Advancement of religion -- charitable or not?

robindch

Just putting this one to the poll, following the other thread here and the relevant legislation here -- basically, all of section (3):

http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a609.pdf

The act does not define what it means by "advancement of religion", though it does not grant tax breaks to religions which use "oppressive psychological manipulation" "for the purpose of gaining new followers". Would be interesting to see that one thrashed out in court.

Interestingly, paragraph 3(4) states that the law should assume that all religions are good, unless proved otherwise. And 3(5) states that while the Charities Regulator can declare (almost) any charity 'uncharitable', the Regulator is not allowed to declare a religion uncharitable without the consent of the Attorney General.

magicbastarder

are we going to distinguish between a non-profit and a charitable organisation?
obviously, a non-profit organisation would usually expect not to have to pay taxes.

strobe

Charity:
a foundation created to promote the public good (not for assistance to any particular individuals)
a kindly and lenient attitude toward people
an activity or gift that benefits the public at large
an institution set up to provide help to the needy

The religious would, I'm sure, argue that propagating their religion is being kindly to people , benefiting the public at large and helping the needy in and of it's self.

I would disagree obviously.

*edit*
"oppressive psychological manipulation" "for the purpose of gaining new followers" would cover all the major religions I can think of off hand.

Tim Robbins

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

I reckon at least 50% of organisations claiming themselves as charities are anything but. It's just something that's very easy to abuse.

Religions are non-profit organisations that do some charitable work (well most do). The skeptics society is a non-profit organisation that does no charitable work - not that I know of.

MagicMarker

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

If the main purpose of a religion was focused on some kind of charitable act, then I would agree that the advancement of that religion is genuinely charitable.

But considering I believe a religion's main purpose is to brainwash en masse, I'm going to have to say no.

Tin Foil Hat

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I reckon at least 50% of organisations claiming themselves as charities are anything but. It's just something that's very easy to abuse.

Religions are non-profit organisations that do some charitable work (well most do). The skeptics society is a non-profit organisation that does no charitable work - not that I know of.

You've never been to the vatican, have you?

PDN

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

You've never been to the vatican, have you?

You don't understand the concept of non-profit, do you?

An organisation is deemed to be non-profit when it does not provide profits to a proprietor or share-holders. So no individual derives a profit from it.

A non-profit organisation may still possess assets and may still employ people.

Galvasean

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Strobe, i think you voted for the wrong option?

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

Strobe, i think you voted for the wrong option?

Don't oppress me! :mad:

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

A non-profit organisation may still possess assets and may still employ people.

They can't though use this status to enrich the private lives of the employees as a way of getting around tax, hence the never been to the Vatican comment, a place where the 'employees' literally live like kings.

If I start a non-profit that then doesn't pay tax but spends all its money paying for my apartment and lavish lifestyle, giving me a salary of 1 euro a year, I would be done for fraud. Non-profits are not a way for organisations to enrich the members of the organisation without paying tax.

Peregrinus

It’s an interesting question, but any attempt to answer it raises a much more fundamental question; what is charitable?

Magicmarker (perhaps inadvertently) puts his finger on the problem when he says:

”If the main purpose of a religion was focused on some kind of charitable act, then I would agree that the advancement of that religion is genuinely charitable.”

It’s true, but it doesn’t get us very far. Is the main purpose of religion “focused on some kind of chartable act”? Well, that depends on what kinds of act you think are charitable.

It’s easy to think of particular acts which (most people would agree) are obviously charitable - feeding the hungry, for example, or caring for the sick.

But that’s not good enough. For our purposes we need a comprehensive account of what is charitable.

In another thread on this Board, (“How much money . . .”) several posters object to the Vaticans large collections of art and cultural artefacts. I don’t want to put words in their mouths, but I’m tempted to conclude from this that they don’t regard the establishment, maintenance and study of cultural collections like art galleries, museums, etc as charitable. If they do think that, then of course many people disagree with them; cultural charities are numerous, and attract significant donations.

