8 ms·

Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

69 points by eggdude 15y ago

redthrowaway 15y ago
So? Perhaps I'm biased, but calling religious organizations non-profits has always struck me as suspect. If they're performing a charitable function, they can easily do so as a secular charity. If they're proselytizing, then they are functionally no different from self-help gurus who charge people to attend conferences. I understand that, for many religious people, proselytizing and charity are inseparable. They commit charitable acts in the name of, and because of their religion. There is no discernible difference, to them, between feeding someone and saving their soul, save the greater importance of the latter. However, we live in an at least nominally secular society. That means that we don't show preference for or prejudice against religions. Societal factors have led to the preservation of the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, but this relic of an age when the Church was more powerful than most states should not lead to an expectation amongst the religious that they should receive similar treatment from private enterprise. That Google offers a non-profit discount at all is admirable. I suspect those complaining would be singing a much different tune if they were aware that under its previous rules, Google was directly subsidizing the Church of Scientology and other such organizations. It's terrible when your Sunday school's subsidy is revoked, but not so bad when a crazy cult is forced to pay full price. The obvious conclusion is that all religious subsidies must be avoided, or Google finds itself in the unenviable (and untenable) position, as a multinational corporation, of deciding which religions are deserving of its patronage.
- ars 15y ago
  > Perhaps I'm biased, but calling religious organizations non-profits has always struck me as suspect. Yes, you are biased. Non profit means "not to make a profit", and that fits religious organizations quite well. None of them try to make a profit, therefor they are non-profit. It's not really that complicated. > If they're proselytizing, then they are functionally no different from self-help gurus who charge people to attend conferences. Except that they don't charge. Which of course does make them different. You are biased because you (presumably) don't like what they do, but that's your opinion, and you should not assume everyone shares it. And it's interesting you find the only organization in the world that claims to be a for-profit religion (Scientology) and use that to paint the rest of them. (Again barring fraud, which obviously does happen.) Scientology is for profit because they charge money for their services, no other religion does that. Other religions ask for donations, sure, but the services are not conditional on the donations. Just because an organization has a message does not make them for profit, anymore than a secular organization with a message ("don't eat meat" for example) automatically becomes for profit. Your post sounds like you want to be the arbiter of which messages are for profit and which are not.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    >Yes, you are biased. Non profit means "not to make a profit", and that fits religious organizations quite well. None of them try to make a profit, therefor they are non-profit. It's not really that complicated. Most religious organizations turn large profits. That they are used to build more churches, mosques, and temples does not detract from the fact that it's a profit. >Except that they don't charge. Which of course does make them different. Again, this is false. There isn't a cover charge, but there's an expectation of donation. It's no different from a tip. Waiters aren't non-profit, and neither are churches. >You are biased because you (presumably) don't like what they do, but that's your opinion, and you should not assume everyone shares it. A) I don't assume everyone shares it. B) I like a great deal of what many religious organizations do and have done, and dislike a great deal they do as well. >And it's interesting you find the only organization in the world that claims to be a for-profit religion (Scientology) and use that to paint the rest of them. (Again barring fraud, which obviously does happen.) This is patently false. From the Catholic Church, to Evangelical preachers, to most other organized religions, they all turn a profit. >Your post sounds like you want to be the arbiter of which messages are for profit and which are not. Message has nothing to do with turning a profit. That is determined by the money you take in minus the money you spend. I count money spent on growing the organization, through the building of additional churches and missionary works, as an investment in future profits, and hence not deductible from profits (to the extent it would make an organization a non-profit). I've clearly stepped on your toes. I apologize for the offense I've caused, but not for the words that caused it, which I stand by.
    - ars 15y ago
      > I've clearly stepped on your toes. I apologize for the offense I've caused, but not for the words that caused it, which I stand by. No, my toes are fine, and I am not offended. You are just wrong, which is a different thing entirely. > but there's an expectation of donation. It's no different from a tip. A tip is given in proportion to services rendered. A donation is not. > I count money spent on growing the organization .... not deductible from profits You might do that. No one else does. If you remove this clause then this: > .... to most other organized religions, they all turn a profit. Is no longer true as well (I assume you agree). So lets talk about the clause. Growing the organization simply makes them more effective in spreading the message. But the message is the goal, not the money. In a for profit the money is the goal and is used for other purposes. > as an investment in future profits No, it's an investment is furthering the message.
- buff-a 15y ago
  If there is one thing that readers of HN should appreciate, it is the value of Influence. Facebook had value simply because it could put a message in front of 500 million people. Organized Religion's primary purpose is Influence. Argue that it is "for a good cause", to "save souls", if you want. That is opinion. That they have Influence is fact. That they use this Influence to induce their members to spend money is fact. That they use this Influence to induce their members to vote for a particular candidate or particular issue is fact. Influence is $$$. How is Organized Religion any different from Facebook or Google? EDIT: Perhaps a comment from the downvoters? I don't get it.
