How much money does the state give the Catholic Church?

Tim Robbins

How much money does the state give the Catholic Church? and any other religion?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How much money does the state give the Catholic Church? and any other religion?

I would have thought they were merely tax exempt as other non-profits are?

dvpower

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How much money does the state give the Catholic Church? and any other religion?

There was that sweet imdemnity deal that Michael Woods did with them.
That was worth a few bob.

FISMA

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How much money does the state give the Catholic Church? and any other religion?

I wonder if it balances the amount of money that the Catholic Church saves the state: hospitals, charities, education, and such?

murphthesmurf

I hope the answer to this is none.
I'd also like to know what shares they own and in what companies.
The church of England at one time owned shares in GEC, an arms manufacturer :eek:
Might do a google search of this when I get chance, might be interesting.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How much money does the state give the Catholic Church? and any other religion?

The State will give us money? Where do I apply? :eek:

Dades

PDN wrote: »

The State will give us money? Where do I apply? :eek:

You need to fill in the GFY1 form (in triplicate for Christian denominations) and send it freepost to Ruari Quinn. :pac:

strobe

FISMA wrote: »

I wonder if it balances the amount of money that the Catholic Church saves the state: hospitals, charities, education, and such?

The state pays for the hospitals, education and such.

magicbastarder

FISMA wrote: »

I wonder if it balances the amount of money that the Catholic Church saves the state: hospitals, charities, education, and such?

did they fly the money for this in from rome?

MagicMarker

FISMA wrote: »

I wonder if it balances the amount of money that the Catholic Church saves the state: hospitals, charities, education, and such?

I'm intrigued, how much do they save us?

goose2005

A one-minute ad every day at 6 pm would set you back millions a year.

stevejazzx

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How much money does the state give the Catholic Church? and any other religion?

PDN wrote: »

The State will give us money? Where do I apply? :eek:

here
https://www.catholicmatch.com/signup.html

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The State will give us money?

In terms of tax benefits, the state does pay you by relieving you of the obligation to pay the kinds of corporation taxes that the rest of us pay, since the DoF considers the propagation of religion a charitable act.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

In terms of tax benefits, the state does pay you by relieving you of the obligation to pay the kinds of corporation taxes that the rest of us pay, since the DoF considers the propagation of religion a charitable act.

So if you're income tax rate is cut, do you consider that the State has "given you money"? If the income tax rate goes up, do you consider that the State is merely giving you less money?

No, I didn't think so.

You can certainly question the policy of providing tax exemptions for religious organisations. But there is a useful distinction to be maintained between the state paying for something (e.g, when the state pays a charitable - or a commercial - organisation to provide some publicly useful service) and the state not taxing something or someone, and I don't think the disucssion is going to be illuminated if we pretend the distinction doesn't exist.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

In terms of tax benefits, the state does pay you by relieving you of the obligation to pay the kinds of corporation taxes that the rest of us pay, since the DoF considers the propagation of religion a charitable act.

The 'rest of you' don't pay corporation taxes unless you are running a corporation. So, Robin, can you stand with hand over heart and honestly tell us that Irish Skeptics pays corporation tax?

PDN

Peregrinus wrote: »

So if you're income tax rate is cut, do you consider that the State has "given you money"? If the income tax rate goes up, do you consider that the State is merely giving you less money?

No, I didn't think so.

You can certainly question the policy of providing tax exemptions for religious organisations. But there is a useful distinction to be maintained between the state paying for something (e.g, when the state pays a charitable - or a commercial - organisation to provide some publicly useful service) and the state not taxing something or someone, and I don't think the disucssion is going to be illuminated if we pretend the distinction doesn't exist.

Personally I think the whole 'charitable' thing is unhelpful as a legal category, because it involves some kind of subjective value judgement and can be used to discriminate against minorities. (Although in Ireland the Revenue Commissioners are very even-handed, granting the same status to the Humanist Association of Ireland as to churches).

A fairer system would be to class organisations as non-profit. We expect corporations to be taxed on their profits. Therefore organisations which distribute no assets to shareholders, nor have any owners whose wealth is thereby being increased, should clearly not be taxed as a corporation - irrespective of whether we view their non-profit activities to be beneficial or a pain in the ass. That way churches, Atheist Ireland, and the Vegetarian Society would stand on the same legal basis, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with their agendas. That would be more consistent with a secular society.