By contrast, on this thread, Tim Robbins suggests that, so far as he knows, the Sceptics Society “does no charitable work”. I disagree; the goals of the Sceptics Society include the promotion of science and rationality; the teaching and application of critical teaching skills; the provision of a forum for debate and discussion; and the encouragement of public involvement in these activities. That looks to me like a classic educational charity.

What about sports clubs? Community choirs? Amateur dramatic societies? Alcoholics Anonymous? Amnesty International? I think a strong case could be made that all of these are charitable, though obviously for each of them you will find people who disagree.

Some people would take the view that very wealthy bodies cannot be charitable, and this view too is expressed on the “how much money . . .?” thread. Others would disagree, and would point to examples such as the National Trust (which is, by a long measure, the largest landowner in the UK, and therefore enormously wealthy) or Harvard University.

I don’t think we are ever going to get comprehensive agreement on what activities are, and what are not, charitable. From a public policy point of view, determining what will be regarded as “charitable” for tax purposes has to start from that reality.

I also suggest that there is a value in diversity. Consideration of what is “charitable” raises essentially philosophical questions about what is good, and ethical questions about how it is good to behave or to live. I am extremely leery of the suggestion that the state should adopt and enforce views on such questions. I am a republican; in my philosophy the values of the citizens inform and direct the actions of the state, not the other way around. Thus in my view the state should be happy to entertain as charitable bodies whose beliefs and objectives are diametrically opposed. If bodies are regarded as beneficial/charitable by their members/supporters and/or by a significant section of the public, the state should be very slow to say otherwise.

In short, I don’t think you can argue that such-and-such an activity should not be regarded as charitable merely because you yourself do not consider that it confers any public benefit. There is almost certainly somebody else who does consider that it confers a public benefit.

I’m attracted by PDN’s suggestion that any non-profit organization - i.e. one which doesn’t distribute its earnings to owners/investors - should at least presumptively be regarded as charitable. After all, on the face of it, its activities are not being conducted to generate a financial return; they are being conducted because the people behind the entity consider that they are worth conducting for their own sake; that they are inherently good.

I think once we get to that point, then the onus is on opponents to show - not say, but show - that the activities are not in fact inherently beneficial, and that it is unreasonable for people to take that view that they are. I myself see no value whatsoever in the game of rugby union - savages, the lot of them - but I’m going to have to show more than that if I want the state to tax rugby clubs.

On that view, religious organizations will generally be charitable. as will non-religious organisations which exist to promote particular worldviews. It seems to me that reflection about what it means to be human, how we ought to live, and how we ought to live together is, basically, publicly beneficial.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

MagicMarker wrote: »

If the main purpose of a religion was focused on some kind of charitable act, then I would agree that the advancement of that religion is genuinely charitable.

The "advancement of religion" here is an aim in itself, not simply a channel for good deeds to be done -- the good stuff (helping people, society etc) are already listed specifically by the Act and I think the Regulator has the power to grant charitable status to new stuff that's not on the list.

I think it would be interesting and worthwhile if the Act were modified very slightly so that the donor would have to specify the category of the donation, for any donations for which the charity wished to receive tax-free status. In this way, it would be pretty easy to figure out if people more widely really did support the "advancement of religion" at the literal expense of helping people, which is what I suspect donors think they're doing.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m attracted by PDN’s suggestion that any non-profit organization - i.e. one which doesn’t distribute its earnings to owners/investors - should at least presumptively be regarded as charitable. After all, on the face of it, its activities are not being conducted to generate a financial return; they are being conducted because the people behind the entity consider that they are worth conducting for their own sake; that they are inherently good.

That would assume that people and corporations will not take financial advantage of non-profit status.

Did you know that Ikea is owned by a Dutch-registered non-profit -- an arrangement which allows Ikea to pay something less than 5% of its global profits in tax?

http://www.economist.com/node/6919139

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

That would assume that people and corporations will not take financial advantage of non-profit status.