  - gyardley 15y ago
    I didn't downvote you -- but perhaps you were downvoted because while organized religions do have influence, that doesn't imply that the purpose of organized religion is influence. An attribute of a thing is not necessarily the purpose of a thing; just because my cat has fur doesn't mean my cat's purpose is 'fur'. You may have also been downvoted because your comment seemed disrespectful or simplistic in its attitude towards organized religion. When I go to my synagogue for Shabbat services, 'influence' has nothing to do with it.
    - hga 15y ago
      Although it's worth pointing out that Google should care very much about the "influence" of the parts of society it openly favors or [ insert antonym here, it's too early in the morning ]. Google has gained a lot of enemies for a variety of reasons, size and success in particular. It's going to need the favor and good will of as much of the nation as possible to survive the increasingly vicious attacks on it from competitors or those who simply like to attack the big (envy, or just big pockets). There's long been a correct (I believe) perception that Google leans strongly to the Left, and in a country where "the Left" is outnumbered 2-1 by "the Right" I can't see that being wise. This action of theirs as of yesterday was gaining a lot of attention on the Right, and even agnostics like myself are not pleased (because I know churches do a lot of good, something very strongly reinforced this summer after a tornado ripped through the middle of my city, Joplin, Missouri). I'm not saying Google should favor the Right, but at least it should not go out of its way to piss it off. It simply can't afford that sort of thing given its status today.
- sp332 15y ago
  However, we live in an at least nominally secular society. That means that we don't show preference for or prejudice against religions. I think this is where you're wrong. Freedom of religion doesn't mean secular, it means you get to have whatever religion you like. Consider: The US government isn't a Catholic organization, so we won't give tax breaks to Catholic charities. The US government isn't a Libertarian organization, so we won't give tax breaks to Libertarian charities. should not lead to an expectation amongst the religious that they should receive similar treatment from private enterprise. You really can't separate charity from the ethical principles that drive people to do it. Religion is a private enterprise.
buff-a 15y ago
Were these for- profit companies suddenly to decide that churches were not eligible for their largesse, the lunch program would almost certainly be shut down. Perhaps to be replaced by secular organizations, instead of organizations that believe that in a few years time myself and most of my friends are going to be tortured for eternity in a very real place called hell and who are ok with that.
- ars 15y ago
  So what you are saying is, because you don't agree with them they should be shut down?
  - vacri 15y ago
    Again, you're conflating things. "No more discounts for you, but please avail yourself of our regular services" is not some jackbooted thug forcing you to close. It's an end to favourable special treatment, not an increased burden of restrictions.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    How about because he doesn't like them, he doesn't care if they are shut down.
- gizzlon 15y ago
  Instead, they're only going to give "discount" lunch to people they agree with ;) Seems like google decides what nonprofits are good and deserves a discount and who are "evil" (or whatever) and does not. How would their soup-kitchen look like?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
    - gizzlon 15y ago
      1) By that logic, they guy giving out the soup could not in good conscience eat his own dinner. 2) The prerequisite is that "discrimination" is something bad or "evil". The soup guy doesn't like people being "evil" so he discriminates against(?) them. How is this any better? The soup guy just has a different definition of "evil".
nemoniac 15y ago
By what sense of entitlement does the columnist expect preferential treatment by Google or anyone else merely due to the fact that you have a religious group? By coupling charitable activities to religious activities you raise questions about your motives. Decouple them and your genuine charitable activities will be eligible.
- Tichy 15y ago
  Was thinking the same thing - if some religious group wants to do common good (rather than repair the roof of their church or whatever), they could simply create a spin-off organization dedicated to the common good.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    So, if they run a soup kitchen or other service from their building they have to let it fall down, at which point they can't offer any further services from the building? If the roof is repaired, as it is at out church building, by volunteer labour from the Church using their own funds ... presumably then too you'd want to stop supporting any charitable function we perform? I think the thing people don't seem to understand about [most] Christian churches is that the money comes from the people who are part of the local Church community. It's what they could instead choose to spend on going to a football game every week or buying a new car or going on holiday. It's their money that has already been taxed as income being pooled together for common activities; more often than not those common activities include a large proportion of charitable work.
    - Tichy 15y ago
      The soup kitchen could pay rent to the church. Anyway I am not a tax advisor. And there already was a discussion about pro and contra religion yesterday. It is just not obvious that churches help the common good - some probably do, others don't (scientology?).
- gizzlon 15y ago
  Or, it's the other way around: They expect to not be treated differently than other nonprofit's merely due to the fact that they have a religious group. So who decides what "genuine charitable" activities are?
warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
Doesn't sound like a bug to me.
zecg 15y ago
Good.
- tomelders 15y ago
  Amen brother.
irahul 15y ago
The sense of entitlement is sickening.
litmus 15y ago
