tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7064551706234116952.post2277201204792722374..comments2023-03-26T09:24:38.080-05:00Comments on Taken 4 Granted: Why do taxpayers fund churches?David Granthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14602374868453497065noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7064551706234116952.post-45856354876002712442008-09-08T10:11:00.000-05:002008-09-08T10:11:00.000-05:00For posterity's sake, I wanted to ntoe that my...For posterity's sake, I wanted to ntoe that my dad posted this as a Letter To The Editor on the London Free Press' website.<BR/><BR/>http://lfpress.ca/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=20605&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=churches&s_letter_type=Letter%20to%20Editor&s_topic=churches&s_letter_status=Active&s=letters<BR/><BR/>There was one response from "John Zylstra." I'll quote it here for the record...<BR/><BR/>"From a social point of view, churches are as valid as arenas, fine arts centers, community centers, community swimming pools, and parks. Churches get no government funding whatsoever, while all these other buildings and centers do. These other organizations also get tax deductions for donations in most cases, on top of direct governement grants and funding. But, besides the social impacts of churches, they also provide direct assistance for the poor, camps and classes for children, foreign aid or domestic aid for needy situations, help for orphans, and care for elderly and other needy members or community people, for which they do not get paid. They have an impact on reducing costs to governments for social needs. It is also true that those who donate to churches tend to also be the same ones who donate more to all other causes as well. Certainly churches deserve tax reductions as much or more than an art museum, or a wildlife fund."Jamie A. Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07398076133406398223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7064551706234116952.post-48848582883468103202008-09-03T11:35:00.000-05:002008-09-03T11:35:00.000-05:001. Good point. 50% to those in need would change ...1. Good point. 50% to those in need would change our world.<BR/>2. It shouldn't change giving habits as people shouldn't give to get.<BR/>3. Ministries that genuinely do help the poor would potentially benefit.<BR/>4. People would take more personal responsibility for their giving.<BR/><BR/>I'll write another blog sometime called 'seduced by a charitable receipt.'David Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14602374868453497065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7064551706234116952.post-24495223322544058272008-09-03T08:14:00.000-05:002008-09-03T08:14:00.000-05:00Oh, snap!With your example, we could argue that $4...Oh, snap!<BR/><BR/>With your example, we could argue that $43,000 should be given to those in need to make it justifiable as charity. The counterpoint is that things like Sunday School and Nursery are providing services to the community free of charge.<BR/><BR/>But wow, that's a serious blow. Very few people give money to their church as it is, so how many people would give if there was no charitable receipt for it? Ouch.Jamie A. Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07398076133406398223noreply@blogger.com