Yes. Abuse of the non-profit status - e.g. by paying inflated salaries to directors while doing little or nothing to advance the stated objects of the charity - should, in my view, be a ground for the state to withdraw tax-favoured status. And the state should be vigilant about that. But this would apply equally to religious and non-religious charites.[/QUOTE]

robindch wrote: »

Did you know that Ikea is owned by a Dutch-registered non-profit -- an arrangement which allows Ikea to pay something less than 5% of its global profits in tax?

http://www.economist.com/node/6919139

I didn't know that. Interesting.

I wouldn't have a problem, I think, in principle. There are lots of wealthy charitable foundations who have funds invested in trading companies. That's how they generate income for their charitable activities. It's not impossible that some of them actually have a controlling interest in some of the companies in which they invest. Some charities, indeed, make a point of using their investment funds in a way which supports the objectives of the charity, e.g. to encourage environmental or social awareness/responsibility in the companies in which they invest. And, obviously, if you want to do that your capacity to influence companies is increased if you take large, and even controlling, stakes in those companies. So the mere fact that a charity owns a large and profitable trading company isn't fatal, as far as I am concerned.

But I do think we give those charities extra scrutiny. Obviously if it pays large "salaries" to "employees" who do little work then it falls foul of the principle I have already outlined.

I note also that in this case the stated object of the charity is "innovation in the field of architecture and interior design". I take a liberal view of what is charitable, but even I would think twice about this one. And I would look for serious evidence that the charity was indeed devoting its income to its stated purposes. The Economist article suggests that there are serious questions to be asked here, and I'm all for asking them. And I still would be if Ikea were owned by a church.

PDN

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. Abuse of the non-profit status - e.g. by paying inflated salaries to directors while doing little or nothing to advance the stated objects of the charity - should, in my view, be a ground for the state to withdraw tax-favoured status. And the state should be vigilant about that. But this would apply equally to religious and non-religious charites.

Quite true, and that is already covered in Irish law.

No-one who receives remuneration from a charity can be a director of that charity. So, if a pastor is employed by a church, then he cannot be a director of the church if it registers as a charity. Or, if an individual has a contract with the charity (ie to supply them with toilet paper and cleaning services) then he cannot be a director of the charity.

The point of this proviso is that while charities may decide to employ people or patronise businesses, those who benefit in this way must not have any say in those decisions.

Peregrinus

PDN wrote: »

Quite true, and that is already covered in Irish law.

No-one who receives remuneration from a charity can be a director of that charity. So, if a pastor is employed by a church, then he cannot be a director of the church if it registers as a charity. Or, if an individual has a contract with the charity (ie to supply them with toilet paper and cleaning services) then he cannot be a director of the charity.

The point of this proviso is that while charities may decide to employ people or patronise businesses, those who benefit in this way must not have any say in those decisions.

Interesting. Do you know how this works so far as churches are concerned? Presumably the bishop of a diocese (say) is paid a salary by the diocese, and the diocese is registered as a charity. So how does the bishop persuade the authorities that he is not a "director" of the diocese?

Tim Robbins

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

By contrast, on this thread, Tim Robbins suggests that, so far as he knows, the Sceptics Society “does no charitable work”. I disagree; the goals of the Sceptics Society include the promotion of science and rationality; the teaching and application of critical teaching skills; the provision of a forum for debate and discussion; and the encouragement of public involvement in these activities. That looks to me like a classic educational charity.

At the very best the Skeptics help people differentiate between psuedo-science and science. That's at the very best because in reality most people who attend the meetings already know.

Charity is about helping to stop suffering. Pointing out that a homeopath is a waste of money and time isn't really helping to stop suffering. To claim the skeptics is a charity is to trivialise how bad some human suffering really is.

Charity is about selfless and altruistic behaviour. The Skeptics are a more a club for like minded people. They organise for their own benefit and enjoyment. A bit different to helping a homeless person get somewhere to sleep. It's a bit like calling a computer club a charity.

Peregrinus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Charity is about helping to stop suffering.

If that's intended as a comprehensive definition, Tim, then it won't meet with universal agreement. It would entirely exclude artistic and cultural insitutions, wouldn't it, and most educational institutions? And institutions which promote fellowship, or recreation, or self-improvement in various ways. Whereas all these institutions are widely regarded as charitable, and indeed are mostly charitable in law.

