Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#41

Post by gizzlon »

vacri wrote: post #38
gizzlon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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..

Is it really a charity when the recipients don't necessarily want what you're giving them?

That's a valid question, but kind of besides the point. My point is just that deciding what's a charity -and what is not- is a "value judgement"

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#42

Post by Natsu »

Tichy wrote: post #37
Natsu wrote: post #27

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...

Of course not. 501(c)(3) accreditation is the standard in the USA for legal purposes. Wikipedia has a good writeup if you want to know more about how "nonprofit" is usually defined:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nonprofit_org...

If what you want is more financial or tax-based information, though, I'd go directly to the IRS website:

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,...

Just because a place is called a "nonprofit" doesn't mean that they have no money, no savings and no employees. It would be nearly impossible to run any kind of organization that way and would ridiculously handicap what they could accomplish. No money, savings, employees or profit is pretty much the recipe for a failed startup, after all. Anyhow, the IRS link explains exactly what is and is not allowed.

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#43

Post by gyardley »

buff-a wrote: post #33
redthrowaway wrote: post #2

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…

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 f…

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.

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#44

Post by litmus »

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.

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#46

Post by vacri »

gizzlon wrote: post #41
vacri wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really a charity when the recipients don't necessarily want what you're giving them?

That's a valid question, but kind of besides the point. My point is just that deciding what's a charity -and what is not- is a "value judgement"

Well, technically, yes, but then technically every social consideration is a value judgement.

Besides, preaching is advertising. It's designed to increase the numbers of the parent organisation of the charity. Other things that are charity aren't designed to do this. Giving clothes to someone isn't designed to increase the numbers of the parent org.

Most people consider "strings attached" charity to be not pure charity. Not to say it's uncharitable, but that it's not 100%.

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#47

Post by vacri »

danssig wrote: post #35
vacri wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>This is outright willful ignorance. There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money. 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.

Pardon me, did I say that? I was responding to the absolutist phrase "None of them". Stop putting words in my mouth.

Please, tell me anywhere in my comment you responded to where I made any mention or judgement of other kinds of non-profits, particularly "big" ones.

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#48

Post by sp332 »

redthrowaway wrote: post #2

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…

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.

Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

#50

Post by danssig »

vacri wrote: post #47
danssig wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is outright willful ignorance. There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money. 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.

Pardon me, did I say that? I was responding to the absolutist phrase " None of them". Stop putting words in my mouth. Please, tell me anywhere in my comment you responded to where I made any mention or judgement of other kinds of non-profits, particularly "big" ones.

>There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money.

These seems to imply that other non-profits don't. Otherwise why point out one specific group?

Post reply on HN