So my question is how does a magazine, targetted t a specific audience, and supported by donations from the very audience it targets, at all qualify as a charity?
 

That''s as ridiculous as getting a charitable tax deduction for the money you used to buy the pew you sit in. Unless your ass is impoverished, that's not charity. It's incredibly common, and part of the reason the Christian church is losing relevance in todays' society, IMHO, but it's not charity.

They appear to comply with the CRA rules. One of the charitable tests is "Advancement of religion". The magazine is Mennonite. It is advancing the Mennonite perspective of the Christian faith. It passes the test and so it is qualified as charitable.

BTW, pews, in churches in Canada, are not "bought" to my knowledge. I would be interested to hear of a church which does sell their pews (other than as the building is being sold). They can be rented, but that is also unusual.

If this measure by CRA was applied across the board, I could understand that. It just seems to be intentionally repressive to suit the purposes of the current government - to prevent protests. Kind of like their dislike for NGO's. It's ok for gov't to promote their collective Reform agenda (ie. pro-life) on our dime though. Everything this current gov't does is in aid of their social engineering agenda.
Pay attention to our tax-funded shills correcting "misinformation" in the comments section of the CBC article. Part of the Con "mandate".

Charitable status is an odd, even invidious, thing. Implicitly it is a kind of recognition by a government that an organisation is picking up some of what might reasonably be felt should be a government's responsibility: addressing poverty or injustice, for example. Charities can take a bit of heat off a government that way and, to some extent, abet government negligence or unconcern. Charitable status is the quid pro quo. 

Charitable status should not be extended, in my view, to ANY organisation that exempts itself from human rights legislation (in relation, for example, to hiring policies that discriminate against gender or sexual orientation). That's claiming a "privilege" the democratic state has decided is unjust.

Criticism of government is merely biting the hand that feeds you. It would be interesting to see a church renounce its charitable status as a protest against a government's policies or ideology.

To let a government get away with pretending to occupy a higher moral ground in the way the CRA's letter does is craven and just a little cowardly. Bona fide churches, as far as I know, don't knowlingly accept "dirty" money from crime… why should they accept a special tax status from a government that fails to address basic moral and justice issues, whether or not their views are suppressed.

A government that seeks to silence the servants of the poor or marginalised makes its position pretty clear. Refusing tax exemption from such a government on the grounds that its policies and actions were exacerbating the social problems that charities were trying to allieviate would be a wonderful gesture of solidarity… it might even inspire sufficient donations to make up the difference.

Mike said: "A government that seeks to silence the servants of the poor or marginalised makes its position pretty clear. Refusing tax exemption from such a government would be a wonderful gesture of solidarity… it might even inspire donations that made up the difference."

That's exactly what the Mennonites are considering. Other charitable groups have as well. Agee completely.

Sorry - can't seem to post a workable link to the editorial that mentions this:

http://www.canadianmennonite.org/articles/‘political-reminder’-disturbing

BTW - I don't believe for a moment "that hand feeds us". Churches are the equivalent of "bread & circuses" in that they are supposed to keep people from thinking. Worth missing a few tax $ for.

This is worth reading (Ninj gave a link in the "other" thread):

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/dvsry-eng.html

"Political activity" is pretty sweepingly (and not that logically) defined when you look at the policy detail. It surprised me… it seems to include criticising a government policy, in Canada or a foreign country… the death penalty in the U.S. and China, maybe, Iranian nuclear aspirations… it specfically offers the example of "a ban on hunting deer" (not the first thing that would leap into many minds in Canada)… weird.

Well, there goes the "Freedom of Religion" section in the Charter...

The magazine has a circulation of only 14,000.

Does it just take one complaint to set this sort of thing off or is the government really that diligent?

Hi DKS,

Well, maybe.

I think that the charge of partisanship can only be made politically if the grounds for objection can be proven to clearly be political in nature rather than theological in nature.