To me it seems pretty simple: google seems to make no distinction between charitable political groups or religious organizations. they're the same damn thing in their eyes. Would church leaders consider the church a success if they eliminated poverty in the world but the entire world became atheists? Answer: No. If they were true believers they would accept it as an utter failure since all those souls would be in danger of experiencing a less than optimal eternity. Question: What would be the answer to the same question from an organization whose sole purpose was to eliminate poverty in the world? Answer: You're damn right it's a success! From an ethical standpoint, the focus on the word "nonprofit" is misleading. No organization in the world has "not to make a profit" as its primary purpose. Not being for profit is the means for the transparency that is required to acheive the goal.
- buff-a 15y ago
  THIS. And in fact because of this, religions actively cause poverty and hardship.
rogerbraun 15y ago
So now it's only for non-prophet organizations?
jleyank 15y ago
I'm sure it's been said before and will be said again - so it goes. Formal non-profit status should be lost whenever the organization engages in political activity. I am not comfortable subsidizing (via a tax break) activities that are hostile to me or my world view. I surely don't want to support hostile lobby groups.
- adammichaelc 15y ago
  By that logic, religions should not be entitled to free speech. This seems wrong. There are many non-profits whose political speech I disagree with, but I wouldn't say to cut off their non-profit status is the answer.
  - cgranade 15y ago
    Free speech is not the same as enjoying non-profit status. Google cutting off the latter means that they no longer actively sponsor the speech of religious groups, but those groups still are able to speak the same as anyone else. By ceasing to preferentially treat religious organizations, Google has effectively taken a stance for free speech, not against it.
    - jleyank 15y ago
      Concur. I fully support your (or anybody's) right to say what they want. There's no right, however, to tax-exempt status.
adammichaelc 15y ago
The trend of anti-religious comments below is saddening, even more so because it seems to be the overwhelming group-think on the subject. For a group that has benefited so much from the foundations setup by religion to attack the same is short-sighted, though unfortunately not uncommon in a world where the media increasingly paints religion using only the most extreme brush and leaves most people with a taste in their mouth that religion is something foreign and even repulsive. There are three ways I see religion as providing us with a foundation that is so obvious and common that it may almost go unnoticed. First, much of our legal system has as its foundation a codified way to enforce what started as religious principles. Contract law came essentially to bind by law a person to "be honest," and property law to do the same with "do not steal." Much of our legal system has at its foundation these essential principles. Second, religious groups are often the best at doing the small things that most in this audience would never see: visiting people in prison who feel helpless and without support, feeding the homeless and funding shelters and support groups for the same, and providing free counseling services to those who cannot afford those services on their own. Religious groups are often the first on the scene when a natural disaster strikes. They get boots on the ground and food in people's bellies. Finally, religious groups subsidize education and create schools. It is likely that at some point you benefited either directly or indirectly from this educational foundation, especially in the US. By doing this, organized religions help lift millions out of ignorance. Organized religion is not what the media portrays. That is such an important idea, that perhaps an entire essay should be written just on that sentence. Not all (or most) religious people kill people in the name of God, or create secret compounds where they can marry teenage girls and call it "God's work," or use religion to justify hatred/torture/war,etc. These things definitely exist, but the dosing you are fed by the media/popular culture is all wrong. It's like anything else - you only get fed the things that will bring page views, and those stories tend to be about very strange wings of religions. Most religious people very quietly live ordinary lives and use their religious faith to find deeper meaning through self-sacrifice and service to others. But that wouldn't make a good story, so you don't read much about it. Google is popularizing an alarming trend to treat religious groups like the "crazy uncle" who won't go away when I think they should instead realize that much of their own success (via the foundations mentioned above) is a direct or indirect result of the principles that organized religion has brought them. Google is benefiting from all that has been handed to them while spitting at the giver and potentially shutting off those gifts for future generations. I think that is an unfortunate mistake.
philh 15y ago
As an atheist who is mildly antireligious: that was a good article. The author has a position, but he dismisses crazy arguments in favor of it, and the arguments that he constructs are targetted towards the people most likely to disagree with him. He doesn't come across as self entitled. He doesn't make generalisations about atheists. I haven't fully thought about his arguments; perhaps they don't really hold water. So I guess on some level I'm talking about form rather than content.
digibri 15y ago
I'm enjoying the debate of whether or not "religious institutions" (which I think is an important distinction from "religions") should or should not be considered non-profit entities. I personally feel that they should not be considered as such. The only new reasoning I can add to the mix, is that quite simply, I personally feel "religious institutions" (again, not "religions" nor "faith") have too great a political power base in this country. I suspect that changing the tax rules on these institutions might in some small way shift the balance in a direction I feel is healthier for our nation's diverse culture. Does anyone know if there are any lobbying rules that differ between non-profit and profit legal entities?
davvid 15y ago
Interesting story, but how is this hacker news? I thought we tried to avoid highly flammable topics like politics or religion.