I would note that charities (religious or otherwise) do, contrary to urban legend, pay taxes such as VAT, and normal PRSI & tax where there are employees.

Peregrinus

Good point. Obviously the financial position of the Catholic church (and other churches) would not be adversely affected by the change you suggest. But whose position would be changed? SFAIK something like a vegetarian society would already qualify as a charity.

Are their any non-profit organisations engaged in activities which is currently not regarded as charitable, who are taxed under the present system but would be untaxed under the system you suggest? Off-hand I can't think of any.

On reflection, the income/corporation tax exemption for religious bodies may be a bit of a red herring. Suppose there was no exemption; how much tax do you think the typical parish/diocese would pay? I somehow doubt that they make much profit.

I suspect the real tax benefit lies not in any exemption from income/corporation tax, but in relief from property taxes - rates - on churches, schools, residentail homes, hospitals and other institutions of the kind that churches commonly run. But if you wanted to eliminate this benefit you couldn't just tax the properties with church-run institutions on them; you'd have to tax all schools, hospitals, meeting halls, etc.

PDN

Peregrinus wrote: »

Good point. Obviously the financial position of the Catholic church (and other churches) would not be adversely affected by the change you suggest. But whose position would be changed? SFAIK something like a vegetarian society would already qualify as a charity.

Are their any non-profit organisations engaged in activities which is currently not regarded as charitable, who are taxed under the present system but would be untaxed under the system you suggest? Off-hand I can't think of any.

Atheist Ireland?

On reflection, the income/corporation tax exemption for religious bodies may be a bit of a red herring. Suppose there was no exemption; how much tax do you think the typical parish/diocese would pay? I somehow doubt that they make much profit.

Zero profit in my experience!

I suspect the real tax benefit lies not in any exemption from income/corporation tax, but in relief from property taxes - rates - on churches, schools, residentail homes, hospitals and other institutions of the kind that churches commonly run. But if you wanted to eliminate this benefit you couldn't just tax the properties with church-run institutions on them; you'd have to tax all schools, hospitals, meeting halls, etc

That is an interesting one. As I understand it there is no automatic right to exemption to rates. You have to ask it as a favour from the relevant city council (although in my experience they have always granted it).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The 'rest of you' don't pay corporation taxes unless you are running a corporation. So, Robin, can you stand with hand over heart and honestly tell us that Irish Skeptics pays corporation tax?

Firstly, asking its members to hand over fifty or so euro per year rather than the 10% of salary that many protestant churches request, the ISS actually runs at a loss and costs the board members a reasonable amount of money to keep afloat.

Secondly, running a series of entertaining lectures designed to help people think rationally is a public service which can reasonably be called "charitable". Propagating grandly delusional and completely irrational religious beliefs -- the point of my previous post -- is not.

philologos

Straight to the point then, Irish Skeptics aren't taxed?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Secondly, running a series of entertaining lectures designed to help people think rationally is a public service which can reasonably be called "charitable". Propagating grandly delusional and completely irrational religious beliefs -- the point of my previous post -- is not.

Ah, now we're getting down to it, aren't we?

'Charitable' should be restricted to those ideologies with which Robin agrees, not those with which he disagrees.

Thank you for letting the mask slip there. Those of us who seek a secular democracy where religious and non-religious are treated equally can only pray that people with your views never become a majority in Ireland.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Straight to the point then, Irish Skeptics aren't taxed?

Supported by the government then! Disgraceful!

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

But there is a useful distinction to be maintained between the state paying for something [...] and the state not taxing something or someone, and I don't think the disucssion is going to be illuminated if we pretend the distinction doesn't exist.

I didn't say the distinction doesn't exist.

Though I probably should have spelled it out more clearly -- in accounting terms, granting a tax exemption to a corporation (or person) is equivalent to the state giving money to a corporation or person who does pay taxes (basically all of us, except, in this case, charities who perform a useful function in society and those who do not).

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Supported by the government then! Disgraceful!

As above, that doesn't apply since the ISS runs at a considerable loss.

FYI - the ISS's annual turnover would not match the take from a single pew, quite possibly even a single believer, in a single one of the kind of evangelical churches that construct vast buildings and carparks for themselves.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Firstly, asking its members to hand over fifty or so euro per year rather than the 10% of salary that many protestant churches request, the ISS actually runs at a loss and costs the board members a reasonable amount of money to keep afloat.

