[ars]

> 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.

[donw]

> 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 families are supposed to give a monthly donation of ten percent of their income to the church as 'tithing', which is tax-deductible, and of course the church is a 'non-profit'.

Church assets are estimated at over $30 billion USD, and they pull in about $5 billion annually. That's a lot of profit for a 'non-profit' organization.

This money pays for a lot of business-like activities. Salaries for high-level church officials, construction of buildings for church and public activities, global recruitment and proselytization operations, investment, lobbying activities, etc.

Some of it even makes it into humanitarian efforts, although that's part of the proselytization arm.

I've got no problem with any of this; as private citizens, they should be free to spend money however they want.

My problem is that these are all business activities. Nothing the church does is purely humanitarian; even their aid packages for disaster areas come with copies of the Book of Mormon, which I'd consider Sales and Marketing.

As such, they should pay taxes in the same way that a large corporation does.

Note that I'm not picking on the Mormons specifically; the Catholics, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, and pretty much every other major organized religion that I can think of do the same things.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus...

[Natsu]

You do realize that all non-profit organizations pay their employees... right?

[donw]

I don't take issue with them having a large pile of money, or with what they do with it.

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.

[Tichy]

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...

[Natsu]

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.

[dalke]

They also need to show that they are doing work which is a public benefit. For example, several free software projects are set up as a non-profit foundation, and they need to convince the IRS that they are a public good, vs. a company trying to shelter under the non-profit umbrella.

[dalke]

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.

[pbhjpbhj]

>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 the point of need if I get warmth, compassion, food and clothing regardless of who I am.

[dalke]

That document says that all homosexual conduct is misconduct, and therefore not appropriate to "Salvation Army soldiership."

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."

[pbhjpbhj]

>That is the definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation. //

What you define is discrimination based on sexual activity, homosexual conduct, and not "orientation".

>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." //

I guess you'd need to ask a homosexual who has used their services in some way. If you go to their soup-kitchen and tell them you're homosexual do they still give you soup and compassion as much as they give the next person?

[dalke]

Oh give me a break. 21 states have laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that's what I'm talking about. You can't, under the law in those places, discriminate against someone just because he or she is holding hands, kissing, or even having sex with someone else of the same sex. Your distinction is not relevant, and outside the meaning of the legal definition.

The case you bring up - services rendered - is only a part of what it means to discriminate. The Salvation Army says a man who is married to another man cannot be a member of the SA and therefore cannot be employed by the organization. That is discrimination in the workplace, and only legal because religious are except from those laws.

Pointing out that the SA will provide soup and compassion to all people, homosexual or otherwise, is irrelevant.

[pbhjpbhj]

>Your distinction is not relevant, and outside the meaning of the legal definition. //

I say it is relevant. It probably wouldn't be to a legal case. However, you say that you can't discriminate against someone because of an abstract label and then go on to describe behaviour that can't be discriminated against. That was essentially my point that behaviour defines a person (before the law that would be the actus as well as the mens [rea]).

>only legal because religious are except from those laws //

It's legal because you live in a democracy where a marked percentage of the population don't hold the same morals as you. I'm pretty sure the SA won't tolerate all sorts of sexual behaviour from their members (I don't know if they really have staff) not limited to homosexuals. If you can't tolerate this then that would be bigotry, FWIW.

>Pointing out that the SA will provide soup and compassion to all people, homosexual or otherwise, is irrelevant. //

You said they were discriminating negatively against people. Showing that they provide "services" without discrimination appears to be relevant.

[redthrowaway]

>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.

[ars]

> 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.

[PakG1]

>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.

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.

[vacri]

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.

[danssig]

>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.

[vacri]

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.

[danssig]

>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?

[vacri]

That "one specific group" was the "one specific group" the prior comment was picking up on from it's parent. Did you bother to read the two comments before mine to get the context of my comment, or did you just see it and attack it out of the blue?

[danssig]

I did read it. Missed that part though, my mistake.

[ars]

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

[richardw]

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.)

[vacri]

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"

[tincholio]

The very fact that you can do a doctorate in 'divinty' or theology is a joke...

[vacri]

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)

[pbhjpbhj]

Whilst "No True Scotsman" is a logical fallacy it doesn't mean that a Scotsman would actually wear an England shirt at Murrayfield on a match day. That is it is not a logical proof but that does not mean that the assertion it counters is false. Just FWIW.