Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

montreal.ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#311

Post by dungdongdang »

disposekinetics wrote: post #289
dungdongdang wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

then they need to close down and move. if i buy a house for 20k and when I retire the property values are sky-high and the property taxes, which pay for things like roads and schools are too much for me to afford, i have to move. the people giving money to churches to attend that church, should pick up the cost of going to that church. which includes property taxes. if they are not willing to pay for that, it's their…

This seems like a flaw in property taxes not churches.

yes, churches not being taxes is a flaw in the tax system, not churches. churches and everyone else can be and do whatever they want to. welcome to the discussion.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#312

Post by skissane »

siwatanejo wrote: post #61
ars wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The state is giving them special treatment. No it's not. All non-profits are untaxed. If you are going to charge churches, then charge all non-profits. Personally I think that's a bad policy.

Don't you find it funny that an org such as the church is a non-profit? I mean, sure, it has not stakeholders, but woah boy their members get decent salaries. I guess I should incorporate a non-profit.

> but woah boy their members get decent salaries

That really depends on the denomination.

Sure, there are pastors of evangelical megachurches flying around in private jets.

On the other hand, other religious groups often have quite poorly paid clergy. I remembering hearing about an Eastern Orthodox parish, where after paying for the building, utilities, etc, the parish didn't have any money left to pay the priest. So he is working a full-time secular job, his wife works part-time (as well as looking after the kids), and the priest does all his religious duties after work and on weekends. (The plan was to convert enough people to Eastern Orthodoxy that the parish could fund the priest's salary and he could quit his secular job; hasn't happened yet, who knows if it ever will.)

One of my former work colleagues was a Protestant minister. His church was too poor to pay him anything. He worked for Oracle during the week, and ran church services for free on the weekend.

A lot of religious denominations are struggling with ageing congregations and declining membership. Even if there is sometimes still a lot of money at headquarters, when you get to the periphery of shrinking local congregations things are often very frugal.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#313

Post by throwaway894345 »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #306
throwaway894345 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, but the idea that we should have some sense of mercy, grace, forgiveness, etc that even permeates secular society. It’s an important value, and we’re seeing it break down as mobs of allegedly grown adults harass strangers for decades-old off-color remarks made as children, or for remarks made by family or acquaintances, or etc. I think Hitchens said that he didn’t like Christianity, but it may have bee…

I'm sure Hitchens was against all dogmatic religions and ideologies.

The point of his quote is that he realized they weren’t uniformly bad. I’d go further and suggest that it’s not even possible to have a successful secular society without a religious cultural substrate, at least not for very long. I don’t mean this as a slight against atheists or agnostics; only that religion is eminently functional to the extent that we don’t find significant societies that exist without a significant religious substrate in any place or time. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s certainly an interesting question in my mind.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#314

Post by throwaway894345 »

dungdongdang wrote: post #309
throwaway894345 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the people giving money to churches to attend that church, should pick up the cost of going to that church. which includes property taxes. if they are not willing to pay for that, it's their problem. excusing churches from these taxes puts the burden for the church not on its members, but on everyone. Your whole premise here is that property taxes should be considered part of the cost of attending church (your firs…

umm, no I don't. everyone pays taxes by default. it is you who needs to say something more persuasive than churches should not pay taxes because they are churches.

No, you (not I) made a claim: churches should pay taxes. I didn’t make any claim, at least not here. I only pointed out that you didn’t support your point. Secondly, I don’t see why the “separation of church and state” position needs further defense. It’s an established precedent and status quo for hundreds of years. To that end, your “everyone pays taxes by default” claim is obviously wrong because churches don’t pay taxes by default. Moreover, proponents of separation of church and state don’t need you to find their arguments compelling; their will is law—your position is the challenger and it needs persuasive support if you would like the status quo changed.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#315

Post by giardini »

earthscienceman wrote: post #43
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #4

Churches get a bad rap these days, for many reasons. I want to take a minute to defend them. Right away, I want to say that I am not defending religion-driven bigotry, nor megachurches, nor abuse. I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. churches are still where communities meet, where people connect with the spiritual world, and also the ones doing most of the "heavy lifting" on any kind of charity activity. They…

This is such an important point. It's going to go against the grain at hackernews, but taxing churches in the US is a terrible idea. If you wanted to further the divide between the "liberal city"/"conservative rural" American cultures, this would be a great way to do it. If you grew up in a rural area of the flyover states you would know that churches form the backbone of these rural communities. For example, the chu…

earthscienceman says>"It's going to go against the grain at hackernews, but taxing churches in the US is a terrible idea.I fail to see why.

