31–40 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I think that's exactly what they do. I don't know, but I guess deciding if something is nonprofit must be quite easy. Deciding who's charitable and who's not must be hard. Saying that someone is not charitable because they give out food AND preach is a huge value judgement.
You did it just there with that "AND". Clearly not that hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>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 cou…
Many non-profits are the same.
I think the easiest way to differentiate between profits and non-profits is that profits have shareholders who benefit from the profits through dividends, rise in share price, etc. They have the potential to get a financial return on their investment. You can't say the same for donors to non-profits.
Many religious organizations would easily be counted as non-profits when looking at what makes a non-profit a non-profit.
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 comm…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that someone is not charitable because they give out food AND preach is a huge value judgement. That's a strawman. It's not saying they're not a charitable organisation, it's saying they're not an organisation whose sole purpose is charity.
"That's a strawman." Maybe.. "it's saying they're not an organisation whose sole purpose is charity." And that's the value judgement. Right there. You just defined what a "charity" is, and is not. Some might call preaching a charity (I might) etc..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
None of them try to make a profit, therefor they are non-profit. This is outright willful ignorance. There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money. Then you conflate 'religious organisation' with 'religion', which are two separate things. Yes, "Christianity" is nominally a "non-profit religion", but there are plenty of christian religious organisations that have…
As opposed to other non-profits? The willful ignorance here is yours. You don't seem to know how many big non-profits actually work. Do a search about United Way outrage for example.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Except that really isn't the case; most religions are non-profit only because you can specify quite interesting definitions for the word 'profit'. As a case-in-point, look at the Mormon church. Mormon famili…
You do realize that all non-profit organizations pay their employees... right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying that someone is not charitable because they give out food AND preach is a huge value judgement. That's a strawman. It's not saying they're not a charitable organisation, it's saying they're not an organisation whose sole purpose is charity.
"That's a strawman." Maybe.. "it's saying they're not an organisation whose sole purpose is charity." And that's the value judgement. Right there. You just defined what a "charity" is, and is not. Some might call preaching a charity (I might) etc..
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.
So who decides what "genuine charitable" activities are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that all non-profit organizations pay their employees... right?
Is "not making profit" the only criterion for being a non profit? Just saying - a lot of startups could save on taxes and special offers...