And it would also exclude a lot of religious organsations because, while many of them do have the object of relieving suffering, many others don't. The Society of St Vincent de Paul, for instance, is largely devoted to relieving the suffering associated with poverty, but you couldn't say the same for the Archdiocese of Dublin. Would you argue that the Archdiocese of Dublin should be treated as a charity?

Tim Robbins

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

If that's intended as a comprehensive definition, Tim, then it won't meet with universal agreement. It would entirely exclude artistic and cultural insitutions, wouldn't it, and most educational institutions? And institutions which promote fellowship, or recreation, or self-improvement in various ways. Whereas all these institutions are widely regarded as charitable, and indeed are mostly charitable in law.

Artistic, cultural, recreational institutions as charities? Not sure what you mean there.

Education charties - well yes that helps people get out of the poverty trap.

And it would also exclude a lot of religious organsations because, while many of them do have the object of relieving suffering, many others don't. The Society of St Vincent de Paul, for instance, is largely devoted to relieving the suffering associated with poverty, but you couldn't say the same for the Archdiocese of Dublin. Would you argue that the Archdiocese of Dublin should be treated as a charity?

Yes many Religious organisations should be excluded from charity.

I have no problem with a charity set up with a religion organisation as a stakeholder but I do have a problem with a religion claiming it is a charity.

TheScriptFan

Many many churches do significant 'charitable works' I get so angry when people make sweeping statements, because a few are dishonest, the entire area gets tarred with the same brush. Yes I agree that some churches have abused their charitable status, but many churches tirelessly work to help people. Clearly if you do not believe in God then, you aren't going to accept them as a charity. But if you see the work they do, in the community, in the business place, amongst children then I think they should receive charitable status. I don't think it should be sweepingly given to all religious institutions, I think every organisation should have to make an application to the revenue for their charitable status on a year basis detailing what charitable acts they have done, and how they spent their money.

PDN

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting. Do you know how this works so far as churches are concerned? Presumably the bishop of a diocese (say) is paid a salary by the diocese, and the diocese is registered as a charity. So how does the bishop persuade the authorities that he is not a "director" of the diocese?

I'm not that well-up on Catholic dioceses.

For non-Catholic churches it usually works out that the pastor of the church will be an employee, and then other Church members serve as trustees/directors and as the financial officers.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Pointing out that a homeopath is a waste of money and time isn't really helping to stop suffering.

It's less of a waste if people end up dead on account of homeopaths. As has happened in Ireland.

Tim Robbins

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

robindch wrote: »

It's less of a waste if people end up dead on account of homeopaths. As has happened in Ireland.

Has someone being charged?

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Has someone being charged?

No, since there was no law under which the homeopath could be charged. Far as I recall -- and it was around four years ago, so the details may have faded -- the coroner at the inquest made some scathing remarks about untrained people taking advantage of the sick and the medically untrained, and wished that there was more that he could do than recommend (I'm not joking here) something like a twenty euro fine.

sponsoredwalk

Alright, I totally disagree that religion is in any way charitable, quite the
opposite, from a philosophical standpoint - which is what I thought the
issue was about. I was going to vote but I see PDN is speaking from an
economic standpoint so I'm confused, are we talking about religion being
given charitable status under the law (as I think it may be since this
thread is, in part, motivated by PDN, Jackass & Robin's argument in the
other thread) or are we talking about the philosophical idea of advancing
religion, such as could be (100% deservedly) caricatured by the image of
white, 'Western' European's bestowing their benevolent religion on
uncultured savages while simultaneously forcing them into slavery?

If we're talking about an economic/social issue I may be convinced that
these bloodletters would classify as a charity if the argument can be made
- & I'm sure others would be willing to hear if someone knows...

The Mad Hatter

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Artistic, cultural, recreational institutions as charities? Not sure what you mean there.

Museums, theatres, scouts, youth clubs, concert halls...

