segnosaur

First of all, the fact that they've been of assistance historically does not mean that they should be considered a primary channel for charity in the future. Secondly, you also seem to be assuming that people are donating just because they are in the church. I believe that willingness to donate stems from values learned at home, which is independent of whether an individual goes to church or even believes in a god. When I speak of "televangilst mega-churches", I'm referring to churches involving people like Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson and the like... individuals who are better known for their corruption than for running day cares. The issue is not "total amount of money", the issue is "What proportion is used for benevolent purposes". If I collect$1 billion and use $1million to (for example) help the poor, that is being less charitable than collecting $1000 and using $500 to help the poor. You see, here's the problem (and its one that has been brought up before)... you seem to be redefining "charity" and "social services" to mean something that it does not. If I go to a bar and complain to my bartender about "my horrible wife", the bartender is not providing charity/social services, since he is in effect getting paid for his services by me purchasing drinks/tiping. Similarly, if I decide to spend money to go see (for example) Tony Robins so I can feel good about myself, I would not classify Robins to be a "charity". I'm paying for a service and I'm receiving it. Now, when a priest/minister in charge of a church does something stricktly to benefit the patrons/donors of that church (deliver a sermon, hear confession, visit church members in the hospital, etc.) then what he is doing should not be classified as charity. After all, its the donors who are benefiting. They're paying for (through their donations to the church) and receiving a service (the sermon, etc.) If you're going to consider a priest preaching to his own donors a "charity" then you'll have to consider Tony Robins and the bartender at the local pub a "charity" as well since they're doing basically the same thing... charging a fee and administerig a service. To be a "charity" it has to benefit people from outside the church.

Not necessarily. Its also possible that secular charities could step up and fill the gap. First of all, keep in mind that not all churches are known for their delivery of "social services". While you may have some traditional services that run soup kitchens, etc., you also have things like televangilst-run mega churches. One provides "valuable social services". The other does not. Yet both can get the same charitable deductions.Secondly, while it is possible that your local church provides actual social services, whatever benefits they provide must be compared with more secular charities. If you give to something like the Red Cross, you can assume >80% will be used to help people in need. (Their books are audited.) If you donate to your church, how much do you think goes to help the needy, as opposed to (for example) running the church for the regular parisioners to receive mass, listen to sermons, etc. I suspect its rather less than 80%, and the time spent doing those "non-help the needy" activities shouldn't be considered charity.

Actually, Lucas is planning on donating $4billion of what he earns from the sale (pretty much everything) to his educational charity. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2227949/Star-Wars-creator-George-Lucas-donate-4billion-Disney-deal-charity.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Errr... its been done.

Thing is though, once you're used to it, is it easier to use than WinXP/Win7? Or about the same but different? And how much of a 'power user' are you? (Like I said, I'm a software developer, so I often have to do weird things like set up IIS, register DLLs, etc.)

Only looked at it for about 2 minutes. Have to say I didn't really like it. But then, remember I'm a guy who actually likes using the command prompt, so maybe I'm not the best one to be judging it.

I'd suggest before anyone trys buying Win8, that you first download VirtualBox. (This is a free program you can run on your computer to allow you to have multiple 'virtual machines' installed.) That way, you can have your Win8 running under Win7, and if by chance you think it sucks you can delete it fairly easily. I had a beta version of Win8 running on my computer that way. (Not sure how that affects the licensing though.)

The problem with "ease of use"... how do you define it? Not everyone has the same requirements. For those new to a computing environment a snazzy interface can be very beneficial. However, for experienced users/experts, you can often find that the "ease of use" can slow you down. I was joking about using DOS 4.0, but I do software development for a living, and I often find myself opening up a command prompt because its sometimes easier to type (or retype) a few commands than it is to poke around various menus and windows trying to find some obsure option. This is especially true when you are dealing with upgrading an operating system. (For example, the IIS web service screens are substantially different in Server 2000, 2003 and 2008, and its annoying trying to figure out where certain functionality has moved to between versions.)