So when a Protestant church receives tithes from its supporters, that's income in the hands of the church on which the church should be taxed. But when Irish Skeptics receives subscriptions from its members, and a "reasonable amount of money" from its leading members, that's not the income of Irish Skeptics and no question of tax should arise.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

As above, that doesn't apply since the ISS runs at a considerable loss.

A loss? So you guys are in debt? Wow!

FYI - the ISS's annual turnover would not match the take from a single pew, quite possibly even a single believer, in a single one of the kind of evangelical churches that construct vast buildings and carparks for themselves

But the only distinction that you are making there is one of popular support. ISS enjoys very little support and commitment, whereas churches have more supporters who are prepared to commit more. So you see a small group that peddles your own ideology as a legitimate definition of charity, but one that enjoys the support of a larger group of people is somehow different.

So now it's not enough to agree with Robin in order to be a legitimate charity, you have to be unpopular as well?

The longer we continue this thread, the more I despair of Ireland ever becoming a secular democracy.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

no question of tax should arise.

I think you must have missed the bit where I pointed out that the ISS runs at a loss.

As a general principle of taxation, neither corporations nor people pay taxes when they lose money.

jhegarty

robindch wrote: »

I think you must have missed the bit where I pointed out that the ISS runs at a loss.

As a general principle of taxation, neither corporations nor people pay taxes when they lose money.

So do you think the Church in Ireland makes a profit ?

Every day there is another thread in this forum about falling mass attendance , and the Church dying out in Ireland.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

But the only distinction that you are making there is one of popular support.

Not in the slightest. If you took the time to read what I wrote with your head rather than your heart, you'd probably understand the point I was making:

robindch wrote:

running a series of entertaining lectures designed to help people think rationally is a public service which can reasonably be called "charitable". Propagating grandly delusional and completely irrational religious beliefs -- the point of my previous post -- is not.

I've bolded the point, lest you miss it again.

PDN wrote: »

The longer we continue this thread, the more I despair of Ireland ever becoming a secular democracy.

The more I read of your wonderfully literate posts, the more intrigued I become that you seem incapable of comprehending very simple, direct, non-metaphorical English prose. If only the bible were a similarly closed book to you...!

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Firstly, asking its members to hand over fifty or so euro per year rather than the 10% of salary that many protestant churches request, the ISS actually runs at a loss and costs the board members a reasonable amount of money to keep afloat.

jhegarty wrote: »

So do you think the Church in Ireland makes a profit? [...] Every day there is another thread in this forum about falling mass attendance, and the Church dying out in Ireland.

Sheesh.

Is everybody drunk already?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

I think you must have missed the bit where I pointed out that the ISS runs at a loss.

As a general principle of taxation, neither corporations nor people pay taxes when they lose money.

But does ISS lose money? If board members contribute a 'reasonable amount' to ensure expenses are covered then it would be breaking even, no?

Which would put it in the same boat as virtually every Protestant Church in the country.

I've bolded the point, lest you miss it again.

I've already referred to that point - which has nothing (zilch, nada, zero) to do with your second point comparing the small amount handled by ISS to the larger amounts handled by even the smallest of churches.

The more I read of your wonderfully literate posts, the more intrigued I become that you seem incapable of comprehending very simple, direct, non-metaphorical English prose. If only the bible were a similarly closed book to you...!

No need to get snippy at me because you seem to be confused by your own posts.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

But does ISS lose money? If board members contribute a 'reasonable amount' to ensure expenses are covered then it would be breaking even, no?

In accounting terms, they're directors loans, so no, the ISS is not breaking even - it's losing money.

PDN wrote: »

I've already referred to that point - which has nothing (zilch, nada, zero) to do with your second point comparing the small amount handled by ISS to the larger amounts handled by even the smallest of churches.

I was simply pointing out that in comparison to the churches, the ISS is run on the slenderest of shoestrings. Still, I'd imagine that in terms of euro-of-turnover per number-of-people-who've-heard-of-it, the ISS is probably far more efficient than most (dare I say all?) evangelical churches. The truth will out and all that!

However, that point is quite irrelevant to the principles of the issue, of which there are two -- different, and both very simple -- and which I carefully labelled to try to avoid the thread descending to the degree of one-sided confusion where it now rests.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

However, that point is quite irrelevant to the principles of the issue, of which there are two -- different, and both very simple -- and which I carefully labelled to try to avoid the thread descending to the degree of one-sided confusion where it now rests.

