Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
1–10 of 87 posts
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#2So? 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.
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#3So? 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…
> 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.
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#4Were 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.
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#5Were 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.
So what you are saying is, because you don't agree with them they should be shut down?
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#6So? 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…
> 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 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.
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#7So? 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…
> 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 fleeced their flock.
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#8So? 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…
> 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…
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 wouldn't be appropriate to support another organization which DOES so discriminate.
I have no idea if this is Google's reasoning, but it seems like perfectly ethical reasoning of why they may not want to extend non-profit discount to churches.
BTW, it isn't hard to set up a non-profit subsidiary. A church which wanted to could start one and use that to receive donations. There's some paperwork, but it isn't much - and most churches already have someone to manage their own paperwork. The new non-profit, of course, would be subject to non-discrimination laws.
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#9Earlier 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…
> 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.
Re: Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list
#10By 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.