To consider a Mennonite publication taking Mennonite Members of Parliament to task as an act of partisan politics is, I believe, quite a stretch.  Even if the MP's in question are lapsed in their faith or have moved on to another one I think it is still fair game to offer a critique of their ministry from within the theological confines of the Mennonite tradition.  That isn't partisan politics, that is at best partisan theology.

Mentioning that the death of a high profile political leader inspired some young Mennonites to enter into politics doesn't strike me a being particularly partisan.  Unless all politicians must be seen as inspiring regardless of their political accomplishments.  To presume that it was the party and not the individual which motivated strikes me as ignorant.

Grace and peace to you.

John

What "special" tax status? Charities and religious bodies pay all taxes save property taxes, which are a provincial/municipal matter. They are given exemption (although property does have an assesed value for tax ourposes) from those for the site of religious worship because they are deemed to give value to the community in lieu of taxes. Religious leaders likewise pay all applicable taxes and receive not benefit save the ability to deduct cost of housing or living in a manse or rectory.

Charities may apply for a rebate of a portion of their GST/HST paid, based on a number of criteria, but are not obligated to apply for that rebate.

The receipt a church or charity gives nothing to the church or charity. It simply allows the donor to claim that gift, freely given without expectation of return, the ability to deduct that gift from their taxes paid as a tax credit. That is deemed to be an incentive to giving, but may or may not be.

As for accepting "dirty" money, one never knows where the money comes from. Last week we had an envelope with the word "Tithe" on our offering plate. No idea where it came from. And it wasn't a small amount. Then there was the church member who always put a crisp, new $50 bill on the plate. Her husband was the largest drug dealer in the region. She was an abused woman. Was that "dirty" money?

DKS:

1. What should take precedence, the law of the land or vestigial cultural bigotry masquerading as "religious" principle? There was a time when Christianity was a leader in the struggles for freedom, justice and egalitarianism. Letting religious groups out of Human Rights legislation does churches no favours: it simply makes them boltholes for bigots.

2. Are you saying CRA tax exemptions do not exist or that they are totally insignificant? The CRA seems to think they matter.

3. At what point do dubiously sourced donations become money laundering? "Don't know, don't ask" — is that a Christian ethos? $50 from a known drug dealer and wife abuser is hardly the "widow's mite".

Fine. Toss the Charter out with the bathwater. It is a knife which cuts both ways. And while you may be offended, there are those who hold differing opinions. If you disagree, launch a Charter challenge.

Of course they do. It is their regulation. They are charged with enforcement.

Don't you even dare question that unless you have walked a mile in my shoes. More importantly, not until you have walked a mile in her shoes.

I understood it was not from the drug dealer but from his wife. 

DKS: You assume a lot of naivety of my part. I have seen the effects of corruption and bigotry… up close. So don't make snorty little retorts in response to a question that invited some sort of engagement.

You made the point about crisp new $50 bills… hardly daily currency. So did you help that woman out of the abusive relationship and make sure the abuser got his day in court? Or just keep taking the bills and let the domestic situation run its course?

And I see no good, justifiable reason to freight bigotry into chuches under the flag of "religious freedom". I accept your chosing to differ, but you might like to explain your position. 

This is not just about religion.  The threat is to any one who has a non-profit organization that provides tax receipts for donations and many of those organizations publish magazines or websites.  Often those publications will criticise government decisions that impact on their cause.

What the veiled threat implies is that such organizations will be put at a financial disadvantage for expressing their concerns about the matters that affect them.

This is another example of a government hell bent on muzzling any opposition, whether it be scientists, David Suzuki or, now, a pacifist organization not known for any form of civic unrest.  It is an indefensible act in a democratic country.

"Bond, this may be too much for a blunt instrument to understand but arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand-in-hand."

     M, Casino Royale

It gets pretty Byzantine. Here's an explanation by way of example from a document outling "political activity (dated 2 Sptember 2003):

""During a provincial election campaign, Healthy Retirement invites, to one of its monthly "heart smart" dinners, all those involved in organizing the campaign for a political party that promotes policies targeted at increasing health spending on respite care for seniors. The campaign team is treated to a delicious three-course meal that is low in fat and salt, and they receive information about the charity's programs. This is a prohibited partisan political activity because the charity is providing direct support, by way of a free meal, to campaign organizers of a political party."

