8 ms·

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

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.

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.