Public funding for religious nuts and flakey artists

[porch]

First off, I'd like to thank all Canadian citizens, and in particular Quebecois and Nova Scotians, for, over the years, giving me several thousand dollars to enjoy myself; Hanging around my apartment getting high, listening to music, and making creepy drawings that will be seen by, at most, a couple thousand people.

For most of my life I've taken it for granted that it's just sense for the state to fund arts, culture, recreation, parks, and so on. At the same time, I have a bit of an anti-religion bent, and got to thinking about the state sponsorship of churches (through tax breaks). It seemed clear to me that churches shouldn't be given any special status unless it can be shown that they're of material benefit. But when I turned the same critical eye towards my own interests, I couldn't come up with any kind of evidence that funding for the arts created any demonstrable positive effects for society, either.

Now I find myself turning around to the somewhat uncomfortable position that churches should get breaks merely on the basis of some people getting some sort of satisfaction out of it. Perhaps I'm finally finding meaning in the sentiment, "Canada is a mosaic, not a melting pot."?

Discuss?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If it kept you off the streets and from bothering the rest of us, I might just consider it money well spent.

:jaw:

[Beerina]

If it kept you off the streets and from bothering the rest of us, I might just consider it money well spent.

:jaw:

Seriously, in some debate on a modem BBS lo decades past, someone suggested a general welfare program was good because it kept crime rates down.

Ummm, so we're basically bribing bad people to not do bad things?



As for funding "arts" (leave religion out for now yikes) it's an attempt to recreate the patronage system of the days of lords, kings, and emperors, except in this case with politicians and the pseudo-justification of democracy wanting it.

"My goodness," suggests the emperor. "We have more artists, and the 3 best recognized talents. The Pope down there has fewer, and only numbres 4 and 5. Lol!"

Religion operated similarly, with the giant churches replacing known artists. And if you could get a known artist to paint your ceiling...wow! The pride the locals feel in their church is worth it's weight in mercenaries and enforcers.



Oh wait. I guess all three are exactly the same after all.

[Giz]

Seriously, in some debate on a modem BBS lo decades past, someone suggested a general welfare program was good because it kept crime rates down.

Ummm, so we're basically bribing bad people to not do bad things?


In the same way that aid given to Germany by the USA after the Second World War was a bribe not to do bad things (again)...

[paximperium]

In the same way that aid given to Germany by the USA after the Second World War was a bribe not to do bad things (again)...
No it was to build up a western style democracy West Germany as a bastion against communist East Germany and the Eastern Block.

[Giz]

No it was to build up a western style democracy West Germany as a bastion against communist East Germany and the Eastern Block.

And welfare aid is supposed to get recipients back on their feet as productive members of society rather than as antisocial criminal elements...

[Cainkane1]

You ever hear of Merle Terlesky?

[Cavemonster]

I'm in the arts, and thanks to grants from all levels of government, have been able to bring puppet shows about cultures around the world to thousands and thousands of children.

Yes, I think it's money very well spent.

[Lithrael]

Seriously, in some debate on a modem BBS lo decades past, someone suggested a general welfare program was good because it kept crime rates down.

Ummm, so we're basically bribing bad people to not do bad things?

Nah, that would be bribing weak, desperate people not to do bad things. The strong desperate people just appreciate the help, assuming they're not too proud to accept it. The really bad eggs will do bad things regardless.

[MG1962]

I'm in the arts, and thanks to grants from all levels of government, have been able to bring puppet shows about cultures around the world to thousands and thousands of children.

Yes, I think it's money very well spent.

It is an age old arguement about funding the humanities. As long as the funding is relevant to your culture, I have no problem with it. An example of what I dont like. The Australian govenment paid a grant to allow researchers to investigate clinker techniques of European shipbuilders in the 16th Cent. What possible relevance has this to do with Australia

On the other hand, the government also paid a grant for an Aboriginal performing arts group to form....In my mind, money very well spent. I think it was wonderful for kids to have a chance to experience a culture with a 40,000 year history. Especially when it is part of our collective heritage

[Cavemonster]

It is an age old arguement about funding the humanities. As long as the funding is relevant to your culture, I have no problem with it. An example of what I dont like. The Australian govenment paid a grant to allow researchers to investigate clinker techniques of European shipbuilders in the 16th Cent. What possible relevance has this to do with Australia

On the other hand, the government also paid a grant for an Aboriginal performing arts group to form....In my mind, money very well spent. I think it was wonderful for kids to have a chance to experience a culture with a 40,000 year history. Especially when it is part of our collective heritage

Of course, there are arts grants which have very little benefit to anyone.
The same can be said of science grants, military spending, hell even bridge building.

