

Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list - eggdude
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-15/google-do-gooder-discount-lets-churches-beg-commentary-by-stephen-carter.html

======
redthrowaway
So? 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.

~~~
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.

~~~
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.

------
adammichaelc
The trend of anti-religious comments below is saddening, even more so because
it seems to be the overwhelming group-think on the subject. For a group that
has benefited so much from the foundations setup by religion to attack the
same is short-sighted, though unfortunately not uncommon in a world where the
media increasingly paints religion using only the most extreme brush and
leaves most people with a taste in their mouth that religion is something
foreign and even repulsive.

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.

------
nemoniac
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.

~~~
Tichy
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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 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.

~~~
Tichy
The soup kitchen could pay rent to the church. Anyway I am not a tax advisor.
And there already was a discussion about pro and contra religion yesterday. It
is just not obvious that churches help the common good - some probably do,
others don't (scientology?).

------
litmus
To me it seems pretty simple: google seems to make no distinction between
charitable political groups or religious organizations. they're the same damn
thing in their eyes.

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.

~~~
buff-a
THIS. And in fact because of this, religions actively cause poverty and
hardship.

------
buff-a
_Were 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.

~~~
ars
So what you are saying is, because you don't agree with them they should be
shut down?

~~~
tomjen3
How about because he doesn't like them, he doesn't care if they are shut down.

------
jleyank
I'm sure it's been said before and will be said again - so it goes. Formal
non-profit status should be lost whenever the organization engages in
political activity. I am not comfortable subsidizing (via a tax break)
activities that are hostile to me or my world view. I surely don't want to
support hostile lobby groups.

~~~
adammichaelc
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.

~~~
cgranade
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.

~~~
jleyank
Concur. I fully support your (or anybody's) right to say what they want.
There's no right, however, to tax-exempt status.

------
rogerbraun
So now it's only for non-prophet organizations?

------
warmfuzzykitten
Doesn't sound like a bug to me.

------
irahul
The sense of entitlement is sickening.

------
digibri
I'm enjoying the debate of whether or not "religious institutions" (which I
think is an important distinction from "religions") should or should not be
considered non-profit entities. I personally feel that they should not be
considered as such.

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?

------
philh
As an atheist who is mildly antireligious: that was a good article. The author
has a position, but he dismisses crazy arguments in favor of it, and the
arguments that he constructs are targetted towards the people most likely to
disagree with him. He doesn't come across as self entitled. He doesn't make
generalisations about atheists.

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.

------
davvid
Interesting story, but how is this hacker news? I thought we tried to avoid
highly flammable topics like politics or religion.

------
zecg
Good.

~~~
tomelders
Amen brother.

