Religion reduces empathy

[TimG]

It's likely that people who feel morally superior are drawn to organized religion.

That is not my experience. The most insufferably arrogant people in our society today are left wing secularists who think they have a god given right to pass laws controlling what other people are allowed to do. Edited August 31, 2016 by TimG

[Boges]

It's just a suggestion.

Legitimate charity work should be evaluated on the same criteria as non-profits for tax deduction purposes.

But not the whole organization.

People who want churches and religion can pay for it.

Morally, I am opposed to and I do not want to pay for churches, religion and trappings.

.

They do pay for it, with charitable donations.

[jacee]

They do pay for it, with charitable donations.

We all pay for it, because of the tax exempt status of churches.

.

[Altai]

We cant accept this kind of "surveys" as "reliable scientific sources". We could find hundreds of thousands similar surveys with different results. Everyone can make a "survey" somewhere unknown with someones unknown unders some conditions unknown.

Trying to create a perception on people that "religions are bad" is not a moral behavior. By making these kind of news to blame religious people is a good example that how atheist prespective contradict with itself even at the first second. They make a great roughness to other people by claiming that they are the best one.

Atheist: I am an atheist and I am superior to you religious craps.
Religious: But you insult me
Atheist: According to a survey we are the kindest persons you assh..le
Religious: But you ...
Atheist : Shut up youu terrorist, we are the nicest people on the Earth
Religions : But you contradic....
Atheist : F...ck offfff !!!



Another survey below finds just the opposite results with OP's survey.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/04/12/religion-in-everyday-life/

Edited August 31, 2016 by Altai

[Bryan]

We all pay for it, because of the tax exempt status of churches.

.

You don't pay anything. Church based charity and mission work saves us all money.

[jacee]

You don't pay anything. Church based charity and mission work saves us all money.

Then let them claim tax exemption only where they can demonstrate charitable programs available to all.

They shouldn't be tax exempt for churches and religious programs for members.

We shouldn't have to subsidize that.

.

Edited August 31, 2016 by jacee

[Boges]

Then let them claim tax exemption only where they can demonstrate charitable programs available to all.

They shouldn't be tax exempt for churches and religious programs for members.

We shouldn't have to subsidize that.

.

You're not subsidizing anything. No money is leaving your pocket. As member Slick points out, Religious organizations have to be transparent about their charitable claims.

How about we don't subsidize political parties by providing tax exemptions when we donate to them as well? I don't want tax money being refunded to someone who donates to a political party I don't agree with.

Are you proposing to do away with issuing tax receipts for to people who donate to a church? If so we should do away with it for all charitable purposes.

Or are you saying that Churches need to actually declare donations given to them as income and subject to HST. That's a pretty extreme opinion TBH.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Boges

[jacee]

You're not subsidizing anything. No money is leaving your pocket.

The money churches are not paying in taxes is money we have to pay in taxes. Yes, we are subsidizing them.

How about we don't subsidize political parties by providing tax exemptions when we donate to them as well? I don't want tax money being refunded to someone who donates to a political party I don't agree with.

That's governance. It is our responsibility to support it. It is not my responsibility to support someone's religion.

Are you proposing to do away with issuing tax receipts for to people who donate to a church?

If so we should do away with it for all charitable purposes.

Or are you saying that Churches need to actually declare donations given to them as income and subject to HST. That's a pretty extreme opinion TBH.

I'm suggesting that churches get tax exemption for their legitimate charitable work, but not for their church properties and operations otherwise.

.

[Boges]

The money churches are not paying in taxes is money we have to pay in taxes. Yes, we are subsidizing them.

They're only really exempt from income taxes. Income they receive from charitable donations.

That's governance. It is our responsibility to support it. It is not my responsibility to support someone's religion.

No it's not, let political parties foot the bill for the work they do. Why are they taking money from me? I don't support my tax money going to a supporter of the NDP. Especially considering the refund you get from making a political donation is far bigger than that of a charitable donation.

