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...

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

These seems to imply that other non-profits don't. Otherwise why point out one specific group?

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.)

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)