See:

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-022-eng.html#N1049D

So you're saying that the company that manufactures the pews just gives them away to churches for free? Doesn't seem to be a very sound business model to me.

And here I was under the assumption that a church would order the pews from a manufacturer, or a craftsman, who would build and install the pews, and then bill the church. The church would pay for the bill from the building fund, which is funded from donations from the church members, for which they get a charitable tax deduction. That charitable donation thus buys the pews that the doners ass rests on.

How many hungry people does that feed? 

But apparently I have that all wrong. Church pews just magically appear, and no money changes hands.

I'll let you two argue about pews. What I'm interested in, is why we give tax exemptions for "advancement of religion". Reading up on this a bit, it seems the test for tax exempt status falls on fulfilling one of four requirements:

1) the relief of poverty; (2) the advancement of education; (3) the advancement of religion and (4) certain other purposes beneficial to the community, not falling under any of the preceding heads.

But, five years ago, an Ontario soccer association was denied tax exempt status. There are more hurdles to clear, it seems, if you're not a church.

I think that if I was running an organization to promote sport and fitness for children, that has to be at least as beneficial to the community as teaching children that they are born with original sin and should spend the rest of their lives groveling about it. Granted, that's not every church's position, but it's one that would qualify it for tax-exempt status because our tax code amazingly values crazy more than healthy.

In my church while people sit on those pews they are learning about hunger in the world, and the concern that their leader showed for hungry people.  Then they organize, and collect money, or food stuffs for the food bank, and cook at the Community Kitchen, and hold Saturday Night Drop-In, and give out vouchers for a nearby grocery, and use and promote Fair Trade products, and hopefully put their individual beliefs and core values on the table when they consider which party can best represent them in the next electiion. 

I'd say that helps to feed, and house (we work on that too), a lot of hungry people.

Actually the Tax code differentiates between Charity and Non-profit.

Primer for directors of not-for-profit corporations (Rights, Duties and Practices)

Anticipate charity by preventing poverty.

      Maimonides  (1135-1204)

Really? C'mon....

Witch - are you insinuating that you don't believe me.  Come and see.              

The first thing that attracted me to this church was a pre-Christmas turkey dinner I was invited to.  I was surprised to realize that many of the guests, seated among the regular church people, were people from the downtown area (rooming houses, emergency shelter, or living under the bridge).  Not only that, they were also serving and working in the kitchen.  I've learned since then that this dinner is prepared and served by the Saturday Night drop-in.  I've also learned that everyone is considered to be 'regular church people'. 

Yes, really. 

I don't see how, without our building (and our pews) we could carry on our work of feeding the hungry.

Thank you for clarifying your somewhat muddy post. Does money change hands? Of course. But unless that money is donated (and it may well not be) and a receipt is offered, there is no tax benefit. The receipt may also be declined.  Likewise, when the pews are purchased, al taxes are paid by the purchaser. It is up to the purchaser to apply for the HST credit, which is optional and not automatic. So assuming the money is not donated and no receipt given, and no HST credit is claimed, it is a retail purchase just like any other retail purchase.

Methinks your assumptions about pews is somewhat flawed...

Likewise. And help veterans suffering from PTSD. And help feed heathy food to people on the margins. And hosting 7 different AA groups (including the only "women only" AA group in our city).

Absolutely straightforward. Operational phrase: "all those involved in organizing the campaign for a political party". Activity is unquestionably political. Good intentions can't mask partisan politics.

No I'm insinuating that excuse is so transparent as to be laughable.
 

When the majority of your "charitable contributions" go to housing your charitable asses, and that best reason you can come up with is "Well we talk a lot about feeding the hungry".... you can't really expect me to take that seriously.