I'm suggesting that churches get tax exemption for their legitimate charitable work, but not for their church properties and operations otherwise.

How about paying their staff to do charitable work. Or the services/gatherings where they receive the money that they use to do charitable work? You're creating a whole new level of government that has to audit churches for what can or can't be taxed.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Boges

[?Impact]

I came across a study that disagreed with my position, so I will claim the study bogus. I came across another study that agrees with my position, so no matter how shady that study I will proclaim it to be of utmost credibility.

[Boges]

I came across a study that disagreed with my position, so I will claim the study bogus. I came across another study that agrees with my position, so no matter how shady that study I will proclaim it to be of utmost credibility.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.

[jacee]

They're only really exempt from income taxes. Income they receive from charitable donations.

No it's not, let political parties foot the bill for the work they do. Why are they taking money from me? I don't support my tax money going to a supporter of the NDP. Especially considering the refund you get from making a political donation is far bigger than that of a charitable donation.

How about paying their staff to do charitable work. Or the services/gatherings where they receive the money that they use to do charitable work? You're creating a whole new level of government that has to audit churches for what can or can't be taxed.

No. Simply, they should have to justify their tax exemption the same way other charities do. There's a process and rules for that.

Money spent on church business, services - minister's salaries, etc. should not be tax exempt.

.

.

[Michael Hardner]

This thread has drifted to be about tax exemption for religions. Please get back on topic.

[Guest]

This thread has drifted to be about tax exemption for religions. Please get back on topic.

In the OP it was suggested that the linked study justifies the removal of religious tax exemptions.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, Slick - I was going by the thread title and discussion on a previous page. You are correct. Carry on everyone !

[Guest]

No. Simply, they should have to justify their tax exemption the same way other charities do. There's a process and rules for that.

Money spent on church business, services - minister's salaries, etc. should not be tax exempt.

In Canada, churches have to apply to the CRA for status as a registered charity. They do justify their exemption the exact same way other charities do.

To qualify as a registered charity the purpose of an organization must pass a two part test. First the goal of the organization must meet one of the core purposes recognized by the CRA which are: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, or certain other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the law regards as charitable.

The second part of the test is a little more vague but basically the CRA determines if:

1) the charity’s work confers a tangible, or an objectively measurable and socially useful benefit, directly or indirectly.

2) does that benefit have a public character, in that it is directed to the public or a sufficient part of the public.

So your beef with churches is actually a beef with the CRA and what they consider to be a charitable purpose. Should the simple 'advancement of religion' be considered a charitable purpose? In my opinion, probably not. However counselling, child care, food and poverty relief programs and even weekly religious services involving a sermon and social gathering should qualify as charitable.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Guest

[Boges]

No. Simply, they should have to justify their tax exemption the same way other charities do. There's a process and rules for that.

Money spent on church business, services - minister's salaries, etc. should not be tax exempt.

Why not? It's made by charitable donations. Are charitable dollars put towards administration to conventional charities not tax exempt?

[jacee]

In Canada, churches have to apply to the CRA for status as a registered charity. They do justify their exemption the exact same way other charities do.

To qualify as a registered charity the purpose of an organization must pass a two part test. First the goal of the organization must meet one of the core purposes recognized by the CRA which are: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, or certain other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the law regards as charitable.

The "advancement of religion" is not a charitable purpose that benefits society, imo.

The second part of the test is a little more vague but basically the CRA determines if:

1) the charitys work confers a tangible, or an objectively measurable and socially useful benefit, directly or indirectly.

2) does that benefit have a public character, in that it is directed to the public or a sufficient part of the public.

Precisely why the operations of churches for their members should not be tax exempt.

So your beef with churches is actually a beef with the CRA and what they consider to be a charitable purpose. Should the simple 'advancement of religion' be considered a charitable purpose? In my opinion, probably not. However counselling, child care, food and poverty relief programs and even weekly religious services involving a sermon and social gathering should qualify as charitable.