I'm using DOS 4.0 but hope to upgrade to DOS 6.0 as soon as I know Microsoft has all the bugs worked out.

The problem is, there are multiple definitions of agnostic, with minor variations that influence how it applies. For example, from dictionary.com: ...a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable... (There are other sources that give similar defintions) So its not saying "I don't know if god exists", its saying "I don't think anyone can ever have evidence/proof if god exists" (i.e. is unknowable).

You would not believe in something if you thought it didn't exist. And I never said you would. But agnosticsm means more than just "do you think god exists". It is a belief whether you think god can ever be proven. Agnostic means you think that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. No, you can believe, but recognize that you'll never have proof/evidence.

What does all this do with being the first guy to walk on the moon?

Interesting definition of "fiction/non-fiction", and not one that I've ever heard before. (Many people, myself included, use the fact that something is true or not as the dividing line between fact/fiction, not the author's level of belief.) Not saying its a "wrong" definition, just one that many people might not subscribe to. Ah, but your definition of something being "non-fiction" is that they actually believe something "to be true". Sylvia Brown is a scam artist. I doubt she believes anything that she's put in any of her books.

Actually, someone could be an agnostic atheist if they say that "I believe god exists, but I recognize that there is no evidence and no way of ever proving it.". I.e. the person is believing based on "blind faith". This is different than a person who both believes in god, and thinks "we have proof it exists" (i.e. is delusional).

The problem is, that's not what the definition of "Christian" is. Being a christian (at least to the vast majority of people) implies that you do believe in the supernatural bits. Believing in just the teachings of Jebus might make you a "nice guy", but it doesn't make you a christian. From Wikipedia: (Yes, I recongnize that Wikipedia is flawed as a source. But since it is largely the result of collaboration its definition here should reflect popular usage: The mainstream Christian belief is that Jesus is the Son of God, fully devine and fully human, and the savior of humanity.. I could also point out that other religions have philosophies that might make you a better person that you're probably following (even if you don't publicize it). After all, there are a bunch of rules in Buddhism (don't kill, don't harm others, etc.) that I'm sure you also follow. That doesn't make you an atheist Buddhist either. Furthermore, while you talk about "ascribing to the philosophies of Jesus", the fact that even real Christians (the ones who believe in the supernatural bits) don't follow all of the teachings of Jebus. After all, in Luke 12 Jebus talks about punishing slaves, yet in the modern world such activitie would be considered morally wrong. So, you are accepting some of the Philosophies of Jebus, and rejecting others (the parts that are actually immoral).

If by that you mean you don't go to church or actively pray, that doesn't make you an 'atheist'. All that is needed to be a 'theist' is to believe in some sort of supernatural entity. Whether you do anything in your life to try to appeal to that entity (pray, go to church, or do anything to acknowledge they exist) is irrelevant. If you believe that there was a Jesus, and he was more than just some dirty smelly hippy spouting off stories hanging around with a bunch of his friends in the middle east a few millenia ago, then you're a thesit, even if you've never set foot in a church, prayed, or have done anything outwardly "religious".

I'm not sure if his definition is completely incorrect. While you are right in that a belief in god (theistic or athesitic) is different from thinking we can prove god (agnostic or gnostic), that doesn't mean that its impossible for an individual to be completely agnostic because they don't have a belief in god either way.

Ummm... don't think that's possible. While a person could be both atheist and agnostic, pretty by definition a Christian is someone who believes in a 'holy' Jesus (and thus a god in some form). This would make it impossible to be both an Atheist and a Christian. Unless you somehow thought someone like Jebus once existed, even if he wasn't really "son of god", and had some things worth saying. But I figure most people would not consider that to be a "christian".

