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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
I think this is where you're wrong. Freedom of religion doesn't mean secular, it means you get to have whatever religion you like. Consider:
The US government isn't a Catholic organization, so we won't give tax breaks to Catholic charities.
The US government isn't a Libertarian organization, so we won't give tax breaks to Libertarian charities.
should not lead to an expectation amongst the religious that they should receive similar treatment from private enterprise.
You really can't separate charity from the ethical principles that drive people to do it. Religion is a private enterprise.
Organized Religion's primary purpose is Influence. Argue that it is "for a good cause", to "save souls", if you want. That is opinion. That they have Influence is fact. That they use this Influence to induce their members to spend money is fact. That they use this Influence to induce their members to vote for a particular candidate or particular issue is fact.
Influence is $$$.
How is Organized Religion any different from Facebook or Google?
EDIT: Perhaps a comment from the downvoters? I don't get it.
An attribute of a thing is not necessarily the purpose of a thing; just because my cat has fur doesn't mean my cat's purpose is 'fur'.
You may have also been downvoted because your comment seemed disrespectful or simplistic in its attitude towards organized religion. When I go to my synagogue for Shabbat services, 'influence' has nothing to do with it.
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.
It's an end to favourable special treatment, not an increased burden of restrictions.
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?
By coupling charitable activities to religious activities you raise questions about your motives. Decouple them and your genuine charitable activities will be eligible.
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.
So who decides what "genuine charitable" activities are?
The IRS, actually. Google for 501c3.
Would church leaders consider the church a success if they eliminated poverty in the world but the entire world became atheists?
Answer: No. If they were true believers they would accept it as an utter failure since all those souls would be in danger of experiencing a less than optimal eternity.
Question: What would be the answer to the same question from an organization whose sole purpose was to eliminate poverty in the world?
Answer: You're damn right it's a success!
From an ethical standpoint, the focus on the word "nonprofit" is misleading. No organization in the world has "not to make a profit" as its primary purpose. Not being for profit is the means for the transparency that is required to acheive the goal.
There are three ways I see religion as providing us with a foundation that is so obvious and common that it may almost go unnoticed.
First, much of our legal system has as its foundation a codified way to enforce what started as religious principles. Contract law came essentially to bind by law a person to "be honest," and property law to do the same with "do not steal." Much of our legal system has at its foundation these essential principles.
Second, religious groups are often the best at doing the small things that most in this audience would never see: visiting people in prison who feel helpless and without support, feeding the homeless and funding shelters and support groups for the same, and providing free counseling services to those who cannot afford those services on their own. Religious groups are often the first on the scene when a natural disaster strikes. They get boots on the ground and food in people's bellies.
Finally, religious groups subsidize education and create schools. It is likely that at some point you benefited either directly or indirectly from this educational foundation, especially in the US. By doing this, organized religions help lift millions out of ignorance.
Organized religion is not what the media portrays. That is such an important idea, that perhaps an entire essay should be written just on that sentence.
Not all (or most) religious people kill people in the name of God, or create secret compounds where they can marry teenage girls and call it "God's work," or use religion to justify hatred/torture/war,etc. These things definitely exist, but the dosing you are fed by the media/popular culture is all wrong. It's like anything else - you only get fed the things that will bring page views, and those stories tend to be about very strange wings of religions.
Most religious people very quietly live ordinary lives and use their religious faith to find deeper meaning through self-sacrifice and service to others. But that wouldn't make a good story, so you don't read much about it.
Google is popularizing an alarming trend to treat religious groups like the "crazy uncle" who won't go away when I think they should instead realize that much of their own success (via the foundations mentioned above) is a direct or indirect result of the principles that organized religion has brought them. Google is benefiting from all that has been handed to them while spitting at the giver and potentially shutting off those gifts for future generations. I think that is an unfortunate mistake.
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?
I haven't fully thought about his arguments; perhaps they don't really hold water. So I guess on some level I'm talking about form rather than content.
