Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
All you assholes - especially Geezer - I didn't criticize the study. I know, this is your way of painting me as something I am not.

Go back a READ my posts - if you actually know how to read - OK ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts, then even regular donations are contributing to charity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Well, there is a slight misperception here (to which I contributed). It's not the money that is counted in the survey, it's the number of people. The people who do nothing more than make a church contribution are counted as charitable contributors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Do charities ever use roads?

Does that mean my taxes that build and maintain the roads are regular charitable donations?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
For a long time, taxes were levied on consumption or production. Excise taxes, tariffs, custom duties were the way the government was supported. When we started taxing individual income we started to penalize individuals for their hard work and I don’t think that has encouraged hardworking American spirit to continue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Also addressed in the book. Charitable contributions are defined as those given freely, without coercion or the possibility of coercion. So no. Your taxes aren't charitable contributions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I think Rue has made a solid case that very little of the donations to churches (not to "religious causes" like Catholic Charities or Salvation Army, but to the actual churches) goes to charity.

---

Quote:

---

The other side of the question is whether groups like Amnesty International are counted as "charity". I tend to donate rather heavily to "rights" groups, as I think it's better to give people the opportunity to free themselves from enslavement rather than simply to toss some bread over the barbed wire.

But I don't know if that "counts". Does your book clarify this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

If you bump this back up top in about 9 hours, I'll remember to reply. Or PM me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
They're defined that way in the book, but a few people are taking issue with the books definition, so that's hardly an argument winner.

---

Quote:

---

I freely give money to my martial arts class, and some of that money builds and maintains infrastructure used for charity. So my Martial arts subscription is a charitable donation.

---

Quote:

---

So would you consider money contributed to the local symphony orchestra charity? An orchestra provides services only to a self-selected group of music lovers, just like a church provides services to a self-selected group of co-religionists. Neither one is going to do as much to alleviate poverty or stop injustice as an organization specifically created to do so: though I'd guess that churches, in the main, provide more anti-poverty and civil rights support than orchestras.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Even the people discussing the definition of charity aren't suggesting that taxes are a form of charity, so that's hardly a cogent argument.

---

Quote:

---

Do you freely give money to your martial arts class in exchange for some specified set of services they are expected to provide in exchange? If so, then you're involved in a business transaction, not a charitable donation. Now, the martial arts class may be making a charitable donation if they are able to provide free lessons due to the money you pay them to buy services.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
And if the money you freely give to the church is used to keep the church going so that you can continue to receive your Sunday service, hows that any different? Now the church may then use some of that money to make a charitable donation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
And if the money you freely give to the church is used to keep the church going so that you can continue to receive your Sunday service, hows that any different? Now the church may then use some of that money to make a charitable donation.

---

Because the church will provide its services to you, or anyone, without you having to pay for it. And your contributions to the church are used to provide services to everyone who asks, not just you. It's not you paying for services that benefit only you, like your deal with the martial arts school.

Of course, if you want to claim your martial arts school payments or your tax payment as charity on your next income tax return, I'm sure Inland Revenue will give you a practical definition of what's charity and what's not.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If it's self-defined, then music-lovers prolly WOULD define their contributions as charity, because nobody wants to admit that they're giving money to a pet project which benefits mainly themselves. Pretty much the same as churchgoers, I'd guess.

---

Quote:

---

In any case, I dislike the notion of "charity". I think we'd all be better served by fairness and compassion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
...but since I'm saying contributions to your church aren't charitable contributions, not that my martial arts contributions are, it's a fairly moot point.

---

Quote:

---

Second, I doubt the efficiency of government to do anything, including giving money away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW, when I type in 'Inland Revenue' and it takes me to the HMRC site, I assume some folk still call it by that name.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So to go at it from the other side, what would you consider valid charitable contributions?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

What is, is a more difficult question than what is not. Perhaps charity could be defined as giving materially (money, time, cans of food etc) to a cause which you are not likely to receive any direct personal benefit from. Would this exclude giving to your church? Yes, because you're giving to keep your Church going, which is a part of your community and social life, and thus is directly benefiting you.

Religious people tend to have the church as the centre of their social life, so I'd say seeing including the financial support of a religious persons social life as charity, unfair if you don't include secular social pursuits as well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So would you consider donations to a local orchestra or theatre group to be charitable? Most people who donate to such organizations also attend performances, and thus receive a social benefit. For many people, their participation in such an organization is the center of their social life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
So would you consider donations to a local orchestra or theatre group to be charitable? Most people who donate to such organizations also attend performances, and thus receive a social benefit. For many people, their participation in such an organization is the center of their social life.

---

If a Church is a charity, why not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Sorry, but given your repeated posts trying to prove that money given to churches is not charity, that's a pretty lame answer. Don't you have an opinion?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, since (in the U.S., anyway) more religious folk of both liberal and conservative persuasions give to secular charities than the non-religious, perhaps the whole "religious giving isn't charity" argument is moot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

For my own part, if there is a theater group supported by charitable donations, designed to provide free artsy fartsy experience to the neighborhood, I would consider it a charity.

Sure, some givers doubtless attend, but the theater is open to everyone.

So, yeah, it'd totally be a charity. They exist to provide community service with funds received.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Given my repeated statements that giving to churches isn't a charity for the same reasons you state giving to an orchestra would be, it was a pretty "lame" question...For the purposes of the book, I would think the best working definition you could use would be the one I gave earlier.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, since (in the U.S., anyway) more religious folk of both liberal and conservative persuasions give to secular charities than the non-religious, perhaps the whole "religious giving isn't charity" argument is moot.

---

Any evidence to back that up?

---