69 points by eggdude 15y ago

So? Perhaps I'm biased, but calling religious organizations non-profits has always struck me as suspect. If they're performing a charitable function, they can easily do so as a secular charity. If they're proselytizing, then they are functionally no different from self-help gurus who charge people to attend conferences. I understand that, for many religious people, proselytizing and charity are inseparable. They commit charitable acts in the name of, and because of their religion. There is no discernible difference, to them, between feeding someone and saving their soul, save the greater importance of the latter. However, we live in an at least nominally secular society. That means that we don't show preference for or prejudice against religions. Societal factors have led to the preservation of the tax-exempt status of religious organizations, but this relic of an age when the Church was more powerful than most states should not lead to an expectation amongst the religious that they should receive similar treatment from private enterprise. That Google offers a non-profit discount at all is admirable. I suspect those complaining would be singing a much different tune if they were aware that under its previous rules, Google was directly subsidizing the Church of Scientology and other such organizations. It's terrible when your Sunday school's subsidy is revoked, but not so bad when a crazy cult is forced to pay full price. The obvious conclusion is that all religious subsidies must be avoided, or Google finds itself in the unenviable (and untenable) position, as a multinational corporation, of deciding which religions are deserving of its patronage.

ars 15y ago
> Perhaps I'm biased, but calling religious organizations non-profits has always struck me as suspect. Yes, you are biased. Non profit means "not to make a profit", and that fits religious organizations quite well. None of them try to make a profit, therefor they are non-profit. It's not really that complicated. > If they're proselytizing, then they are functionally no different from self-help gurus who charge people to attend conferences. Except that they don't charge. Which of course does make them different. You are biased because you (presumably) don't like what they do, but that's your opinion, and you should not assume everyone shares it. And it's interesting you find the only organization in the world that claims to be a for-profit religion (Scientology) and use that to paint the rest of them. (Again barring fraud, which obviously does happen.) Scientology is for profit because they charge money for their services, no other religion does that. Other religions ask for donations, sure, but the services are not conditional on the donations. Just because an organization has a message does not make them for profit, anymore than a secular organization with a message ("don't eat meat" for example) automatically becomes for profit. Your post sounds like you want to be the arbiter of which messages are for profit and which are not.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >Yes, you are biased. Non profit means "not to make a profit", and that fits religious organizations quite well. None of them try to make a profit, therefor they are non-profit. It's not really that complicated. Most religious organizations turn large profits. That they are used to build more churches, mosques, and temples does not detract from the fact that it's a profit. >Except that they don't charge. Which of course does make them different. Again, this is false. There isn't a cover charge, but there's an expectation of donation. It's no different from a tip. Waiters aren't non-profit, and neither are churches. >You are biased because you (presumably) don't like what they do, but that's your opinion, and you should not assume everyone shares it. A) I don't assume everyone shares it. B) I like a great deal of what many religious organizations do and have done, and dislike a great deal they do as well. >And it's interesting you find the only organization in the world that claims to be a for-profit religion (Scientology) and use that to paint the rest of them. (Again barring fraud, which obviously does happen.) This is patently false. From the Catholic Church, to Evangelical preachers, to most other organized religions, they all turn a profit. >Your post sounds like you want to be the arbiter of which messages are for profit and which are not. Message has nothing to do with turning a profit. That is determined by the money you take in minus the money you spend. I count money spent on growing the organization, through the building of additional churches and missionary works, as an investment in future profits, and hence not deductible from profits (to the extent it would make an organization a non-profit). I've clearly stepped on your toes. I apologize for the offense I've caused, but not for the words that caused it, which I stand by.