Come back when you can show that your church spends 80% of donations on real charity, and not keeping itself comfy, and we'll talk.

My, my. Angry, aren't we?

Promotion of religion is a legitimate charitable activity in Canada. It has to happen somewhere and churches cost money to maintain. Like it or not, religious activity is seen to be charitable. We can't fix the world, but we can and do something in our corner to make it better.

If promotion of a set of beliefs is a charitable act, why isn't promotion of soccer? Why isn't promotion of beekeeping? Knitting? Stamp collecting?

I don't so much mind that promotion of religion is a charity, as much as the promotion of other persuits are excluded. Let's be consistent. Either all clubs based on personal persuits are seen as charitable in their own right, or none of them are.

I don't know how Revenue Canada decides.  For instance, I am quite sure the Y in this place is considered a charity.  Donations to the Y (a big part of a joint campaign) result in charitable receipts.   Recently the Y built a modern state-of-the-art building on prime property - swimming pools, gyms, and an exercise room with weights and pulleys, stationary bicycles, treadmills. 

My husband and I recently joined with the idea that keeping active and fit would be a health benefit for us.  It cost really more than we could afford.  In fact this 'charity' as far as I can see caters mainly to members - and those members are mainly middle class or professionals.  I don't see any working poor in the workout room or the pool.  Everything costs - and costs more than many people can afford. 

On the other hand, there is no charge to take advantage of the church and the programs it has to offer for all age groups.  And yes - we have a gym.  But no expensive work-out equipment or pool.   And you don't have to be a church member, or worship with us on Sunday morning, to attend the writer's group, book club, art club, quilters, seniors, AA, or any other group that meets in our building.

Seeler, the YMCA is probably included because of it's religous roots.  YMCA = Young Men's Christian Association

It may have 'religious roots' but it doesn't appear to have any religious affiliation and the only requirement to become a member and avail yourself of its facilities and programs is that you have the money.  To me it seems as secular as my bowling league or square dance club - both of which help to promote 'body, mind and spirit' and are open to all who have the money.

Seeler, it's affiliated to Christianity.  Do you not think it at least helped them obtain their charity status?

However if the organizers mad it clear that they were inviting people in the same roles from ALL parties as a way of inviting discussion about the issue (which in my mind would have been a more profitable project anyway) they should have been in the clear.

I know someone who is very generous about charitable donations but refuses to support church fundraising activities claiming that they are purely for supporting a private club. The community in general isn't asked to help with funds for the repair of  the roof of the Golf Club.  They shouldn't be asked to help with the funds for repairs to a church roof either.

I have known quite a few people who've shied away from church involvement because they saw (rightly or wrongly)  churches as preoccupied with buildings and not people.

Are think tanks such as the Fraser Institute considered eligible for charitable status?

Churches for a long-time were the only institutions that caught those who fell between the cracks in sociey.  The cracks were getting smaller, but they are still there.  Churches can also make significant positive differences in the wider community.  When I lived in north-esetern Alberta there were two small communities about 20 minutes apart.  In one community, two churches had a major influence that could be seen in higher quality participation by students in school, and in a variety of other ways.  In the other community, equally affluent, equally white, the weekend parties started Thursday night and high school teachers had to do all of their serious teaching on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

The Calgary Interfaith Foodbank is a project of many churches in Calgary along with Inn from the Cold, Habitat for Humanity, and many other initiatives geared to help the marginalized, provide community for singles and newcomers, and support many other activities geared to making Calgary a better place for all, and not for just a few.  Churches provide opportunities for advancing economic, political and social development along with spiritual development.  The  Unitarian Church on 16th Ave north supports a wide variety of environmental projects and initiatives.  Cathedral Church of the Redeemer and Central United Church are deeply committed to programs for the homeless, hungry, and lost in the city core.   Knox United supports a diversity of programs and speakers including people like John Ralston Saul.

Churches are not perfect, and many are little more than private clubs, but their imperfections should not prevent the observation of the good they do.