The Mad Hatter

TheScriptFan wrote: »

Many many churches do significant 'charitable works' I get so angry when people make sweeping statements, because a few are dishonest, the entire area gets tarred with the same brush. Yes I agree that some churches have abused their charitable status, but many churches tirelessly work to help people. Clearly if you do not believe in God then, you aren't going to accept them as a charity. But if you see the work they do, in the community, in the business place, amongst children then I think they should receive charitable status. I don't think it should be sweepingly given to all religious institutions, I think every organisation should have to make an application to the revenue for their charitable status on a year basis detailing what charitable acts they have done, and how they spent their money.

The question is whether the advancement of religion is in itself a charitable cause.

Galvasean

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

robindch wrote: »

It's less of a waste if people end up dead on account of homeopaths. As has happened in Ireland.

Plus making people aware of scams that will take away their money based on outright lies sounds like a charitable notion to me!
Oh and Dades,

this is why I'm not seeing 'her' anymore...

Peregrinus

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Alright, I totally disagree that religion is in any way charitable, quite the
opposite, from a philosophical standpoint - which is what I thought the
issue was about. I was going to vote but I see PDN is speaking from an
economic standpoint so I'm confused, are we talking about religion being
given charitable status under the law . . .

I think this is mainly what the thread is directed towards. The OP refers to Irish legislation, the Charities Act 2009, which deals with recognition by the state as a charity, which in turn is of signficance mainly for tax purposes.

"Advancement of religion" in the Charities Act, incidentally, doesn't particularly mean converting the heathen. It covers all forms of religious activity, including (and in practice predominantly) ministering to peole who are already members of the religions community concerned.

I'm open to correction here, but if I understand correctly a contribution to support foreign missions is in fact not charitable under Irish law, since Irish law is mainly concerned with promoting charitable purposes in Ireland. There is a sort of bolted-on tax regime specifically focussed on donations for overseas development, but it does not exted to the advancement of religion. (Though it's been a while since I looked at this, so I may be misrembering.)

Peregrinus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Artistic, cultural, recreational institutions as charities? Not sure what you mean there.

Education charties - well yes that helps people get out of the poverty trap.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Museums, theatres, scouts, youth clubs, concert halls...

. . . art galleries, orchestras, opera companies, An Taisce, architectural or environmental preservation/conservation trusts, amateur sports clubs, heritage bodies of every kind; the list could be extended almost indefinitely.

And education is regarded as charitable well beyond it's utility in getting people out of the poverty trap. Call me a hopeless idealist, but I think education is a socially useful thing even beyond the point where you are sufficiently educated to feed yourself. And it seems that most people agree with me.

Your suggestion that charity is confined to the relief of suffering and excludes all other altruistic purposes seems to me to be entirely arbitrary. How do you justify it?

virmilitaris

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Of course it's not charitable. It's brainwashing people to get their money, it's a scam in the truest sense of the word. Priests and Pastors are parasites living off the hard earned money of their congregation. Many of these people would be on the street begging for change if they weren't robbing gullible people blind.

PDN

virmilitaris wrote: »

Of course it's not charitable. It's brainwashing people to get their money, it's a scam in the truest sense of the word. Priests and Pastors are parasites living off the hard earned money of their congregation. Many of these people would be on the street begging for change if they weren't robbing gullible people blind.

Actually in Ireland, which is what this thread is about, most pastors don't get paid. They usually work in another job and use a portion of that income to pay bills at their churches.

As for Catholic priests, while they are not my favourite people, any reasonable person who examines the facts, rather than pursues an ideological crusade, will readily see that their income is remarkable low when when compared to the amount of study and training that is required of them.

A priest typically puts in 8 years of third level education. His stipend is low, but he does receive free accomodation - so his overall package is similar to that of a private with 3 years service in the Irish army.

I doubt if any priest, if they had devoted 8 years of third level study to another subject and profession, would be on the street.

JimiTime

virmilitaris wrote: »

Of course it's not charitable. It's brainwashing people to get their money, it's a scam in the truest sense of the word. Priests and Pastors are parasites living off the hard earned money of their congregation. Many of these people would be on the street begging for change if they weren't robbing gullible people blind.