It is a lot like cold reading. And it is more of an overall sense of what is going on. The ability to connect the dots and provide some kind of analysis is important. Weather you agree with it or not, that is part of what he does. Do you even know what "cold reading" is? When you see a psychic or other fortune teller on TV, they will typically give a dozen or 2 "predictions". They know almost all of them will be wrong, but by giving enough guesses they can expect maybe one might be "correct". Then, what happens is that the person looking at the preductions will latch on to the one correct preduction, and forget the more than dozen that were wrong. Furthermore, they'll remain vague. They will try to skew the results by making more 'educated' guesses (e.g. an older person might be asked about a deceased spouse because elderly people often become widows/widowers). But its still guessing. The same goes with Alex Jones. He makes a whole mess of B.S. "predictions". Most of them are right out to lunch. A few might seem correct, but only if you massage the facts a bit. But his followers ignore the dozen misses, and concentrate on the single hit.

Thats... not an analogy. At best that's a rather transparent attempt to tarnish my argument by linking it with racism. Now, if you really do want to go that route... if someone said "keep immigrants out because they're bad for the country" they'd have to give a reason why they're bad... do they increase crime? Do they put more strain on our social services? And whatever reasons were given could be debunked. I've given a rational argument why churches should have their tax exempt statuses removed. You're responded with hysteria and bizarre accusations (OMG They want to ban religion!!!!) But their motive is the argument in this case. Actually, the arguments in the opening post were: - Churches may not help the community at large - Churches don't have to "open their books" - If they are to be considered "charities" they should apply for charitable status just as any other organization would At no point in the opening post was it suggested that churches should be eliminated. I have already shown it, as have you. Actually, no you haven't. Or at least any attempt you've made to make a point has been debunked. You've last posts have been largley involving attacks against the arguer rather than the argument. Once again, its not completely subjective because I'm smart enough to know when I benefit as opposed to when someone else benefits. You see, this is why many hold religious people in such low regard. Doesn't whatever religious book you follow have some sort of rule against lying? Yet here you are... lying away. First of all, I never made any comment about whether reading old people scripture was charitible or helpful. So you're lying right then and there. Secondly, your comment about how I consider "recording old architecutre" to be helpful ignores the part where I actually put it into context... its only helpful (charitable) if its done for selfless reasons. It will just be easier for you to remove the charity status, or to make religion illegal after you get the constitution changed. That part of the post makes absolutely no sense. Removal of charity status probably would not require a constitutional change. (After all the net result would be the church would be treated as all other organizations... true equality, rather than the situation now where your particular religious beliefs are subsidized by people who have no such beliefs.)

Ok - so documenting old buildings and putting on operas is definitely not charity then. Paying to have an opera put on, if the main goal is to listen to your opera yourself is not charity. Paying to document old buildings may or may not be charity... if the purpose is to make records for your local historical society so that future generations know what the city looked like? That might be charity. Doing so because you're a real estate developer who wants to renovate? No, that's not charity. Actually, morality is not wholy subjective. There are objective components as well. Helping others=morally right Harming others=morally wrong (Even if there's no objective measure for how much harm is done.) I'm pretty sure that everyone can agree that giving millions to someone who was poor would be moraly right, just as beating someone to death with a crowbar would be morally wrong. And please don't get caught up on my use of the term 'morality'. I used it merely as a term to differentiate from "legally". Well, its about how some people want to remove tax-exempt statuses from churches. The fact that someone "doesn't like" religion is irrelevant. If you had a valid point to make, it should stand on its own, apart from any religious beliefs you might have. Attacking the person's motive rather than their argument does not make you right. It means that you have no leg to stand on in the argument. I pointed out the problem with giving churches tax-exempt status... That most of the activities of the church do not fit the dictionary definition of "charity" (i.e. helping others) and whatever charitable activies they do engage in cannot be audited in the same way that secular charities are. If you have a counterpoint for that, present it, rather than trying to hid behind the false front of "religious persecution". Except taking away "tax exempt" status has nothing to do with "removiing religious freedom". If it were done you'd still be able to worship the way you want, donate to your church the way you want. Its just that the rest of society would no longer be subsidizing your time hanging out in the church.

