71–80 of 87 posts
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..
And you can also define jumping up and down as dancing.
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.
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 unde…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is their purpose?
I suspect replying to you is a waste of time. That said, on the off-chance that you actually will think about what I'm saying, here goes: * The organized religious group I'm a member of, through ceremony, gives certain major life events and certain times of the week more importance and significance than they would otherwise have. I'm not sure you'd understand the word 'sacred' - so let me describe it as a peaceful, c…
a) you do because your organization told you to do them.
b) are effective at maintaining your membership of the organization.
Saatchi and Saatchi has nothing on Organized Religion at generating memes.
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?
My problem is that they don't act in the public interest, which is what a non-profit is supposed to do.
The Red Cross pulls in about half what the Mormon church does, and while quite a bit gets eaten up by overhead costs, even more goes to providing medical aid and supplies to those in need -- regardless of color, creed, sexual orientation, or coffee preference.
The Red Cross doesn't lobby to deny basic human rights to 'undesirable' groups. They don't have investment holdings in insurance companies and real estate. The Red Cross isn't members-only, where you have to 'join the club' to receive aid.
The Red Cross helps anybody in need.
The Church (pick one) exists solely to further the interests of its members -- shareholders, if you will -- at the expense of other groups.
This is why I say The Church is a business, and as such should be taxed as one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect replying to you is a waste of time. That said, on the off-chance that you actually will think about what I'm saying, here goes: * The organized religious group I'm a member of, through ceremony, gives certain major life events and certain times of the week more importance and significance than they would otherwise have. I'm not sure you'd understand the word 'sacred' - so let me describe it as a peaceful, c…
Thanks. I put it to you, however, that the activities you have listed: a) you do because your organization told you to do them. b) are effective at maintaining your membership of the organization. That is, these activities, rituals, etc, exist because they make your religion more successful. Your religion is a meme. All its actions are memes. Even the memes that cause you to go out and learn other memes. Saatchi and…
Point a) is just insulting. I do them because I choose to do them. Same with everyone who's a member of any voluntary organization. We do have free will, you know.
I'm going to pass on discussing memetics, but if you're interested, Mary Midgely is the author to read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I put it to you, however, that the activities you have listed: a) you do because your organization told you to do them. b) are effective at maintaining your membership of the organization. That is, these activities, rituals, etc, exist because they make your religion more successful. Your religion is a meme. All its actions are memes. Even the memes that cause you to go out and learn other memes. Saatchi and…
Well, point b) is correct. I get a lot of benefit from my synagogue membership, so of course I stay a member. That's common sense. Point a) is just insulting. I do them because I choose to do them. Same with everyone who's a member of any voluntary organization. We do have free will, you know. I'm going to pass on discussing memetics, but if you're interested, Mary Midgely is the author to read.
EDIT: And in fact, you may not have free will in this case. If you have free will, why is it that most Christian children have Christian parents? Why do most Muslim children have Muslim parents? Jewish children have Jewish parents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Churches are exempt from many non-discrimination rules. They can exclude people who are not members of their faith, and may decide to kick someone out of the church should they divorce. The Salvation Army is anti-gay and actively lobbies against gay rights, as does the Mormon church. If a company has the policy of not discriminating based on faith, creed, skin color, marital status, veteran status, etc. then it would…
>The Salvation Army is anti-gay The Salvation Army I'm sure considered themselves to be extremely for people who express themselves as "gay": this is what they say on the point. http://www.salvationarmy.org/ind%5Cwww_ind.nsf/vw-sublinks/8... It's a moral judgement. Arguing that opposing the Salvation Army's position is somehow neutral would be wrong. Considering that, I can't see how they're position impacts on me at…
That is the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Salvation Army even refuses money from the City of San Francisco, because the city requires "any business that holds city contracts and provides spousal health insurance to married couples must do the same for the gay or unmarried partners of its employees." http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/s-army.htm
The way I read it, it's more important for them to discriminate against gay people then it is to provide "warmth, compassion, food and clothing."