paying for a service.

So we should take away tax exempt status for habitat for humanity too? I mean, I am sure that there are people out there who don't think that others need homes built for them. How about we remove the tax exempt status for red cross too.

There is nothing other than your own value judgement of religious services which make you want to remove tax exempt status for religious organizations and not habitat for humanity or red cross.

How about we either not have such things as tax exempt organizations, or have tax exempt organizations but allow you to pick which ones you think are providing good services by which ones you give to rather than by removing tax exempt status by your own biases and preferences? Just because you don't value religious services doesn't mean that others do not.

JM

Same with Mormons. Yes, they want their 10% tithing, and fast offerings, but you get church service whether you pay these or not. You won't, however, get a "temple recommend" if you aren't payed up.

ACK!

[C0ckney]

If they want a tax deduction for charitable activities, that's fine...

then you run into the grey areas which jon alluded to earlier.

should only charitable activities have a deduction. what about the money that other charities spend on administrative activities or building maintenance, for example.

[Wezil]

How is religion a business when it doesn't require money for services or membership?

All I need do is look to Rome. Yes it is a business and a quite profitable one.

Where are Habitat's cathedrals?

[Wezil]

then you run into the grey areas which jon alluded to earlier.

should only charitable activities have a deduction. what about the money that other charities spend on administrative activities or building maintenance, for example.

I did pro bono work last year. I think our firm should claim charitable status.