TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Google removes religious organizations from non-profit discount list

69 点作者 eggdude超过 13 年前

13 条评论

redthrowaway超过 13 年前
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.<p>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.<p>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.
评论 #3003498 未加载
评论 #3004051 未加载
评论 #3003761 未加载
adammichaelc超过 13 年前
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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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超过 13 年前
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?<p>By coupling charitable activities to religious activities you raise questions about your motives. Decouple them and your genuine charitable activities will be eligible.
评论 #3003666 未加载
评论 #3003852 未加载
litmus超过 13 年前
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.<p>Would church leaders consider the church a success if they eliminated poverty in the world but the entire world became atheists?<p>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.<p>Question: What would be the answer to the same question from an organization whose sole purpose was to eliminate poverty in the world?<p>Answer: You're damn right it's a success!<p>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.
评论 #3004293 未加载
buff-a超过 13 年前
<i>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.</i><p>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.
评论 #3003823 未加载
评论 #3003521 未加载
评论 #3003617 未加载
jleyank超过 13 年前
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.
评论 #3004563 未加载
rogerbraun超过 13 年前
So now it's only for non-prophet organizations?
warmfuzzykitten超过 13 年前
Doesn't sound like a bug to me.
irahul超过 13 年前
The sense of entitlement is sickening.
digibri超过 13 年前
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.<p>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.<p>Does anyone know if there are any lobbying rules that differ between non-profit and profit legal entities?
philh超过 13 年前
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.<p>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超过 13 年前
Interesting story, but how is this hacker news? I thought we tried to avoid highly flammable topics like politics or religion.
zecg超过 13 年前
Good.
评论 #3003971 未加载