The fact is that arts spending, at least in the US, is a tiny drop in the bucket. I don't know about Canada, but here, we spend more on worthless military projects and extraeneous charges to companies like Haliburton, than we spend on all of arts and culture in total.

[MG1962]

Of course, there are arts grants which have very little benefit to anyone.
The same can be said of science grants, military spending, hell even bridge building.

LOL true - however the bridge builders have an advantage, a giant bauble that everyone goes ooohh and aaahh over as the sun glints of it. A splash of paint on a canvas looks far less impressive, especially if it cost as much as the bridge

[Cavemonster]

LOL true - however the bridge builders have an advantage, a giant bauble that everyone goes ooohh and aaahh over as the sun glints of it. A splash of paint on a canvas looks far less impressive, especially if it cost as much as the bridge

At least in the US, there's very very little public money for either aquisition or creation of new work.

People read that, for instance a Pollock can go for millions, and that arts funding exists and jump to the conclusion that tax dollars paid millions of dollars for a Pollock or The next Pollock.

The vast majority of Public Arts funding in the US goes to exhibition, education, and operating costs for arts organizations. Pretty much all public funding for the arts comes through the NEA, which, last year had a budget of about $145million, that's about $3million per state for everything arts related, from support staff and insuring Monets to workshops for 3rd graders.

In contrast, the alaskan Bridge to Nowhere was projected to cost about $400million, about two and a half years of all the federal arts funding there is. The redundant F22 fighter that Congress just cancelled cost $322 million per plane.

So unless every state in the country had zero operating costs and pooled all their money together for several years, they could not possibly come close to wasting even nearly the same amount of taxpayer money as almost every other area of funding regularly does.

[schplurg]

I'm in the arts, and thanks to grants from all levels of government, have been able to bring puppet shows about cultures around the world to thousands and thousands of children.

Yes, I think it's money very well spent.

Funny...this post just proved the opposite to me.

[Shrike]

Nah, that would be bribing weak, desperate people not to do bad things. The strong desperate people just appreciate the help, assuming they're not too proud to accept it. The really bad eggs will do bad things regardless.

In my country, this is the reason most bad apples come out. When they come to receive their welfare in a new Mercedes.
It's more like, the real bad apples (or eggs :)) are 'smart' enough not to draw attention to themselves in this way.

[The Painter]

I'm in the arts, and thanks to grants from all levels of government, have been able to bring puppet shows about cultures around the world to thousands and thousands of children.

Yes, I think it's money very well spent.

Do your Israeli puppets and your Arab/Palestinian/Persian puppets beat each other up ala Punch and Judy?

[Cavemonster]

Do your Israeli puppets and your Arab/Palestinian/Persian puppets beat each other up ala Punch and Judy?

No, but Sesame street in Israel, which receives public funding there, features Israeli and Palestinian children, adults and puppets speaking and teaching each other both Hebrew and Arabic and teaching each other about their cultures and histories.

[The Painter]

No, but Sesame street in Israel, which receives public funding there, features Israeli and Palestinian children, adults and puppets speaking and teaching each other both Hebrew and Arabic and teaching each other about their cultures and histories.

Wow, really? How's that working out? Do they have suicide bomber puppets?

Jeff Dunham does;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go

[HansMustermann]

Bribe or not, the fact is that the bigger the inequality, the more crime there seems to be around. E.g., the USA has the highest GINI index of western nations, and unsurprisingly it also has higher crime rates.

E.g., murders per capita:

- the USA is in place 24 with 0.042802 per 1,000
- France is place 40 with 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
- Australia is place 43 with 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
- Canada is in place 44 with 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
- Germany is place 49 with 0.0116461 per 1,000 people

You're almost 3 times as likely to be murdered in the USA than in Canada. (Heck, the USA has an almost 50% higher murder rate than the country 2 places below it in the top: India.)