  - ars 15y ago
    > I've clearly stepped on your toes. I apologize for the offense I've caused, but not for the words that caused it, which I stand by. No, my toes are fine, and I am not offended. You are just wrong, which is a different thing entirely. > but there's an expectation of donation. It's no different from a tip. A tip is given in proportion to services rendered. A donation is not. > I count money spent on growing the organization .... not deductible from profits You might do that. No one else does. If you remove this clause then this: > .... to most other organized religions, they all turn a profit. Is no longer true as well (I assume you agree). So lets talk about the clause. Growing the organization simply makes them more effective in spreading the message. But the message is the goal, not the money. In a for profit the money is the goal and is used for other purposes. > as an investment in future profits No, it's an investment is furthering the message.
buff-a 15y ago
If there is one thing that readers of HN should appreciate, it is the value of Influence. Facebook had value simply because it could put a message in front of 500 million people. Organized Religion's primary purpose is Influence. Argue that it is "for a good cause", to "save souls", if you want. That is opinion. That they have Influence is fact. That they use this Influence to induce their members to spend money is fact. That they use this Influence to induce their members to vote for a particular candidate or particular issue is fact. Influence is $$$. How is Organized Religion any different from Facebook or Google? EDIT: Perhaps a comment from the downvoters? I don't get it.
- gyardley 15y ago
  I didn't downvote you -- but perhaps you were downvoted because while organized religions do have influence, that doesn't imply that the purpose of organized religion is influence. An attribute of a thing is not necessarily the purpose of a thing; just because my cat has fur doesn't mean my cat's purpose is 'fur'. You may have also been downvoted because your comment seemed disrespectful or simplistic in its attitude towards organized religion. When I go to my synagogue for Shabbat services, 'influence' has nothing to do with it.
  - hga 15y ago
    Although it's worth pointing out that Google should care very much about the "influence" of the parts of society it openly favors or [ insert antonym here, it's too early in the morning ]. Google has gained a lot of enemies for a variety of reasons, size and success in particular. It's going to need the favor and good will of as much of the nation as possible to survive the increasingly vicious attacks on it from competitors or those who simply like to attack the big (envy, or just big pockets). There's long been a correct (I believe) perception that Google leans strongly to the Left, and in a country where "the Left" is outnumbered 2-1 by "the Right" I can't see that being wise. This action of theirs as of yesterday was gaining a lot of attention on the Right, and even agnostics like myself are not pleased (because I know churches do a lot of good, something very strongly reinforced this summer after a tornado ripped through the middle of my city, Joplin, Missouri). I'm not saying Google should favor the Right, but at least it should not go out of its way to piss it off. It simply can't afford that sort of thing given its status today.
sp332 15y ago
However, we live in an at least nominally secular society. That means that we don't show preference for or prejudice against religions. I think this is where you're wrong. Freedom of religion doesn't mean secular, it means you get to have whatever religion you like. Consider: The US government isn't a Catholic organization, so we won't give tax breaks to Catholic charities. The US government isn't a Libertarian organization, so we won't give tax breaks to Libertarian charities. should not lead to an expectation amongst the religious that they should receive similar treatment from private enterprise. You really can't separate charity from the ethical principles that drive people to do it. Religion is a private enterprise.

