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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
>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?
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.
>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.
>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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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?
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.)
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"
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.
If there is one thing that readers of HN should appreciate, it is the value of Influence. Facebook had value simply because it could put a message in front of 500 million people.
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.
I didn't downvote you -- but perhaps you were downvoted because while organized religions do have influence, that doesn't imply that the purpose of organized religion is influence.
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.
Although it's worth pointing out that Google should care very much about the "influence" of the parts of society it openly favors or [ insert antonym here, it's too early in the morning ].
Google has gained a lot of enemies for a variety of reasons, size and success in particular. It's going to need the favor and good will of as much of the nation as possible to survive the increasingly vicious attacks on it from competitors or those who simply like to attack the big (envy, or just big pockets).
There's long been a correct (I believe) perception that Google leans strongly to the Left, and in a country where "the Left" is outnumbered 2-1 by "the Right" I can't see that being wise. This action of theirs as of yesterday was gaining a lot of attention on the Right, and even agnostics like myself are not pleased (because I know churches do a lot of good, something very strongly reinforced this summer after a tornado ripped through the middle of my city, Joplin, Missouri).
I'm not saying Google should favor the Right, but at least it should not go out of its way to piss it off. It simply can't afford that sort of thing given its status today.
"while organized religions do have influence, that doesn't imply that the purpose of organized religion is influence."
Really? I call bullshit. The ENTIRE longevity and history of religion is propped up by its ability to influence others. If I couldn't convince you that my religion was right or someone else's religion was wrong is the primary (if not entire) reason a particular religion continues to exist.
(EDIT: I'm happy to entertain reasoning to the contrary rather than your downvotes.)
My religion doesn't believe at all that your religion is wrong. Clergy in my religion will actively discourage you from converting, if they'll permit you to convert at all. We believe that it's far easier to live a righteous life when you're not a member of my religion, since there's far fewer obligations imposed upon you. No one in my religion particularly wants to convince you that my religion is right.
I don't think you understand religion all that well. You do know that they vary widely, yes?
Ignoring your condescending reply, I didn't say YOUR religion specifically believes that other's religion is wrong (You DO know that they vary widely, yes?). So while my statement may be incorrect for your particular case in your immediate environment, I think it's pretty short-sighted to think that isn't the case on a scale that's worldwide.
First, I see your allusions to atheism. And while I agree with your position above if, in fact, you were defending atheism. However, my statement takes the idea of atheism to the very meaning of the word (that god/religion doesn't exist). In other words, I don't consider atheism to be a religion. We agree on that point and you need not read further. (As an aside: If you weren't describing atheism above, then I think the irony that your religion and atheism shares common characteristics is interesting.)
If, however, you still disagree with the point that "The ENTIRE longevity and history of religion is propped up by its ability to influence others"; then let me slightly qualify my statement for clarity's sake. _Traditional_ religion has relied on influence to propagate itself through generations. Whether that's parent's influence over their children or the physical community's influence over its members, influence is the primary means of maintaining the ideological consensus of religion.
You have such a better understanding about religion than I. If not by influence, then please offer a counter-example that has allowed traditional religion to permeate our history for centuries.
An atheist? Hardly. I belong to a synagogue, and it's hard to get more traditional than Judaism, which has been around for thousands of years.
The only reason why you think there's irony in what I said about Judaism is your ignorance of Judaism. Judaism has always stressed ritual observance, not articles of faith. It's perfectly possible to be a practicing Jew while having serious questions about the nature of God. And what I said about my religion and proselytizing above is absolutely correct. (Seriously, try to become a Jew. We probably won't take you - unless, of course, you're already ethnically Jewish.)
For that matter, since you used the word ideology, there's no ideological consensus in Judaism. There is a organized community and there are rituals. It's a thinking person's religion. We argue a lot. We're not much for dogma.
Naturally parents raise their children how they prefer, but that's parental influence, not organized religion's influence. They're quite distinct.
Our religion has traditionally had minimal to no influence in the broader society. For centuries there were very real incentives to convert away from my religion once you were free of parental influence. We've been the subject of discrimination, pogroms, and genocide. And yet here we are, having somehow 'permeated' successfully, and we're doing just fine. How does that tie into your theories about influence and the propagation of religion - since, for many centuries, our organized religion had zero influence? Perhaps there might be something more to it, hmmm?