I dunno, paying a little more to social security for that seems like a good investment to me.

[porch]

If it kept you off the streets and from bothering the rest of us, I might just consider it money well spent.

:jaw:


That gives me an idea! For my next grant application I'll propose a public intervention, aka bothering people on the street. For the common good, of course.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That gives me an idea! For my next grant application I'll propose a public intervention, aka bothering people on the street. For the common good, of course.

If you need a supporting reference, please let me know. ;)

[porch]

As for funding "arts" (leave religion out for now yikes) it's an attempt to recreate the patronage system of the days of lords, kings, and emperors, except in this case with politicians and the pseudo-justification of democracy wanting it.



A major difference between the old patronage system and one of public funding is that a king is only going to shell out bucks for art that's of interest to him, while a publicly funded artist can make work of no direct interest, or even blatantly oppositional, to the government.

The public ends up paying for some art that's of great popular appeal, some that becomes a commercial success, some that only a handful of people care about, and some that is a failure on almost every level. The system has a lot of absurdities and inefficiencies, but I'm okay with that. Just as I'm okay with paying in to public playgrounds even though I don't have kids, or water polo sessions at the recreation center that I'll never take. Now, I suppose I'm becoming okay with giving churches a break, even though I personally think they suck.

[porch]

You ever hear of Merle Terlesky?

Well, you got me to wikipedia him, but I fail to see the connexion.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I guess it depends how the money is spent. People were up in arms a few years back when the government paid lots of money (I can't remember exactly, but I think it was a couple million), for a painting that consisted of a canvas with a red square on it (or something similar. I'm too lazy to look it up). I can't see why that would be worth some foolish amount of money, or what the government had to do with it in the first place. If some rich person wants to pay that, well, whatever, it's your money, do what you want. When it's tax dollars, two million bucks can be better invested, even if you still spend it on arts and culture. Tax breaks for independent filmmakers, general funding increases for museums, bigger library budgets, there's lots of things.


The problem is, what is art, and how is it best funded. One person will say that making a suit out of meat (that got funding, too, in real life), is stupid and if you want to do it, shell out your own cash. Another person will say that the meat suit represents our shame at our basic humanity and how we function based on our notions of beauty, and that context blah, and aesthetic blah, and awareness blah blah blah, and think that it`s the most clever artistic work ever, and of course we should fund that. Others will say that it`s all a waste and the artists can just pay their own way. No one can agree, so we pretty much just ignore the issue until the government pays two million dollars for a gold-painted toilet or something.

[Skeptic]

Seriously, in some debate on a modem BBS lo decades past, someone suggested a general welfare program was good because it kept crime rates down.

Ummm, so we're basically bribing bad people to not do bad things?

There is an enormous difference between giving someone $X because he threatens to kill someone, and giving someone $X because one thinks that he is likely to use that money in a way that would make him less likely to kill someone in the future.

The difference is, the first person threatens to commit a crime, the other is not. It's like the difference between using contraception and killing a baby -- in both cases the result is the same (one less baby), but not the situation.

[GreyICE]

I guess it depends how the money is spent. People were up in arms a few years back when the government paid lots of money (I can't remember exactly, but I think it was a couple million), for a painting that consisted of a canvas with a red square on it (or something similar. I'm too lazy to look it up). I can't see why that would be worth some foolish amount of money, or what the government had to do with it in the first place. If some rich person wants to pay that, well, whatever, it's your money, do what you want. When it's tax dollars, two million bucks can be better invested, even if you still spend it on arts and culture. Tax breaks for independent filmmakers, general funding increases for museums, bigger library budgets, there's lots of things.

An undisclosed painting by an unknown artist was purchased by an unspecified government for an approximated sum, while an anonymous poster finds it lacking of artistic merit for unspecified reasons. I feel a fair to middling outrage.