Then let's address those issues.

1. You personally prefer one ideology to another. Do you understand why, in a secular democracy rather than an Empire of Robin, this is an overly subjective criteria to apply when determining whether an organisation is charitable or not?

2. The ISS receives less money from its donors than do Protestant churches. Maybe you could expand on this for us. Is your objection that a real charity should only have a small number of donors, in which case any causes that are popular could be denied charitable status? Or is your objection that real charities should only receive small donations, and that there is something wrong with someone making large donations to a charity?

Can you not see that a better system would be to remove subjective value judgments altogether and rather to simply designate any entity as for-profit or non-profit? That would appear to me to be more secular and less of a Soviet-style approach.

philologos

To be honest with you I would support tax-exemption for non-profit tiddlywinks clubs let alone churches, or secular / skeptics societies.

robindch is happy for the Government to give Irish Skeptics a tax exemption while taxing churches. Quite a funny situation no?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

The ISS receives less money from its donors than do Protestant churches. Maybe you could expand on this for us. Is your objection that a real charity should only have a small number of donors, in which case any causes that are popular could be denied charitable status?

As I said above, you must read what I write with your head, not with your heart! I was simply pointing out -- though obviously not simply enough -- that the ISS runs at a loss since its relatively few members pay very little money. This was in response to you asking if it did run at a loss. I trust you're not offended by my answering a question you asked, and explaining the reason why the answer is the way it is!

PDN wrote: »

You personally prefer one ideology to another.

Unlike religion, skepticism is not an ideology, a "what to think", but a "how to think". I can certainly understand that you might perceive the latter as a threat to your churches and the way in which they're marketed, but that's beside the point -- skepticism is still not an ideology.

PDN wrote: »

Can you not see that a better system would be to remove subjective value judgments altogether and rather to simply designate any entity as for-profit or non-profit?

Profit and non-profit is a useful first step in breaking down organizations. However, it doesn't go far enough and there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations.

The ISS is there to expound the benefits of rational thought and to question the various extraordinary claims of various people, some of whom (like homeopaths) do real damage to vulnerable people. This, I trust, you believe is a useful thing to do.

Your organization on the other hand, is there primarily to expand itself in line with the Great Commission.

That's a rather selfish aim, don't you think?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

robindch is happy for the Government to give Irish Skeptics a tax exemption while taxing churches. Quite a funny situation no?

Hello, hello? hello?

Five posts I think I've said that the ISS makes a loss.

Which quite ignores the central point about the usefulness of the non-profit.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Hello, hello? hello?

Five posts I think I've said that the ISS makes a loss.

Which quite ignores the central point about the usefulness of the non-profit.

Members / ISS board put money into ISS to keep it afloat.
Members put money into churches to keep them afloat.

What's the issue?

PDN: I shouldn't be surprised, it seems as if robindch wants the state to enforce his opinion in respect to non-profit organisations.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Unlike religion, skepticism is not an ideology, a "what to think", but a "how to think". I can certainly understand that you might perceive the latter as a threat to your churches and the way in which they're marketed, but that's beside the point -- skepticism is still not an ideology.Profit and non-profit is a useful first step in breaking down organizations. However, it doesn't go far enough and there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations.

You appear to misunderstand what I mean by 'ideology'. I do not define 'ideology' as 'something that is a threat'. I would see an ideology as a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. Skepticism, as a worldview, fits that bill.

Sorry, I didn't think I had to make that clear. I thought we all understood what an 'ideology' is. My bad.

Profit and non-profit is a useful first step in breaking down organizations. However, it doesn't go far enough and there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations.

Useful if you would like to use the law as a hammer against those who disagree with you. Not so useful if you are committed to equality for religious and non-religious alike in a secular society.

Your organization on the other hand, is there primarily to expand itself in line with the Great Commission.

Nice attempt to deflect us down a rabbit trail that will lead us away from exploring your extraordinarily subjective and intolerant views on charities.

Your statement is false btw. The Great Commission is about encouraging people to develop a relationship with God, not to expand a Charitable Trust based in Ireland.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

Hello, hello? hello?

Five posts I think I've said that the ISS makes a loss.

Which quite ignores the central point about the usefulness of the non-profit.

There’s two separate points here:

The ISS makes a loss: Fine; loss-making entities don’t pay a tax which is calculated on profits, because they don’t have any profits.