Its a bit unclear from that post, but you think all religion is a bad thing is it?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a bit unclear from that post, but you think all religion is a bad thing is it?

You'd prefer it if he stopped beating about the bush and told us what he really feels?

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

And education is regarded as charitable well beyond it's utility in getting people out of the poverty trap. Call me a hopeless idealist, but I think education is a socially useful thing even beyond the point where you are sufficiently educated to feed yourself. And it seems that most people agree with me.

Does that mean that the state education system is a charity?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does that mean that the state education system is a charity?

The issue doesn't arise, because the state pays no tax, and therefore doesn't require to be recognised as a charity in order to secure any tax exemption.

Non-state schools, provided they are not run on a profit-making basis (i.e. they are not distributing profits to owners/investors) are indeed charities. This is so even if they receive a state subvention.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does that mean that the state education system is a charity?

Many schools and colleges are indeed registered as charities.

sponsoredwalk

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

The question is whether the advancement of religion is in itself a charitable cause.

But in response to me asking whether this was more about the legal aspects
of religion as a charity:

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think this is mainly what the thread is directed towards. The OP refers to Irish legislation, the Charities Act 2009, which deals with recognition by the state as a charity, which in turn is of signficance mainly for tax purposes.

So I really think there is a lot of confusion in this thread, I'd say most of
the votes were to do with the philosophical rejection of advancement of
religion & the idea that this perverse practice is charitable but there is
a lot of talk about religion being legally covered as a charity & the idea
that they should be considering that they are so rich in the vatican etc...
while also doing charitable work in communities.

So, with this in mind I think this is an abortion of a thread

The Mad Hatter

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

But in response to me asking whether this was more about the legal aspects
of religion as a charity:



So I really think there is a lot of confusion in this thread, I'd say most of
the votes were to do with the philosophical rejection of advancement of
religion & the idea that this perverse practice is charitable but there is
a lot of talk about religion being legally covered as a charity & the idea
that they should be considering that they are so rich in the vatican etc...
while also doing charitable work in communities.

So, with this in mind I think this is an abortion of a thread

Mm, but I was responding directly to the poster I quoted, who was talking about (other) charitable works peoformed by religions.

sponsoredwalk

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Mm, but I was responding directly to the poster I quoted, who was talking about (other) charitable works peoformed by religions.

All I meant is that some people are talking about the advancement of
religion being a charitable thing - as the title implies & some of the
responses suggest, while other people are talking about religion being
given charitable status under the law - two different conversations.
The questions in the vote seem to indicate we're talking about the first,
i.e. the philosophical, idea about "whether the advancement of religion
is in itself a charitable cause" but still the OP has questions of legality
thrown in as well which has a lot of posts discussing this aspect. So it
just seems to me to be a neglected, uncared for, foetus of a thread
where we don't really know what people are voting for

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

Non-state schools, provided they are not run on a profit-making basis (i.e. they are not distributing profits to owners/investors) are indeed charities.

Is that purely in terms of financial profits?

virmilitaris

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

PDN wrote: »

Actually in Ireland, which is what this thread is about, most pastors don't get paid. They usually work in another job and use a portion of that income to pay bills at their churches.

Proof ?

As for Catholic priests, while they are not my favourite people, any reasonable person who examines the facts, rather than pursues an ideological crusade, will readily see that their income is remarkable low when when compared to the amount of study and training that is required of them.

Which takes what exactly away from my point ? Because they don't make much from taking money off people in a scam it means it's OK ?

I doubt if any priest, if they had devoted 8 years of third level study to another subject and profession, would be on the street.

Most priests perhaps but I was also talking about pastors which you seem to have forgotten suddenly.

virmilitaris

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

JimiTime wrote: »

Its a bit unclear from that post, but you think all religion is a bad thing is it?

Without a single exception, all religion is ultimately bad.

virmilitaris

I'm religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

virmilitaris wrote: »

Without a single exception, all religion is ultimately bad.

bit harsh there isnt it

virmilitaris

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

bluewolf wrote: »

bit harsh there isnt it

I said ultimately bad because there are some aspects of some systems which are commonly known as religions which can be beneficial and even good, but at the core of each of them you find this rot.