Then we agree.

"Advancement of religion" should not be tax exempt.

.

Edited September 1, 2016 by jacee

[Boges]

I guess it's impossible to have an argument with your opinion, even though it's not really backed up by anything except hatred for Religion.

Any political party that proposes that idea will lose, and lose bad. Not just from those passive Conservative Christians but from every Ethnic Group Liberals try to court.

All the placating that Liberals do to Muslims will be for not if they try and remove their tax exempt status.

Kind of like the political suicide axing the Catholic school system will be.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Boges

[Guest]

The "advancement of religion" is not a charitable purpose that benefits society, imo.

Precisely why the operations of churches for their members should not be tax exempt.

Then we agree.

"Advancement of religion" should not be tax exempt.

.

I think this is just a definition issue. The pure advancement of religion isn't a charitable act, but most of what traditional churches do I would consider a charitable. The sermons, the community, the fellowship, the counselling, and the traditional community charitable activities all qualify in my opinion. Provided they are meeting the guidelines of a registered charity, I have no problem with the tax exempt status.

Religion is certainly not necessary and the benefits can be achieved in other groups, but they are valuable to some. I am comfortable with the natural and accelerating decline in religious participation, we don't need to attempt to tax them.

[Guest]

Kind of like the political suicide axing the Catholic school system will be.

I don't think it would be anymore. The fact that it is a perk for just one religion and it would save Ontario $1.5 Billion annually leads me to believe that it would be a popular move among fiscal cons, secularists and probably not a big deal among non-Catholics.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Guest

[Boges]

I think this is just a definition issue. The pure advancement of religion isn't a charitable act, but most of what traditional churches do I would consider a charitable. The sermons, the community, the fellowship, the counselling, and the traditional community charitable activities all qualify in my opinion. Provided they are meeting the guidelines of a registered charity, I have no problem with the tax exempt status.

Religion is certainly not necessary and the benefits can be achieved in other groups, but they are valuable to some. I am comfortable with the natural and accelerating decline in religious participation, we don't need to attempt to tax them.

You offer a soup kitchen for the poor.

All fund-raising measures to support that soup kitchen are collected through tithing at a service where staff are being paid. How can the Soup kitchen be tax exempt but the service where the money was derived not?

And if there is a minute of prayer at that soup kitchen, does it make all the charitable qualities of it null and void?

That money is much better served paying a civil servant $70,000 a year to push paper around.

There are secular charities but an overwhelming number of them are religious based.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Boges

[Boges]

I don't think it would be anymore. The fact that it is a perk for just one religion and it would save Ontario $1.5 Billion annually leads me to believe that it would be a popular move among fiscal cons, secularists and probably not a big deal among non-Catholics.

The Ontario PCs won't do it. The NDP have nothing to gain by doing it. The Liberals have been in power for 13 years, not a peep from them. They even propped it up when denouncing John Tory's plan to expand it to all religious schools.

[Guest]

You offer a soup kitchen for the poor.

All fund-raising measures to support that soup kitchen are collected through tithing at a service where staff are being paid. How can the Soup kitchen be tax exempt but the service where the money was derived not?

I'm not opposed to the church itself being tax exempt, just the wording "advancement of religion." For example should I be able to start a charitable organization that raises funds to run ads designed to increase attendance at local churches? I think that would qualify as advancing religion.

[Boges]

I'm not opposed to the church itself being tax exempt, just the wording "advancement of religion." For example should I be able to start a charitable organization that raises funds to run ads designed to increase attendance at local churches? I think that would qualify as advancing religion.

I don't believe you're tax exempt from purchasing those ad though. The tax exemption comes about by not having to pay taxes on the donations that are made.

I don't think donations for any purpose should be taxable. I'm giving money to a cause, I believe in. Government shouldn't be able to take their cut.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Boges