But I think if we stop there we have two corollaries:

First, if the ISS were ever to make a profit/surplus (oh, happy day!) it ought to be taxed.

Secondly, a church which makes no profit/surplus ought not to be taxed.

The mere fact that a particular church has a large income doesn’t mean that it makes a profit, since its expenditure may be commensurately large. And, in fact, it typically will be; churches don’t have shareholders who demand dividends; all they can do with their income, ultimately, is to spend it in furtherance of their mission. (A bit like the ISS, really.) [Yes, churches with a large income can spend it on inflated salaries for hierarchs. But those, of course, are taxed.]

In short, pointing out that the ISS pays no tax because it makes no profit does nothing to establish that churches should be taxed. If anything, it tends the other way. Most churches also make no profits, for pretty much the same reason that the ISS makes no profits. And, if that’s a reason for the ISS to pay no tax, it looks a lot like a reason for those churches to pay no tax.

Which brings us to your second point: the usefulness of the non-profit. You need to rely on this to argue that churches which generate a surplus should be taxed on them, if at the same time you are going to argue that the ISS should not be, even if it generates a surplus.

But I don’t see that you have really answered PDN’s point; why should your subjective assessment of the social utility of the respective missions of the ISS and a church form the basis a public policy which treats one more favourably than the other?

And, apart from the implict elitism, there’s a practical danger here. Your view seems to be a minority one, given the relative success of the ISS and the churches at persuading people that their respective missions are important enough to be worth donating money to. If there were to be a public debate about which organisation served the more useful social function, ISS would be very unlikely to win it. From a purely self-interested point of view, ISS should favour a regime in which all non-profits are free of tax, since they are unlikely to do well if the regime only exempts non-profits whose activities meet with someone’s approval.

Not that I would urge you to act out of selfishness, but there is a wider point here. If public policy is going to be based on judgments about whose activities are worthwhile, the mainstream, established, conservative non-profits are likely to do well and those with novel, unpopular, radical, progressive, challenging viewpoints will not. Is that really a tax regime that would serve the country well?

The more I think about PDN’s suggestion of uniform tax treatment for all non-profits, the more I like it.

Newaglish

Non-profit? My office is run for profit and it ain't this nice:



Also 3 pages and no play on the word prophet? Disappointing.

Tim Robbins

PDN and Robin - I remember a time when I used to be accused of derailing threads.

The ISS does not employ people in the same way the Church does. Other than that the only difference is in scale and it looks like PDN has snared you Robin.

philologos

All paid members of churches pay PAYE and PRSI in this State so its irrelevant to this argument.

getz

Jakkass wrote: »

All paid members of churches pay PAYE and PRSI in this State so its irrelevant to this argument.

tax and the catholic church,the catholic church ran laundries[magdalene] which made money,they did not pay tax on them,in fact the laundries were supported by the irish tax payer,also in 2001 the tax payer had to put his hand in his pocket to pay for the mobilisation of the irish army to escort alleged ;sacred relics; around the country,at the behest of the church.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

What's the issue?

Er, tax is.

And has been for the last 31 posts.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Er, tax is.

And has been for the last 31 posts.

Unless you can explain why Irish Skeptics should get tax breaks we can't continue though. It is supported much in the same way as a church is, donations / contributions from its members (board members are still members).

I agree with PDN that all non-profits should receive tax exemption. From a tiddlywinks club to a philosophical society.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

I do not define 'ideology' as 'something that is a threat'.

Excellent. Neither do I. I was simply pointing out that the goals of the ISS are incompatible with religion.

PDN wrote: »

I would see an ideology as a set of ideas that constitutes one's goals, expectations, and actions. Skepticism, as a worldview, fits that bill.

You can certainly define it that way if you like, but to coin a phrase, skepticism is not an "ism". As above, it tells you how to think, not what to think.

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't think I had to make that clear.

No problem, most people don't understand it. You should attend more skeptics' talks and you might gain a better understanding of what constitutes skepticism. You could certainly describe it as a meta-ideology.

PDN wrote: »

Nice attempt to deflect us down a rabbit trail that will lead us away from exploring your extraordinarily subjective and intolerant views on charities.

Ah, but you're still missing the point that the main beneficiary of religious charities, is, well, the religions themselves. That's not charity, that's greed. For myself, I'm inclined to think that the state should not be in the business of encouraging greed. Your opinion, as somebody who makes their living from the sale of religious beliefs, is understandably different.