What I find difficult to understand is where this definition comes from. The CRA doesn't use it and I don't buy into it. Is it yours ? Its the dictionary defintion of "charity". From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/charity - Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. - Something given to help the needy; alms. - Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity. Notice that those defintions specify that its other people who are getting helped, not the person making the donation? Note that nowhere in there does it say "giving money to someone so that you can get a tangible benefit for yourself". The church doesn't charge admission, so yes these are different groups of people. They're not charging admission but they are getting donations. Without that the church could not stay open. The fact that admission isn't a fixed price is not relevant. People donate, they get what they want (a sermon, mass, church music once a week, etc.) The fact that payment isn't enforced, and some people pay more than others (or some pay nothing at all) is not the issue. The issue is that the donors themselves are directly benefitting (even if some may be overpaying.) The only people who could say that church donations are purely charitable are people who give to the church but never attend themselves. And once again... there can be a difference between a 'legal defintion' and a 'moral definition'. If the government said "Stealing under $5 is not a crime", or "kicking pupies is good", that would make both legally true, but not morally true. Then why isn't this thread called 'Charity Tax Exemptions need to be re-examined' ? I have no idea why its called what it is. I didn't start the thread. There is some justification for targeting 'religious exemptions' over others... religious donations make up the biggest single chunk of tax-exempt contributions in Canada (at roughly 40%). If you're going to discuss required changes, it makes most sense to start with ones that make the biggest impact. See: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012001/t/11637/tbl05-eng.htm I'll tell you what though, you're more than welcome to start another thread discussing other charities. You can ask "why is Opera/MADD/astrologers/etc. considered charitable organizations"? Heck, I might even respond to it myself. I'll agree that Opera companies and astologer organizations should not be "charities". I rather suspect that it will be a rather dull thread as most people would probably say "yup you're right... that shouldn't be a charity either". No, there were 2 replies because I was responding to 2 different posts you made.

I thought that Canada Revenue did random audits of registered charities. (Not all of them would be examined, but some would.) See: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4118/t4118-08e.pdf

This is why the CRA doesn't defer to your opinion in these matters. What, so you're claiming that all laws are perfect and should never ever be changed? Sorry, sometimes bad laws are made and need to be updated/changed. The idea of charitable deductions for churches is one such law. And keep in mind that church donations have not always been tax exempt... I believe that provision was added in the 1930s. If we were in the 1910s/1920s, would we be correct in keeping church contributions taxable because "that's what the government has been doing"? The problem is the whole "some works" part... its pretty much impossible to separate the charitable portion of what the church does from the non-charitable "cater to the people who are paying donations" bit. Actually charities regularly get audited by the government to ensure that they are acting in a transparent manner. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cgd/fndrsng-eng.html Furthermore, when you are dealing with a "regular" charity, it is easy to see what portion goes towards its mission and what portion is "overhead". That can't easily be done with a church.

The thing that's getting across is that you don't seem to understand the concept of "charity". Charity involves helping others. Other people who need help. Not just the people who donate and/or attend the church. Please, tell me, what about that concept do you find difficult to understand? But if the people receiving the church service are the same people that are donating, then its not charity. They're paying (through their donations) for something that they themselve are receiving. Its no more "charity" than if I go buy my own ticket to listen to Tony Robbins speak, or visit a psychiatrist to talk about "my problems", or go to the bar to complain to the bartender. If the developer is donating to the 'old architecture charity' which is paying you to do it, then... well we're back at Square One (not Mississauga) aren't we ? Unless of course the developer is making a list of old buildings to know what he can tear down/redevelop. Your example is confusing. Who is paying who to sing the songs ? Not sure why its confusing.... The kids are paying. They're buying tickets to get in to the park to listen to you sing the songs. In which case you doing the singing is not "charity" any more than Britney Spears putting on a concert at the local arena is "charity". Similarly, a minister giving a sermon to people who have given donations is not an example of charity. I'd be the one paying to see him, I'd be the one benefitting. So... not charity. The fact that the Canadian Opera Company is considered a charitable organization does not justify considering a church as a charity. What it means is that the government should remove the charitiable status of the Canadian Opera Company. But people donate to the church, get those donations as a tax break, and often provide no benefit to anyone outside the congregation.