I would distinguish however between what I would consider a philosophy (certain schools of Buddhism for example) and what I would consider as religious.

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is that purely in terms of financial profits?

Material profits. Usually financial, but if an enterprise was making distributions in kind to it's owners/investors - providing them with goods or services - that too would take it outside the scope of "charity". In general the constitutional documents of an entity which seeks to be recognised as charitable have to explicitly forbid the payment of any dividend or distribution to investors/owners.

There are of course intangible benefits which accrue from being involved in a charity, or donating to one; principally the satisfaction which comes from an awareness of having acted virtuously or altruistically. But the accrual of those benefits to stakeholders does not prevent an entity from being a charity; if it did, there could be no charities at all.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

Material profits. Usually financial, but if an enterprise was making distributions in kind to it's owners/investors - providing them with goods or services - that too would take it outside the scope of "charity". In general the constitutional documents of an entity which seeks to be recognised as charitable have to explicitly forbid the payment of any dividend or distribution to investors/owners.

There are of course intangible benefits which accrue from being involved in a charity, or donating to one; principally the satisfaction which comes from an awareness of having acted virtuously or altruistically. But the accrual of those benefits to stakeholders does not prevent an entity from being a charity; if it did, there could be no charities at all.

What about "political" profits? ie increasing the defacto support of an organisation by claiming that everyone who works for, or everyone who is helped by the charitable works of, a church are in fact members of that church? Can you still be a charity if your primary function is that of amassing power?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

What about "political" profits? ie increasing the defacto support of an organisation by claiming that everyone who works for, or everyone who is helped by the charitable works of, a church are in fact members of that church? Can you still be a charity if your primary function is that of amassing power?

I’m not entirely sure what you’re suggesting here. You don’t increase de facto support for an organisation by claiming members; you increase it be actually getting members (or supporters). If you are seen to do lots and lots of things which are generally considered socially beneficial, and thereby attract a degree of popular support and/or increase your membership, that’s not an objection to your having charitable status. Why would it be? In general, charitable status doesn’t depend to any extent on whether you have lots of members, or very few, or indeed none at all. (By no means all charitable bodies are membership-based organisations.)

Is it legitimate for a charitable organisation which is a membership-based organisation to aim to increase its membership? Certainly it is; the more members it has, the more widely and effectively it can pursue its charitable objectives. In particular, charities which aim to advance their mission through the efforts of volunteers, as opposed to paid staff, will devote a good deal of time to attracting and retaining volunteers.

Is it legitimate for charitable organisations to aim to increase their power? Again, yes. Power is a prerequisite to achieving whatever charitable purpose they seek to achieve. In the capitalist world in which we live a large membership is only one source of power, but having lots of money is another (usually more effective) source of power. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, for example, is enormously powerful. Most charities devote a very large fraction of their time, effort and resources to fundraising; nobody suggests that they cease to be charitable because of that.

In the specific context of a church, the people who work for a church are plainly involved in advancing the mission of that church. Whether they are formally church members seems to me a question of no importance; they are co-operating in the work of the church. It is fair to present them as supportive of the mission of the church; if they didn't support that mission, why would they work to implement it?

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you still be a charity if your primary function is that of amassing power?

Nail on the head.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is it legitimate for a charitable organisation which is a membership-based organisation to aim to increase its membership?

The principal aim of most religions is simply to increase their memberships. That's the point I was making it the other thread about religions being "selfish" in a memetic sense.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Certainly it is; the more members it has, the more widely and effectively it can pursue its charitable objectives.

That said, as a secondary aim, many of them will claim that they're there principally to do good works. That's not true, growth is the main driver. Though they certainly will do some good works, but in my experience of looking at the stats, most religions don't spend more then five or ten percent of turnover on good works, and almost nothing on unaligned good works (ie, a portion of the good works are along the lines of "yes, you can have a sandwich, but listen to this sermon first").

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is it legitimate for charitable organisations to aim to increase their power? Again, yes. Power is a prerequisite to achieving whatever charitable purpose they seek to achieve.