Of course I'm being condescending to you. I get tired of listening to people who have no knowledge or experience of my religion spout off about it. You can't really talk about religion online without having some ignoramus come along and do the 'religion is dumb hurr hurr hurr' routine.
I suspect replying to you is a waste of time. That said, on the off-chance that you actually will think about what I'm saying, here goes:
* The organized religious group I'm a member of, through ceremony, gives certain major life events and certain times of the week more importance and significance than they would otherwise have. I'm not sure you'd understand the word 'sacred' - so let me describe it as a peaceful, calm feeling, where your mind is clear and the concerns of everyday life are simply not present. These ceremonies require an organization.
* The organized religious group I'm a member of helps and supports each other. In an atomizing society where we often don't know our neighbors, I belong to a community that is there for me when I'm in need. Obviously this requires some organization.
* The organized religious group I'm a member of emphasizes scholarship and pushes me to learn new things. We think deeply about the meaning of texts; we study languages. Because we do this in an organized fashion, we push and support each other, and we get new insights that we wouldn't get as individuals. Obviously, we can't do this without an organization.
* The organized religious group that I'm a member of pushes me to be a better, more moral person. We frequently discuss and debate values and morality, and challenge ourselves to do better. Without others in the community acting as role-models, I doubt I would be the person I am - still highly-flawed, but better than I would be.
* The organized religious group I'm a part of conveys a culture that I very much want my (not-yet-existing) children and future descendants to have. We value scholarship and learning and entrepreneurship, and we've done very well over the centuries despite persecution. The reason for this success isn't 100% genetic - and the one common cultural constant, no matter where you are in the world, is our religion. By immersing myself and my family in my religion, I hope to inculcate in my family and descendants a culture that demonstrably works well.
That's just a handful, but you get the idea. If you were to chat with my rabbi, you might get a slightly different set - I'm going to ask him about this the next time I see him. But I guarantee 'influence' wouldn't come up - that's not at all why we have our shul.
Thanks. I put it to you, however, that the activities you have listed:
a) you do because your organization told you to do them.
b) are effective at maintaining your membership of the organization.
That is, these activities, rituals, etc, exist because they make your religion more successful. Your religion is a meme. All its actions are memes. Even the memes that cause you to go out and learn other memes.
Saatchi and Saatchi has nothing on Organized Religion at generating memes.
Well, point b) is correct. I get a lot of benefit from my synagogue membership, so of course I stay a member. That's common sense.
Point a) is just insulting. I do them because I choose to do them. Same with everyone who's a member of any voluntary organization. We do have free will, you know.
I'm going to pass on discussing memetics, but if you're interested, Mary Midgely is the author to read.
Clearly you have free will. You have chosen to give the meme influence. Still a meme. Still influence.
EDIT: And in fact, you may not have free will in this case. If you have free will, why is it that most Christian children have Christian parents? Why do most Muslim children have Muslim parents? Jewish children have Jewish parents?
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.
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.
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.
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?).
Or, it's the other way around: They expect to not be treated differently than other nonprofit's merely due to the fact that they have a religious group.
So who decides what "genuine charitable" activities are?
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.
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.
Who said anyone is ok with you going to hell? What would you have them do about it? I assume your answer will be "stop believing in it", to which I'll answer: should I take the same tact if I see you smoking? Assume cancer doesn't exist?
I presume you are aware that we have an extensive amount of evidence that cancer does exist and is a real and likely consequence of smoking, but that we have absolutely no evidence of a hell, much less of which actions would lead one there.
Actually, what if there is a hell only because so many people believe so and we go to hell because they believe/hope so? Would they stop believing so other people could enjoy a more peaceful afterlife?
Again, you're conflating things. "No more discounts for you, but please avail yourself of our regular services" is not some jackbooted thug forcing you to close.
It's an end to favourable special treatment, not an increased burden of restrictions.
Instead, they're only going to give "discount" lunch to people they agree with ;)
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?
They don't appear to be making any value judgments, at least from what I read in the article. If you have an entity that provides a charitable purpose, and nothing else, then you get lower costs. If you have an entity that is involved in something else, then you don't get lower costs.
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.
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%.
1) By that logic, they guy giving out the soup could not in good conscience eat his own dinner.
2) The prerequisite is that "discrimination" is something bad or "evil". The soup guy doesn't like people being "evil" so he discriminates against(?) them.
How is this any better? The soup guy just has a different definition of "evil".
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.