PDN wrote: »

Your statement is false btw. The Great Commission is about encouraging people to develop a relationship with God, not to expand a Charitable Trust based in Ireland.

An artless strawman - you've done much better in the past!

The Great Commission is Jesus' instruction to his disciples that it was their job (and that of their successors) to do one's best to ensure that every human being holds the same religious ideas. It's in Matthew 28:18-20. There's nothing directly in the text about "encouraging people to develop a relationship with god".

Matthew wrote:

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

Given that this ideological uniformity is, or should be, the aim of all christians, you can understand why I view this religion as selfish. And that's quite apart from any other useless or counterproductivene ideas that religion will use within its memeplex.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Unless you can explain why Irish Skeptics should get tax breaks [...]

Read this post again:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71211402&postcount=35

robindch wrote:

[...] there is certainly a useful argument to be had concerning the ultimate beneficiaries of non-profit organizations. The ISS is there to expound the benefits of rational thought and to question the various extraordinary claims of various people, some of whom (like homeopaths) do real damage to vulnerable people. This, I trust, you believe is a useful thing to do.

Your organization on the other hand, is there primarily to expand itself in line with the Great Commission.

That's a rather selfish aim, don't you think?

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

PDN and Robin - I remember a time when I used to be accused of derailing threads.

I'd have said that a discussion concerning the ethics of churches paying taxes was failry on-topic for a thread labelled "How much money does the state give the Catholic Church?"

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The ISS does not employ people in the same way the Church does. Other than that the only difference is in scale and it looks like PDN has snared you Robin.

Whether or not our respective organizationns employ people is irrelevant.

What is at issue is whether the state should help fund selfish orgnizations. I'm inclined to believe it probably shouldn't, while jakkass and PDN who believe (I'd imagine) that their religion's excessive interest in itself is fine and consequently, can't see what the fuss is all about.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Read this post again:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71211402&postcount=35

Indeed, you're claiming that faith is harmful. Alas in a pluralist society your atheistic perspective should have no consequence in respect to this.

I don't believe the Great Commission is "selfish" at all. In fact completely the opposite from a Christian point of view it is to attempt to bring people to salvation. Personally I don't see why societies / groups which promote themselves to the public (which is what it is in a secular sense) should be taxed if they are non-profit. Indeed, you promote your events at Irish Skeptics to the general public?

As far as I see it, you haven't a leg to stand on in respect of your argument.

Truley

In principle I can't see a difference between a religious organisation and an organisation like The Irish Skeptics. They both serve to peddle an ideology. People will argue that one ideology is more valid than another, but from what I can see, and as another poster pointed out, the only real difference is scale and popularity.

On a pragmatic level, every club/organisation/institution in the world has the same ultimate goal, to preserve or advance that club/organisation/institution. I find claims that one person's organisation is any less self motivated than another quite laughable.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, you're claiming that faith is harmful.

Where did I say that "faith is harmful"?

I said that propagating irrational and anti-social beliefs is harmful to society. If you wish to redefine "faith" as "irrational and anti-social beliefs", then we're, er, singing from the same hymnsheet.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe the Great Commission is "selfish" at all. In fact completely the opposite from a Christian point of view it is to attempt to bring people to salvation.

Yes, from a christian point of view, that's correct. From the external POV from which I'm looking, it's entirely selfish -- it invents a problem, then prescribes itself as the only solution. Most religions do this, and christianity is no different.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I don't see why societies / groups which promote themselves to the public (which is what it is in a secular sense) should be taxed if they are non-profit. [...] As far as I see it, you haven't a leg to stand on in respect of your argument.

I'm very well aware that you don't see the point of my argument

In brief, the distinction is between, on the one hand, unselfish memes whose aim is to provide some benefit to social structures other than themselves (art galleries, subbotniki, walking clubs, scho ols, hospitals etc). And on the other hand, selfish memes (religion, trade unions, armies, political parties etc) whose aim is to benefit themselves.

This distinction is one that a lot of people have a hard time getting a handle on, and it's certainly not one that I think has ever been heard in the corridors of power, but it's a useful one to consider when trying to figure out if the organization is being charitable to society at large (a good thing) or whether it's being charitable to itself (a bad thing).

This argument will never make sense to you unless you understand this distinction.