[gizzlon]

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.

[buff-a]

You did it just there with that "AND". Clearly not that hard.

[gizzlon]

huh? Please clarify

[vacri]

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.

[gizzlon]

"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..

[felipemnoa]

And you can also define jumping up and down as dancing.

[pbhjpbhj]

You're being a bit obtuse there. At some times jumping up and down is dancing; I'll assume that wasn't your point?

[vacri]

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

[gizzlon]

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"

[vacri]

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%.