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

21–30 of 87 posts

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

#21

Post by richardw »

ars wrote: post #13
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…

Just because there are charlatans of that sort (which is undisputed) does not make what I said wrong.

There is a long continuum between charlatan and saint. A vanishingly small number of organisations are more occupied with their original reasons for being than with ensuring their leaders have a reasonable lifestyle.

A friend of mine, a priest, did some research that included how many priests still believe in a god. He wasn't allowed to release his findings.

(edit - didn't down-vote you, btw) (2nd edit. He continues to be a priest and has enormous integrity, so you can assume that he does believe in what he's doing. But he is pretty cynical about the institution.)

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

#22

Post by Tichy »

nemoniac wrote: post #10

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.

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.

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

#23

Post by gizzlon »

buff-a wrote: post #20
gizzlon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They don't appear to be making any value judgments, at least from what I read in the article. If you have an entity that provides a charitable purpose, and nothing else, then you get lower costs. If you have an entity that is involved in something else, then you don't get lower costs.

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.

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

#24

Post by vacri »

ars wrote: post #13
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…

Just because there are charlatans of that sort (which is undisputed) does not make what I said wrong.

You're engaging in a textbook No True Scotsman fallacy.

Please note that we are talking about religious organisations here, not religions (the latter of which we can argue about until the cows come home)

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

#25

Post by vacri »

richardw wrote: post #21
ars wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because there are charlatans of that sort (which is undisputed) does not make what I said wrong.

There is a long continuum between charlatan and saint. A vanishingly small number of organisations are more occupied with their original reasons for being than with ensuring their leaders have a reasonable lifestyle. A friend of mine, a priest, did some research that included how many priests still believe in a god. He wasn't allowed to release his findings. (edit - didn't down-vote you, btw) (2nd edit. He continues…

I heard a couple of priests-cum-public-atheists on the radio, saying that when they did their doctorates in divinity, where you learn a hell of a lot more of the history and politics of christianity, the running joke was "if you still believe in a god after learning all that, it just shows you weren't listening"

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

#26

Post by vacri »

gizzlon wrote: post #23
buff-a wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't appear to be making any value judgments, at least from what I read in the article. If you have an entity that provides a charitable purpose, and nothing else, then you get lower costs. If you have an entity that is involved in something else, then you don't get lower costs.

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.

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.

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

#27

Post by Natsu »

donw wrote: post #14
ars wrote: post #3

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. 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?

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

#28

Post by buff-a »

gizzlon wrote: post #23
buff-a wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't appear to be making any value judgments, at least from what I read in the article. If you have an entity that provides a charitable purpose, and nothing else, then you get lower costs. If you have an entity that is involved in something else, then you don't get lower costs.

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.

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

#30

Post by gizzlon »

vacri wrote: post #26
gizzlon wrote: post #23

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.

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..

Post reply on HN