All financial dealings of churches go unaudited. They should be subject to annual open public audit, at the least. I think they should be taxed as any other corporate entity. They frequently compete with normal corporations and should be given no preference. As it is they pay neither federal nor local taxes in most jurisdictions, if not all.

BTW I'm very conservative. My inclination would be to do what the British and the French did centuries ago - confiscate all the properties of the churches.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#316

Post by dungdongdang »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #314
dungdongdang wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

umm, no I don't. everyone pays taxes by default. it is you who needs to say something more persuasive than churches should not pay taxes because they are churches.

No, you (not I) made a claim: churches should pay taxes. I didn’t make any claim, at least not here. I only pointed out that you didn’t support your point. Secondly, I don’t see why the “separation of church and state” position needs further defense. It’s an established precedent and status quo for hundreds of years. To that end, your “everyone pays taxes by default” claim is obviously wrong because churches don’t pa…

ah yes. the tax exception for a church means churches don't pay taxes by default. i like that circular logic. just like women not being able to vote for hundreds of years - they shouldn't vote now.

your claim was that I needed to prove my point that churches should not pay taxes. i said the claim is invalid, because taxes are paid by default, by everyone, unless an exception is granted. so what needs to be proven is why the exception should be granted to churches.

this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. you have profit, or own property - you pay taxes on it. being religious is not a valid argument to pass on city expenses to everyone else on the block.

my position is not a "challenger." rules and laws are not written in stone as the word of god you pretend the bible is. they need to be reexamined frequently, and someone granted a tax exemption needs to prove again why that exception is still valid.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#317

Post by dang »

john4534243 wrote: post #201
wernercd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'll replace Christianity with what? Another religion? Atheism? Other religions have the same problems and Atheism is its own religion - requires faith to believe. Humans are religious beings... you won't get rid of it by only focusing on the negative aspects of your own experiences.

> And you'll replace Christianity with what? Another religion? Atheism? Religion is a disease like cancer and aids. You dont replace it with another disease. Atheism is the cure.

Religious flamewar is not allowed on HN. Please don't post like this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#318

Post by dang »

ranman wrote: post #122
stormdennis wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up in the southern United States and experienced all manner of churches. They’re universally bad. How many churches are you an expert on, exactly?

Well I was raised by a famous “pastor” who traveled around and “preached” to both receptive and dismissive congregations across the US. I experienced more churches than most people. I’m telling you this whole Christianity thing is a scam. sudo apt-get remove religion It’s a mental cancer.

Posting about your personal experience is fine, but religious flamewar is not ok and not allowed on HN. Please don't post like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#319

Post by wolfhumble »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #305
wolfhumble wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of being a Christian is to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself. In if you wonder how far the love of your neighbour stretches, the goalpost has ben set at the very end: Love your enemies.[See: Mark 12:30-31 and Matthew 5:44] And this follows and is natural because God is LOVE [1 John 4:7-21]. I have a hard time believing AI will fulfil this role. For would it be optimized for gains here and no…

What about all the people who are considered "sinners" ? There's no love for them in the Bible

If that was the case, I would be the last in line! ;-)

But God's whole purpose was to save sinners like me and you through Jesus Christ: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us". [1 John 1, 8-10 NKJV]

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#320

Post by keiferski »

mattmanser wrote: post #304
keiferski wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, actually, Europe is the main exception to the rest of the world. America is in-line with most of Africa, the Middle East, Asia, India, and South America in that religion still plays a major role in everyday life. In fact, religions are growing, not shrinking, worldwide.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, America is the exception of the wealthy countries that can afford extensive education. What might have previously been commonly called first-world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion#/media/Fil... See how the US is an outlier?

The thing is, the concept of religion as a distinct, separate part of culture is basically a Western concept itself - and one that many scholars don't find to be very solid. Take Japan for example: Shintoism and Buddhism are very woven into the culture of modern Japan. Rituals, shrines, and other associated practices are quite prevalent and most of the population interacts with them on a regular basis. Yet your link lists Japan as being the second-least religious country, after China, which also has a number of beliefs that essentially qualify as 'religious' in nature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan

In the Western world, the concept of humanist, egalitarian democracy is more-or-less an extension of certain Christian ethical beliefs that preceded it, so again, this definition of 'not-religious' is itself pretty problematic.

Post reply on HN