While an intern in Ville St. Laurent, I learned from an assistant to Gerry Weiner, minister for immigration at the time, that governments recognize churches as the most economical and efficient path to providing services such as to immigrants.  The church where I was an intern took on internal conflict in order to provide space and support to a service for Latin American immigrants and refugees.  I started a project there which ended because the non-religious NGOs tried to suck money out of the project for their own use.

I'm curious - why shouldn't they be asked? Especially - to be blunt - when some of them will be expecting the church to baptize, marry or bury either themselves or family members. I mean, it's not demanded. It's fund-raising. They're asked, it's their choice to say yes or no. And I have known golf clubs and a variety of other clubs who've done public fundraising.

As to some of the comments about "promotion of religion" take it up with the government - not with me. The government has decided that's a legitimate charitable activity. If you disagree, talk to your MP, start a petition.

If the government chooses to offer chuches tax benefits I think we should accept them. In the same way, however, if the government chooses to take away the tax benefits I don't think we should whine about it or fight against it. That would be the church simply trying to hold on to privileges which we're not in any way "entitled" to. So if they're given, fine; if they're taken away, fine.

My real concern about charitable status and tax breaks is that it serves to make us dependent on the government and potentially mutes our witness when our witness would be in opposition to the government. It ties the church to the state. In other words, it's a holdover from christendom, and christendom wasn't necessarily a good thing.

So Jim, when you say that many churches are no more than private clubs, I expect that you mean that only dues-paying members may attend worship and take part in any of the church activities. So tell me, how much would it cost me to be a member of your private club so that I can attend your worship service?

On the other hand, universities are charitable institutions and if the definition of "charity" is limited to addressing poverty, universities should also be off the list. And you definitely don't get in without paying a hefty membership fee.  And even that may not be enough. Try getting into any medical school, the ultimate "private club".

And Rev. Steve, I'm not so sure I agree that accepting a tax break is the same thing as being dependent on the government. The money is still coming from givers and not from the government, and if givers stopped donating money, there certainly wouldn't be any money coming from the government for churches to keep going. IOW, without the government, there would be less money but without givers there would be no money for church support. I'm also skeptical that churches would be less muted than they currently are if they renounced charitable status. What would make them suddenly more vocal? In many cases, its their focus and not their tax status that currently keeps them away from the political ramparts.

The tax break I'm referring to is the tax receipt given to the donors. How many donors would give as much money if they didn't get the tax receipt? So, if the government takes away the tax receipt for the donors, lots of money could potentially disappear from the church.

As to being more or less vocal, please note that I used the word "potential." I'm also speaking of appearances. The church is financially very vulnerable to the government, and we've seen the government through various spokespeople make thinly veiled attempts to intimidate the United Church by using threats that certain tax privileges be taken away, so clearly certain figures in the government believe that there's at least a chance that they can intimidate the church into silence on issues they'd rather churches not speak of.

Rev. S. - Yes, I was also referring to the tax receipt that donors receive. But my point still stands. The church is dependent on its donors for funds, not on the government. Sure, donors "leverage" their givings and may be able to give more because of the deduction, but the source of the funds is still the donor.

I don't believe I ever said that the church was dependent on the government "for funds." I believe I said simply that largely as a result of the various tax breaks the church has become "dependent on the government." Many, many congregations are dependent on the government's generosity to allow them to (a) promote getting a tax receipt as an added incentive to give, and to give more, and (b) be exempt from paying property taxes on church buildings, which - given the size of some buildings - is a huge (a HUGE) gift. That may not be an infusion of funds from the government directly, but it represents funds that the church doesn't otherwise have to give to the government.

Now, most church buildings that I know (some of the ridiculous rants above notwithstanding) get well used by various groups and organizations, and many urban and suburban churches especially do in fact do a lot of charitable work in terms of providing meals and other services to the community. That can certainly be used to justify both charitable status and perhaps exemptions from certain taxes. 