buff-a 15y ago

Were these for- profit companies suddenly to decide that churches were not eligible for their largesse, the lunch program would almost certainly be shut down. Perhaps to be replaced by secular organizations, instead of organizations that believe that in a few years time myself and most of my friends are going to be tortured for eternity in a very real place called hell and who are ok with that.

ars 15y ago
So what you are saying is, because you don't agree with them they should be shut down?
- vacri 15y ago
  Again, you're conflating things. "No more discounts for you, but please avail yourself of our regular services" is not some jackbooted thug forcing you to close. It's an end to favourable special treatment, not an increased burden of restrictions.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  How about because he doesn't like them, he doesn't care if they are shut down.
gizzlon 15y ago
Instead, they're only going to give "discount" lunch to people they agree with ;) Seems like google decides what nonprofits are good and deserves a discount and who are "evil" (or whatever) and does not. How would their soup-kitchen look like?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - gizzlon 15y ago
    1) By that logic, they guy giving out the soup could not in good conscience eat his own dinner. 2) The prerequisite is that "discrimination" is something bad or "evil". The soup guy doesn't like people being "evil" so he discriminates against(?) them. How is this any better? The soup guy just has a different definition of "evil".

nemoniac 15y ago

By what sense of entitlement does the columnist expect preferential treatment by Google or anyone else merely due to the fact that you have a religious group? By coupling charitable activities to religious activities you raise questions about your motives. Decouple them and your genuine charitable activities will be eligible.

Tichy 15y ago
Was thinking the same thing - if some religious group wants to do common good (rather than repair the roof of their church or whatever), they could simply create a spin-off organization dedicated to the common good.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  So, if they run a soup kitchen or other service from their building they have to let it fall down, at which point they can't offer any further services from the building? If the roof is repaired, as it is at out church building, by volunteer labour from the Church using their own funds ... presumably then too you'd want to stop supporting any charitable function we perform? I think the thing people don't seem to understand about [most] Christian churches is that the money comes from the people who are part of the local Church community. It's what they could instead choose to spend on going to a football game every week or buying a new car or going on holiday. It's their money that has already been taxed as income being pooled together for common activities; more often than not those common activities include a large proportion of charitable work.
  - Tichy 15y ago
    The soup kitchen could pay rent to the church. Anyway I am not a tax advisor. And there already was a discussion about pro and contra religion yesterday. It is just not obvious that churches help the common good - some probably do, others don't (scientology?).
gizzlon 15y ago
Or, it's the other way around: They expect to not be treated differently than other nonprofit's merely due to the fact that they have a religious group. So who decides what "genuine charitable" activities are?

warmfuzzykitten 15y ago

Doesn't sound like a bug to me.

zecg 15y ago

Good.

tomelders 15y ago
Amen brother.

irahul 15y ago

The sense of entitlement is sickening.

litmus 15y ago

To me it seems pretty simple: google seems to make no distinction between charitable political groups or religious organizations. they're the same damn thing in their eyes. Would church leaders consider the church a success if they eliminated poverty in the world but the entire world became atheists? Answer: No. If they were true believers they would accept it as an utter failure since all those souls would be in danger of experiencing a less than optimal eternity. Question: What would be the answer to the same question from an organization whose sole purpose was to eliminate poverty in the world? Answer: You're damn right it's a success! From an ethical standpoint, the focus on the word "nonprofit" is misleading. No organization in the world has "not to make a profit" as its primary purpose. Not being for profit is the means for the transparency that is required to acheive the goal.

buff-a 15y ago
THIS. And in fact because of this, religions actively cause poverty and hardship.