Yes, totally agree with all of this. However, when the charitable purpose is the growth of the religion? Well, as I said before, that's not charity. That's the opposite.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

The principal aim of most religions is simply to increase their memberships.

Only in the sense that the principal aim of most taxpayers is to propagate their genes. It may be true, but it’s neither relevant nor helpful when it comes to considering how to tax them.

And we can interrogate the claim a little further. Churches, synagogues, congregations and skeptical societies have members; religions and other philosophies don’t. What the law recognizes as charitable is not the advancement and promotion of churches, but the advancement of religion. So it may well be that a church (or a skeptical society) seeks to increase its membership. That has no necessary connection with the question of whether either is engaged in advancing religion, or any other activity recognized as charitable.

I’m happy to be corrected here, but as I understand it a meme is an idea which is evolutionarily adapted to being propagated by being transferred from person to person. What a religious meme therefore “seeks” to propagate - I use inverted commas because an idea has no will or intention, and we’ll take that as read from now on, and I’ll drop the inverted commas around language which might suggest will - what a religious meme seeks to propagate is itself. Not membership of any formal institution, but itself, an abstract idea, an understanding of what it means to be human, and of how humans ought best to live, and to relate to one another. Membership of an institution may - or may not - be a mechanism through which propagation is effected, but it is always a means, not an end. The end is always the idea, not the institution. If this is not so, we are not dealing with a meme.

Whether we regard a meme as socially beneficial or not seems to me to have nothing to do with whether its mode of propagation involves institutional membership or not.

Should we go further, and decline to accept as charitable any activity which is motivated by an idea that we regard as memetic? I don’t see that we should. In fact the whole notion of “charity” rests on beliefs/values about what is “good” in terms of human behaviour, and these beliefs/values are themselves memetic, are they not? The category of “charity” exists and survives because it is advantageous in propagating memetic ideas about human behaviour.

robindch wrote: »

That's the point I was making it the other thread about religions being "selfish" in a memetic sense. That said, as a secondary aim, many of them will claim that they're there principally to do good works. That's not true, growth is the main driver. Though they certainly will do some good works, but in my experience of looking at the stats, most religions don't spend more then five or ten percent of turnover on good works, and almost nothing on unaligned good works (ie, a portion of the good works are along the lines of "yes, you can have a sandwich, but listen to this sermon first") . . . However, when the charitable purpose is the growth of the religion? Well, as I said before, that's not charity. That's the opposite.

I think you’re making a false - or at least unsustained - distinction here between the self-reproduction of a meme and “good works”. Most religions would see the propagation of their ideas as “good works”. (So would most skeptics.) Their ideas may include, but are never confined to, evangelism. Christians see it as a good thing to treat the sick, and therefore they operate hospitals which treat people without distinguishing between Christian and non-Christian patients. They also see it as a good thing to promote a Christian understanding of what it is to be human, and how humans ought to live. A secular moralist might accept one of these things as “good” but not the other, but why should the secular moralist’s understanding of “good” prevail over the Christian’s? All morality is substantially memetic; we are taught how to behave by our parents and wider community, and we internalize this and in due course pass it on to others. In so far as memetics are concerned, the Christian moralist and the secular moralist are each operating within the framework of a different meme. I don’t see anything which gives one moral vision a greater validity than the other. I see no a priori reason, therefore why evangelism (religious or non-religious) should be excluded from the category of “charitable”.

Claims about what is "good" are not capable of empirical, objective demonstration or refutation. In so far as the concept of "charity" must ultimately rest on ideas about what is good, unless we are going to be elitist or dictatorial public policy on charity can't move too far away from community standards of "goodness". In a pluralist democracy their should be room for competing views about what is good; the aim of the republic should indeed be to accommodate and foster a diversity of views about this. Hence my inclination to advocate a fairly liberal public policy about what is charitable; if there's a signficant opinion - not necessarily a majority opinion - within the community that a particular endeavour is publicly beneficial , then I think the state should accommodate that unless there is some compelling public interest against it.