The problem is, what is art, and how is it best funded. One person will say that making a suit out of meat (that got funding, too, in real life), is stupid and if you want to do it, shell out your own cash. Another person will say that the meat suit represents our shame at our basic humanity and how we function based on our notions of beauty, and that context blah, and aesthetic blah, and awareness blah blah blah, and think that it`s the most clever artistic work ever, and of course we should fund that. Others will say that it`s all a waste and the artists can just pay their own way. No one can agree, so we pretty much just ignore the issue until the government pays two million dollars for a gold-painted toilet or something.Well except for the artists and the people who care about such things, who continue to enjoy and appreciate much of the government funded art. And who understand that others have different artistic sensibilities, and appreciate the varieties of opinions on the matter. But we're rational, obviously the bloody minority, go back to watching your latest blockbuster, what was the bill for Wolverine: Origins again? More than the entire United States budget for funding the arts?

[porch]

I guess it depends how the money is spent. People were up in arms a few years back when the government paid lots of money (I can't remember exactly, but I think it was a couple million), for a painting that consisted of a canvas with a red square on it (or something similar. I'm too lazy to look it up). I can't see why that would be worth some foolish amount of money, or what the government had to do with it in the first place. If some rich person wants to pay that, well, whatever, it's your money, do what you want. When it's tax dollars, two million bucks can be better invested, even if you still spend it on arts and culture. Tax breaks for independent filmmakers, general funding increases for museums, bigger library budgets, there's lots of things.


The problem is, what is art, and how is it best funded. One person will say that making a suit out of meat (that got funding, too, in real life), is stupid and if you want to do it, shell out your own cash. Another person will say that the meat suit represents our shame at our basic humanity and how we function based on our notions of beauty, and that context blah, and aesthetic blah, and awareness blah blah blah, and think that it`s the most clever artistic work ever, and of course we should fund that. Others will say that it`s all a waste and the artists can just pay their own way. No one can agree, so we pretty much just ignore the issue until the government pays two million dollars for a gold-painted toilet or something.


I think you're talking about the painting bought by the Ottawa National Gallery, Voice of Fire?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Voice_of_Fire.jpg

It was probably a good choice in the long term if your goal is to have a world class gallery with pieces that are internationally recognized as being "important". Personally, I think it gets a bit strange when any single canvas goes for a huge some of money. I wish art was more valued in society in general, but that seems to miss the point. It keeps art in the "art world", as something separate from the rest of the world.

[Beerina]

Bribe or not, the fact is that the bigger the inequality, the more crime there seems to be around. E.g., the USA has the highest GINI index of western nations, and unsurprisingly it also has higher crime rates.

E.g., murders per capita:

- the USA is in place 24 with 0.042802 per 1,000
- France is place 40 with 0.0173272 per 1,000 people
- Australia is place 43 with 0.0150324 per 1,000 people
- Canada is in place 44 with 0.0149063 per 1,000 people
- Germany is place 49 with 0.0116461 per 1,000 people

You're almost 3 times as likely to be murdered in the USA than in Canada. (Heck, the USA has an almost 50% higher murder rate than the country 2 places below it in the top: India.)

I dunno, paying a little more to social security for that seems like a good investment to me.


I dunno, paying an additional 30-50% of my income for 1 fewer murder per 25,000 people hardly seems worth it to me. How do you define "good investment"?

It's clear most of you haven't thought this through.

[ponderingturtle]

I dunno, paying an additional 30-50% of my income for 1 fewer murder per 25,000 people hardly seems worth it to me. How do you define "good investment"?

It's clear most of you haven't thought this through.

The question becomes how much will you spend keeping them in prison. From purely monetary terms, keeping massive numbers of people in prison is incredibly expensive. But I guess it is the good kind of expensive.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Hey, there's no outrage from me over the government spending whatever foolish amount of money on The Voice of Fire. It was long ago, before I paid taxes. Artists are the ones who should be angry about it anyway. There's only so much funding for art, and if one canvas gets most of it, there's less money for the next guy who wants funding to build a scarecrow out of popcorn.

[Segnosaur]

I think you're talking about the painting bought by the Ottawa National Gallery, Voice of Fire?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Voice_of_Fire.jpg

A few years after purchasing Voice of Fire, they also purchased another painting called (I think) Number 16, which consisted of 2 white rectangles on an orange background, again for another huge sum of money (around 2 million).

Its been years since I've been to the gallery... I'll have to take another trip there some time to refresh my memory.

It was probably a good choice in the long term if your goal is to have a world class gallery with pieces that are internationally recognized as being "important".