rogerbraun 15y ago

So now it's only for non-prophet organizations?

jleyank 15y ago

I'm sure it's been said before and will be said again - so it goes. Formal non-profit status should be lost whenever the organization engages in political activity. I am not comfortable subsidizing (via a tax break) activities that are hostile to me or my world view. I surely don't want to support hostile lobby groups.

adammichaelc 15y ago
By that logic, religions should not be entitled to free speech. This seems wrong. There are many non-profits whose political speech I disagree with, but I wouldn't say to cut off their non-profit status is the answer.
- cgranade 15y ago
  Free speech is not the same as enjoying non-profit status. Google cutting off the latter means that they no longer actively sponsor the speech of religious groups, but those groups still are able to speak the same as anyone else. By ceasing to preferentially treat religious organizations, Google has effectively taken a stance for free speech, not against it.
  - jleyank 15y ago
    Concur. I fully support your (or anybody's) right to say what they want. There's no right, however, to tax-exempt status.

adammichaelc 15y ago

The trend of anti-religious comments below is saddening, even more so because it seems to be the overwhelming group-think on the subject. For a group that has benefited so much from the foundations setup by religion to attack the same is short-sighted, though unfortunately not uncommon in a world where the media increasingly paints religion using only the most extreme brush and leaves most people with a taste in their mouth that religion is something foreign and even repulsive. There are three ways I see religion as providing us with a foundation that is so obvious and common that it may almost go unnoticed. First, much of our legal system has as its foundation a codified way to enforce what started as religious principles. Contract law came essentially to bind by law a person to "be honest," and property law to do the same with "do not steal." Much of our legal system has at its foundation these essential principles. Second, religious groups are often the best at doing the small things that most in this audience would never see: visiting people in prison who feel helpless and without support, feeding the homeless and funding shelters and support groups for the same, and providing free counseling services to those who cannot afford those services on their own. Religious groups are often the first on the scene when a natural disaster strikes. They get boots on the ground and food in people's bellies. Finally, religious groups subsidize education and create schools. It is likely that at some point you benefited either directly or indirectly from this educational foundation, especially in the US. By doing this, organized religions help lift millions out of ignorance. Organized religion is not what the media portrays. That is such an important idea, that perhaps an entire essay should be written just on that sentence. Not all (or most) religious people kill people in the name of God, or create secret compounds where they can marry teenage girls and call it "God's work," or use religion to justify hatred/torture/war,etc. These things definitely exist, but the dosing you are fed by the media/popular culture is all wrong. It's like anything else - you only get fed the things that will bring page views, and those stories tend to be about very strange wings of religions. Most religious people very quietly live ordinary lives and use their religious faith to find deeper meaning through self-sacrifice and service to others. But that wouldn't make a good story, so you don't read much about it. Google is popularizing an alarming trend to treat religious groups like the "crazy uncle" who won't go away when I think they should instead realize that much of their own success (via the foundations mentioned above) is a direct or indirect result of the principles that organized religion has brought them. Google is benefiting from all that has been handed to them while spitting at the giver and potentially shutting off those gifts for future generations. I think that is an unfortunate mistake.

philh 15y ago

As an atheist who is mildly antireligious: that was a good article. The author has a position, but he dismisses crazy arguments in favor of it, and the arguments that he constructs are targetted towards the people most likely to disagree with him. He doesn't come across as self entitled. He doesn't make generalisations about atheists. I haven't fully thought about his arguments; perhaps they don't really hold water. So I guess on some level I'm talking about form rather than content.

digibri 15y ago

I'm enjoying the debate of whether or not "religious institutions" (which I think is an important distinction from "religions") should or should not be considered non-profit entities. I personally feel that they should not be considered as such. The only new reasoning I can add to the mix, is that quite simply, I personally feel "religious institutions" (again, not "religions" nor "faith") have too great a political power base in this country. I suspect that changing the tax rules on these institutions might in some small way shift the balance in a direction I feel is healthier for our nation's diverse culture. Does anyone know if there are any lobbying rules that differ between non-profit and profit legal entities?

davvid 15y ago

Interesting story, but how is this hacker news? I thought we tried to avoid highly flammable topics like politics or religion.