My point on this discussion in general is that if you don't think charitable status or property tax exemptions should be given, then by all means take it up with the government. Right now, the government's policy is that "promotion of religion" is charitable activity and qualifies for tax receipting. Children's athletic programs also get you tax receipts - so to  chansen I'd point out that in some ways the government does promote soccer and various other activities for which you get tax receipts. I am concerned, however, that churches (and other charities) are coming increasingly under pressure from the government of the day, and it seems to me that it's difficult to draw the line between what constitutes a legitimate religious or charitable position and what constitutes politics.

That's one reason why the thought of losing such status doesn't especially concern me - although I know that many smaller congregations especially would be hurt badly. I get nervous when the government starts to get involved in deciding what are essentially matters of theology (ie, how do we best represent God and gospel to the world.)

Rev Stephen - just to clear up a wee misunderstanding.

The person I mentioned who donates a lot of money and time to charities has (for the 20 or so years I've known them) not asked any church for anything.  I expect he will never ask a church for anything.  In those twenty years babies have been born, couples married, family members had accidents, diseases and some have died.  All this without input from churches.

The reason I said they shouldn't be asked to donate to a new church roof (or similar effort) is because ot the difference he has noted in the two types of event.    Fundraisers from the golf club weren't pushy when he said "I'm not interested in supporting that".  Some church fundraisers tried to 'guilt trip' him with remarks like yours - assuming, I suppose that he will someday ask a church to provide a religious service connected to a life event such as a wedding or funeral. 

Respectfully, kaythecurler, my remark wasn't an attempt to "guilt trip" anyone, since I don't expect you to give anything to my church and I was directing the comment at you specifically, as an example of the fact that there are people who give nothing to the church and expect a lot back. (My general obervation over the years is that particularly in regards to weddings, people who neither attend nor support the church in any way are the most demanding in their expectations of the church.)

I can't, obviously, deny what your friend has experienced. I personally have never known a church bake sale to be advertised on the basis of "you're going to want to get married, buried, baptized here, so you better give." In my experience that's a load of bull crap. 

My comments stand. First, I've seen lots of organizations solicit funds far beyond their own membership ranks (and if you or your friend haven't then your heads are buried in the sand and you're simply interested in ranting against the church.) As a matter of fact I've seen Lions Clubs (just as one example) do far more of a guilt trip at times than I've seen churches do ("just look at all the good things we do that we won't be able to do unless you buy this raffle ticket or this chocolate cake.") In fact, "guilt trips" are primary fund-raising tools for charities (especially charities dealing with either children or medical issues) far more than churches from what I've seen. Second - and you haven't answered my question - why shouldn't organizations (churches or others) be able to solicit funds from "outside," since no one is required to give anything; they're just being asked. If you want to give, give - if not, don't. You're saying people who aren't members of the church shouldn't have the option of seeing a flyer or other advertisement advertising a church fund raiser and deciding to attend it if they want to, knowing full well that the money goes to the church? As long as people know what the money is going to be used for, why shouldn't they be able to be asked? (If that's not what you meant, then please expand on: "They shouldn't be asked to help with the funds for repairs to a church roof either.")

I fail to see the logic of your position. It seems to me to be a personal chip on your shoulder - "I don't like hearing about church fund raisers, so I don't think the church should be able to tell anyone outside the church about their fund raisers." Too bad.

Kay one example does not make an argument.   Steve gives a clear argument as does Spirit.  One can disagree with either or both, but one must attend to the issue.

Our society through tax reductions for many different organizations does so because there is a sense the different groups add to the common good.  In part society does not try to say this is better than this group. but classes them under perceived "goods'.  For example hockey - if your child is part of this there is a tax relief.  Using public transportation is another.

The debate is whether as a society we want to support groups that may be narrow in their appeal but are percieive to add value to the common life.  The next issue if we agree that society should support percieved goods, how to do that.  Grants, tax receipts, tax reduction are part of the methods used.

The next issue is whether religion should be part of the perceived common good.  There is a debate to be had here, but at the moment they are seen to be part of the common good.

The other debate is whether it is good internally for that support.  Does it repress its voice?