Of course, that's assuming that such pieces will continue to be recognized as 'important' in the long term future.

I keep thinking that any day, all the artists in the world putting out such dreck (my opinion of it anyways) will put out a collective press release admitting it was all a practical joke, and we can ignore most of the 'modern' art from the past few decades.

A personal story of mine...

I had relatives of mine in town on a visit (parents and aunt/uncle). Someone suggested going to see 'voice of fire' (after all, it was a pretty well known painting, simply for the amount of money spent on it.) At the time, Voice of Fire was contained in a room with other similar paintings and sculptures, including (at the time) this plain black 'cube' sitting in the middle of the floor.

My aunt had mistakenly assumed that that piece was actually a bench to sit on for people wanting to get their picture taken in from of the painting. So she's sitting on this cube, I'm whispering at her that you're not supposed to sit on it, and the security guard starts hurrying over. No arrests or anything, but I'm not sure if its more of a condemnation of my family for being 'culturally ignorant', or of the artist and museum for producing and displaying something that can't even be recognized as art.

[kittynh]

You would be better artist if you starved.

Just saying.

Van Gogh, had a brother that supported him because he believed in him.
If he'd been state funded he'd still be painting potato eaters and eating paint.

[Segnosaur]

Bribe or not, the fact is that the bigger the inequality, the more crime there seems to be around. E.g., the USA has the highest GINI index of western nations, and unsurprisingly it also has higher crime rates.

E.g., murders per capita:
...
You're almost 3 times as likely to be murdered in the USA than in Canada. (Heck, the USA has an almost 50% higher murder rate than the country 2 places below it in the top: India.)

I dunno, paying a little more to social security for that seems like a good investment to me.

There's one major flaw in your argument...

The U.S. may not have a higher crime rate than other countries (such as Canada).

Yes, it IS true that the U.S. has a higher murder rate. And the U.S. DOES have a lot of people in jail (quite a few on drug possession charges, something many people view as 'victimless'.) However, when you look at other crimes (like muggings, break and enter, and sexual assault) the rate of crime in Canada may actually exceed that of the U.S.

A few years ago, the U.N. put out a report that included sections on crime. They used questionnaires to determine what percentage of the population had been victims of crime, and in many cases the supposedly 'safer' countries were worse than the U.S.

For example, in 1999:

0.6% of all US Citizens were victims of robbery. In Canada? The number was 0.9%. Australia and France were both above 1%.

1.2% of all Americans were victims of assault. In Canada and Australia the percentage was almost double that.

So, the U.S. may actually be safer than many of these supposedly 'safe' countries.

See: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR05_HDI1.pdf Table 24.

[Segnosaur]

Hey, there's no outrage from me over the government spending whatever foolish amount of money on The Voice of Fire. It was long ago, before I paid taxes.

Keep in mind though that at the time the purchase was made, Canada had a rather large deficit. That purchase added to the total Canadian debt, something which you ARE paying for.

Not that it really matters... the painting was purchased, the money spent, and not much that can be done to recoup the cost, short of having a garage sale at the national gallery.

[porch]

Well except for the artists and the people who care about such things, who continue to enjoy and appreciate much of the government funded art. And who understand that others have different artistic sensibilities, and appreciate the varieties of opinions on the matter. But we're rational, obviously the bloody minority, go back to watching your latest blockbuster, what was the bill for Wolverine: Origins again? More than the entire United States budget for funding the arts?

So, what do you think about public funding for churches? After all, while organized religion isn't for everyone, there are those who enjoy and appreciate it. Also, churches sometimes provide viewpoints that challenge mainstream culture and the status quo.

I would really like to find an argument for funding art that can't be applied to funding churches. I'm trying to challenge myself on this one, and enlist other people in the process.

Anybody?

[porch]

You would be better artist if you starved.

Just saying.


That seems a little mean-spirited, don't you think?

Van Gogh, had a brother that supported him because he believed in him.
If he'd been state funded he'd still be painting potato eaters and eating paint.


