Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Jon Miller]

Charity is obviously the prime function of Organised Religion. Otherwise the prime function is profit, and that is obvious (for any reasonable religion) not the case.

For example, goodwill is a charity. And most hospitals and universities.

Charities are defined as institutions that provide a service/etc and are not seeking profit.

There is an issue with the management class using charities to extract rents and benefiting from the charities non-profit status. This is a common failing of charities and not unique to religious ones.

JM

[rah]

So is a mall.

One is a for profit and the other produces no profit.

That is the difference.

You just single out religious institutions because you have some beef with them (That I don't entirely understand, because you aren't an atheist and are even a member of an organised religion).

JM

I just think they should pay their share. I give them money to run their operation. I'd have no problem if part of that was used to pay property taxes so the NON-Catholics in the district don't have to make up the difference. I see it as an issue of fairness.
And as Ming stated, Charity isn't the primary purpose of the Church. If it was, I'd probably agree that they should get an exception.

[Jon Miller]

To give non-religious charities that have the same failings as you reference in the religious charities you mention (Catholic Church) consider Harvard, Yale, Kaiser Foundation, Mayo Clinic and many many many more. I would actually argue that the latter probably have more significant failings as the wealth per manager is higher.

JM

[rah]

You could argue all you want but it would be very unlikely to convince me. It's just my OPINION. I think the religious aspect is a difference maker. Especially when I see all the opulence of a lot of churches and Rome itself. Who's paying for that?

And many argue that Harvard should pay. MIT does. What's the difference?
I really don't consider Harvard exactly non-profit. But again. It's just my opinion and you're within your rights to disagree.

[Jon Miller]

I just think they should pay their share. I give them money to run their operation. I'd have no problem if part of that was used to pay property taxes so the NON-Catholics in the district don't have to make up the difference. I see it as an issue of fairness.
And as Ming stated, Charity isn't the primary purpose of the Church. If it was, I'd probably agree that they should get an exception.

So you maintain that profit is the primary purpose of the Church?

How do you argue that?

JM

[Giancarlo]

Churches have a primary focus on profit. Well at least most of them. That or they are tax evasion fronts.

[rah]

So you maintain that profit is the primary purpose of the Church?

How do you argue that?

JM

I know many non-profits that while not showing a profit on the books, richly reward the organizations officers.
Does the church really need these opulent cathedrals to service the poor?
The rectory in our parish is one of the nicest abodes in the town and they have paid servants. The officers of the church in our parish live a good life.
How much money do you think it takes to support the pope? Does that service the poor?
They should pay their share. I'd even donate more than I currently do to make up the difference. At least then it's Catholics paying and not non-catholics.



That's how I argue it.

[Jon Miller]

Once more, the same is true for all of the very large/successful charities/etc. Like those I listed.

Why pick out religious institutions?

JM

[Proteus_MST]

Well, fur Dual Use buildings (like churches) which may partially be used for charity and partially for customert acquisition/satisfaction (i.e. things like services and baptising) there would just have to be made a rule that determines which percentage of the building is used for charity (and is tax exempt) and which percentage is used for business

[Jon Miller]

Services and baptisms are just as much 'charity' as feeding the poor, by the definition used by everyone (where universities and hospitals and greenpeace/etc are all non-profits/etc).

JM

[Jon Miller]

By the definitions you guys hold, every non profit everywhere (schools, universities, museums, hospitals, etc, etc) would have to stop operation.

Or entirely transform to being a business just like Microsoft/etc.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

By the definitions you guys hold, every non profit everywhere (schools, universities, museums, hospitals, etc, etc) would have to stop operation.

Or entirely transform to being a business just like Microsoft/etc.

JM

Well, I can say for sure that in germany museums aren't counted as charities.
Although they are tax exempted nevertheless as cultural establishments.

With regards to private schools it depends ... for profit school can only be tax exempted under certain circumstances, for example if they cooperate with the government (for example by doing training classes for jobless people that governmental job agencies send to them)

[Jon Miller]

Yes, for profit schools are not generally tax exempt.

But most schools are not for profit, because that isn't what their purpose is. Their purpose is to educate.

The for profit schools are usually failures and are sometimes scams. It is because running a school for profit rather than for education is not a way to succeed at education.

Chasing profit gets in the way of their goal.

JM
(Once more, the problem of managers of not for profits extracting enormous amounts of money is a problem of all not for profits: including hospitals, greenpeace, universities, schools, etc and not whole or even mostly a problem of churches.)

(Theoretically you could have for profit religious institutions, but I would argue that they would be much more likely to be an obvious scam than even the for profit schools.)

[Jon Miller]

By the way, it is terrible that prisons are sometimes for profit in the US. I think that there is a good argument to be made that for profit education and prison systems should all be made illegal. I don't know of any for profit religions, but that obviously should be made illegal too.

I would argue that not for profits should have stringent rules put in place on the compensation for their management. Not for profits have been arguing for some time that they need to be able to pay more for their management in order to get talented management though.

see http://www.forbes.com/sites/investop.../#7f8ec9b512aa

JM

[Elok]

A church is just like a business . . . in the sense that it is an organization made up of people doing stuff, and therefore must regularly acquire funds to continue existing. If that, by itself, makes an organization a business, any organization larger or more complex than a Facebook page constitutes a business.