The final point is one can say no to the those request that come to us.  I get a lot of mail asking me to support this or that, because I have support some community groups and they share addresses.  I can ask those I support not to do this.  And I can recylcal the ones that still come.  Some groups use mass mailings and that may make me mad but they have their reasons.  It may determine how I respond but that is how things are done, to catch our attention. It must work for some.  But in the end I make the decision.

Regarding funding the church roof, I don't think charitable donations should only be given when there is self-interest involved. If the local kid's soccer team is asking for donations so they can get to the provincial campionships and I don't like soccer or don't have a kid in soccer, that isn't a reason for not giving. The issue is that you are helping someone, even if it's not yourself.

And so there's another issue here - the general matter of encouraging generosity in society. When citizens of a society are generous (and especially when self-interest is not involved), that society is more civil, compassionate and tolerable. Encouraging such a society by granting a tax deduction, even if the goal of the give is to "leverage" their generosity is, in my opinion, a good thing.

Also remember that the priniciple of the tax deduction is that the part of your income that you give to a charity is not taxed. Taxing that income (ie not giving a tax deduction) is therefore taxing the money given to the charity and therefore taxing the charity.

Rev Davis - You said "I personally have never known a church bake sale to be advertised on the basis of "you're going to want to get married, buried, baptized here, so you better give."  I'd add - neither have I.  I have been known to ask what the money is for and got the response of "We always need money".

You also say "As a matter of fact I've seen Lions Clubs (just as one example) do far more of a guilt trip at times than I've seen churches do ("just look at all the good things we do that we won't be able to do unless you buy this raffle ticket or this chocolate cake.") .    For my friend and at least some others - the difference arises quite subtly.  Groups like the Lions (in my experience) are raising money for something that most consider to be a community good.  Repairs to the rink, a new filtration system for the pool,  The churches rarely say what they are raising money for - leaving people to wonder how it will be spent.  Some of them assume that the church only supports itself with the money - not other needs in the community. 

Personally speaking, I'd be far more likely to attend a church based fundraiser if I knew the money was going to something I consider worthwhile to support.  Like my friend I'm not interested in supporting/maintaing or decorating  the church building.

So why are repairs to a rink (which I might never use, and if I did, I would have to pay to use anyhow) any different than repairs to a church (whose worship I am allowed to attend without paying)? And what makes entertainment more of a community good than spiritual health?

I notice that people who contribute nothing to the church, who resent being asked to contribute to a fund raising effort, do not mind participating in a forum supported by the church.

And I have no problem at all with what you say here. As I've been saying all along, it's a matter of personal choice. Give if you want; don't give if you don't want to. As far as supporting/maintaining the church building, the church building, of course, is maintained not only for the use of the church but also for the use of various community groups, ministries, etc. In fact, if I were to add up the hours I think I might well find that our church building might be used more by community groups than by the church itself! So without maintaining the building, how do we run the monthly Out of the Cold dinner? How do we do the weekly clothing boutique geared to lower income families in the community? How do we provide a space for AA and AlAnon? For TOPS? For Zumba? For Elections Canada when they want a polling place? How do we make space available to the local school board for a couple of programs they run for youth at risk of dropping out of the system (one thing our local board has found is that these kids are far more likely to stick with these programs if they're held in a church than if they're held in a school - interesting, isn't it?) So feel free not to offer support. That's fine. That's your choice. I think the church (if it's going to be available to such outside groups) has the right to solicit funds from outside.

You see, my quibble isn't with your right to decide to give or not to give. That's completely your decision and I won't criticize you either way or try to guilt you into giving something you don't want to give. There are a lot of charities I hear from but don't give to for a variety of reasons even though they're quite worthy causes. My quibble was specifically with your statement that:

"They shouldn't be asked to help with the funds for repairs to a church roof either."

And you still haven't explained why people shouldn't be "asked" (asked, not required) to give. It still sounds like "I don't like being asked so you shouldn't be allowed to ask anyone."