Well, either way, he'd be long dead by now. :D Maybe with a bit of extra pocket cash and a little cultural validation, he would still have been a mope, but wouldn't have offed himself, and thus had a chance to contribute even more great paintings. It's hard to speculate, isn't it? Yet, I think there is some truth to what you say. There is definitely some good art that would not have been made without the condition of anguish. There's also a lot of art that would never had been made, had the comfortable artist needed to sacrifice anything for it; And the world would have been no worse off if it were never made in the first place. Still, I don't think starving is a prerequisite for good art.

The most I've gotten from the public purse has been about $1 500 Cdn per month to live off while pursuing my work. A bit more than I would make off my current day job, but not exactly an embarrassment of riches. I think that's typical for the majority of living artists that get government funding in my country.

[Beanbag]

Well, I confess I filed a grant application to fund a new Hi-Def video camera for a documentary project with the state. I won't starve if I don't get the grant, but I'm less likely to get the camera I really want. Unfortunately, I've reached the stage of the game to where anything I want to add or update costs at least $1000. It's amazing how fast you hit that wall.

I should know in a month or so whether I got approved.

Beanbag

[GreyICE]

So, what do you think about public funding for churches? After all, while organized religion isn't for everyone, there are those who enjoy and appreciate it. Also, churches sometimes provide viewpoints that challenge mainstream culture and the status quo.

I would really like to find an argument for funding art that can't be applied to funding churches. I'm trying to challenge myself on this one, and enlist other people in the process.

Anybody?

What do you mean publicly funding churches? Do you mean the tax exemptions for non-profits the OP was going on about? Also, why are you trying to staple gun these two issues together? Art is not religion, religion is not art, although there can be religious art. Most people have a distinct lack of difficulty telling the two apart.

[Segnosaur]

...At the same time, I have a bit of an anti-religion bent, and got to thinking about the state sponsorship of churches (through tax breaks). It seemed clear to me that churches shouldn't be given any special status unless it can be shown that they're of material benefit....

Well, for better or worse, there are actions by various churches ARE of material benefit... some churches DO engage in what could be considered charitable activities... running food banks/soup kitchens, helping with disaster relief, etc. If we donated to certain non-religious groups doing these activities, we would expect our donations to be tax-exempt, so its not unreasonable to give religious organizations the same consideration.

Granted, not ALL of the resources of a church goes to such charitable works; a priest/minister in a church will spend some time doing what we would consider 'useless' religious stuff (giving sermons/performing ceremonies), and some time doing charitable work. Unfortunately, its not really possible to separate the amount of 'useful' work a church does from the non-useful.

[Darth Rotor]

First off, I'd like to thank all Canadian citizens, and in particular Quebecois and Nova Scotians, for, over the years, giving me several thousand dollars to enjoy myself; Hanging around my apartment getting high, listening to music, and making creepy drawings that will be seen by, at most, a couple thousand people.

For most of my life I've taken it for granted that it's just sense for the state to fund arts, culture, recreation, parks, and so on. At the same time, I have a bit of an anti-religion bent, and got to thinking about the state sponsorship of churches (through tax breaks). It seemed clear to me that churches shouldn't be given any special status unless it can be shown that they're of material benefit. But when I turned the same critical eye towards my own interests, I couldn't come up with any kind of evidence that funding for the arts created any demonstrable positive effects for society, either.

Now I find myself turning around to the somewhat uncomfortable position that churches should get breaks merely on the basis of some people getting some sort of satisfaction out of it. Perhaps I'm finally finding meaning in the sentiment, "Canada is a mosaic, not a melting pot."?

Discuss?
Whacko religionists and artists are both entertaining. I don't understand the problem. Fund both, it's part of the Canadian government's bread and circuses policy. :D

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Unfortunately, its not really possible to separate the amount of 'useful' work a church does from the non-useful.

Why not?

Certainly in the UK a charity only gets exemption on certain income if that is used for charitable purposes. The same test could easily be applied to religious bodies.

Unfortunately the UK has decided that promoting religion is a charitable activity, so the situation does not currently arise in practice, but a charity to promote education would need to demonstrate that it spends its income doing that or lose some of its tax benefits.

[Segnosaur]

Unfortunately, its not really possible to separate the amount of 'useful' work a church does from the non-useful.
Why not?

Because I figure its just not practical...

You'd have to account for the amount of time a priest/minister spends doing charitable work (running food bangs, collecting funds for disaster relief) vs. doing religious stuff, you'd have to figure out how 'valuable' church property is if its used for charity work.

I just figured trying to account for each and every minute of both the minister's time and of the church usage would be too complex.

(Note: I'm talking here about overall church resources, as opposed to any money someone might contribute that is specifically earmarked for certain purposes.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Because I figure its just not practical...

You'd have to account for the amount of time a priest/minister spends doing charitable work (running food bangs, collecting funds for disaster relief) vs. doing religious stuff, you'd have to figure out how 'valuable' church property is if its used for charity work.

I just figured trying to account for each and every minute of both the minister's time and of the church usage would be too complex.

(Note: I'm talking here about overall church resources, as opposed to any money someone might contribute that is specifically earmarked for certain purposes.)

Yet somehow non-religious bodies manage to do it in the UK.

It is really not that hard, if the minister spends one day a week organising the food drives and other charitable stuff, and four days a week doing religious things, then 20% of his salary represents charitable spending and 80% religious.

No need to account for every minute, broad brush allocations on any reasonable basis would be fine.

[Segnosaur]

Because I figure its just not practical...

You'd have to account for the amount of time a priest/minister spends doing charitable work (running food bangs, collecting funds for disaster relief) vs. doing religious stuff, you'd have to figure out how 'valuable' church property is if its used for charity work.
It is really not that hard, if the minister spends one day a week organising the food drives and other charitable stuff, and four days a week doing religious things, then 20% of his salary represents charitable spending and 80% religious.

No need to account for every minute, broad brush allocations on any reasonable basis would be fine.

Yes, some sort of broad statement might work, although that number would have to be updated on a weekly basis, or might be wildly inaccurate if the church at the time should have some sort of 'charity emergency' to deal with. (e.g. a minister who spends 20% of their time throughout most of the year running a food bank, but then all of a sudden has to spend 80% of their time doing charitable stuff after a flood or other disaster.)

Then there's the issue of church property... If a church runs a soup kitchen/food bank in the basement, what portion of the building maintenance should be assumed to be supporting 'charity'? What if the room used is dual-purpose?

Perhaps I shouldn't have suggested its impossible to separate charitable church work from non-charitable. If you think its acceptable to assume a standard number (like 20%), that's fine (and probably acceptable for government purposes).... but the less effort that's spent trying to actually calculate that number means a greater likelyhood that the number is inaccurate.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

First off, I'd like to thank all Canadian citizens, and in particular Quebecois and Nova Scotians, for, over the years, giving me several thousand dollars to enjoy myself; Hanging around my apartment getting high, listening to music, and making creepy drawings that will be seen by, at most, a couple thousand people.

So where were my fellow Canadians when I was paying for my Transformers 2 tickets a couple weeks ago?

All art is equal... meaning that it is in the eye of the beholder. If someone... anyone, points at something and says "that is art" then it becomes art.

Why am I forced to pay for necrophiliac poetry (http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/1997/1030/bite.html), but I get no assistance in supporting the finest examples of the action filmmakers art (like the exsanguinatious six and a half minute machine gun sequence that topped Rambos career)?

[Cavemonster]

So where were my fellow Canadians when I was paying for my Transformers 2 tickets a couple weeks ago?

All art is equal... meaning that it is in the eye of the beholder. If someone... anyone, points at something and says "that is art" then it becomes art.

Why am I forced to pay for necrophiliac poetry (http://www.seemagazine.com/Issues/1997/1030/bite.html), but I get no assistance in supporting the finest examples of the action filmmakers art (like the exsanguinatious six and a half minute machine gun sequence that topped Rambos career)?

You actually do support action movies. Toronto among other places gives huge tax breaks to studios who film there in order to lure business.

[porch]

Whacko religionists and artists are both entertaining. I don't understand the problem. Fund both, it's part of the Canadian government's bread and circuses policy. :D

More money for both! I like this. I can see it now, a grand religious procession with fancy dress and over-sized statues bleeding like fountains, intercepted by guerrilla performance artists with giant antfarm floats and pneumatic supersoakers filled with bull semen. The two factions could duke it out in the Arena of the Imagination!

I'll have you know that bread and circuses isn't just a policy of the Canadian government - it's our culture and heritage. :)