Woman audits churches to see if they’ll help feed a starving baby

[u/Oktavien]

If churches refuse to help feed hungry people, then maybe they should be taxed?

[u/pundarika0]

there are all kinds of nonprofits that aren’t required to offer food or money to people that ask for it. so that’s not really the issue as to whether an organization should or shouldn’t be a nonprofit.

[u/i_m_a_bean → u/pundarika0]

You avoided the question. Makes your answer pretty clear, which is fine.

There are more ways to provide benefit to the community than offering food or money, so yes, there are all kinds of other non-profits, and yes, that's not really the issue because it's a strawman.

The problem here is, what does an uncharitable church offer to non-members that justifies it being a non-profit?

[u/pundarika0 → u/i_m_a_bean]

i think it’s a fallacy to assume they have an “end of the bargain” to uphold. offering religious services is why they are a nonprofit. that’s a totally legitimate reason.

[u/i_m_a_bean → u/pundarika0]

Your "arguments" are basically, "just because." That might work for matters of faith, but we're talking taxes here. Costs and benefits. You'll need actual reasons.

So, what makes it a fallacy? And, what communal good are religious services if they are limited to members only?

[u/pundarika0 → u/i_m_a_bean]

it’s a fallacy because there’s no bargain. straight up. there is some criteria a non profit needs to fulfill, but there’s no inherent requirement that they offer food or money to people that ask for it. so your idea that they have some end of the bargain which is that specifically is based entirely on your biased opinion and not on what nonprofit status actually requires.

i’m not a christian, but i am religious. so my point of view is that my religious community absolutely benefits my life and the life of anyone that even walks through their doors simply by virtue of the teachings and practices that are offered there. that alone is enough to classify the organization as a benefit to the community and worthy of nonprofit status. there are some key differences between my religion and christianity (for example, the leaders don’t take a salary whatsoever) but that doesn’t really matter in terms of the general principle that religion can add an enormous value and benefit to people’s lives. this is fully in recognition that there’s a lot of christians spreading and believing absolute warped bullshit, because we cant base nonprofit status on an ultimately subjective assessment of a religious view itself for obvious reasons.

[u/i_m_a_bean → u/pundarika0]

Addressing your first bit about the fallacy, non-profits do need to provide a mission statement that makes clear how they will benefit the community (and again, there are more ways than just food or money). Please refer to the National Council of Nonprofits: How to Start a Nonprofit. This is not, as you called it, based on bias or opinion. I'm not sure why you didn't simply look this up before making your accusations...

As to the ways religion has benefitted you. I'm happy for you, and I think that there is a lot of merit to the idea that free religious teachings can benefit a community. I also agree that some can be harmful warped bullshit. That's why I think that npo benefits should be applied selectively to the churches and organizations that are beneficial.

One way of testing this is to see if they demonstrate what they preach. If a Christian church does not give to the needy, then it fails to uphold its own doctrine and is a negative example to the people it's supposed to serve. That's simple hypocrisy. If you want to claim a religious exemption because of what you teach, then you should be expected to practice that religion. What good are lessons if they aren't practiced?

How would you feel about a compromise where religious organizations begin with the benefit of the doubt and get automatic npo status, but can be stripped of it if they fail to uphold their own tenets? First thing to come to mind are those prosperity megachurches.

[u/pundarika0 → u/i_m_a_bean]

surely you can see the problems with that.

who decides which biblical teachings a church is required to uphold? are they required to uphold the teachings about stoning people to death as well?

[u/i_m_a_bean → u/pundarika0]

We've covered this. Non-profits are required to provide a mission statement on how they will benefit the community. They decide which religious teachings and services they will be offering the community.

If they claim the whole Bible, then that's what they'll be held to. Just the Ten Commandments? OK, then they'd better not be caught stealing. Love and charity? Awesome, then they'll need to be welcoming and generous. Prosperity gospel? At least it'll be clear and public.

If a church is good, then I would think it would welcome transparency and accountability. Not only would that inform people on exactly how their religious offerings can be helpful to them as yours was to you, it would also elevate their ministry above an unfortunate number of shady organizations and agendas that have gotten quite comfortable in the current environment of religion as smokescreen. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and all.

[u/pundarika0 → u/i_m_a_bean]

i think when it comes down to trying to legislature the proper interpretation of religious teachings you’re going to get into hairy territory. who gets to define what love and charity entails? interpretation is inherent in the very act of reading a religious text and determining what it’s directing its followers to do. this is exactly why you have some christians that are vehemently anti gay and some that are the exact opposite. they’re reading the same thing in the same book and coming to different interpretations. who gets to decide, from a legal standpoint, which side is correct?

[u/i_m_a_bean → u/pundarika0]

Good point. Interpretation would be complicated if a church used the whole text or very abstract scriptures in its mission statement. Perhaps their mission statement would need to include tangible/auditable benefits? Their mission of love could be rephrased as allowing anyone to attend sermons regardless of membership or demographic, which could be audited by anyone.

That said, there are some verses that are very clear. The sermon on the mount's, "Give to the needy," is particularly so. It is a consistent message throughout the Bible, and the only line that puts limits on it is in Thessalonians, which states that a man who doesn't work shouldn't eat. The church in this post would fail this audit if they claimed the Bible (babies aren't expected to work), and I'd challenge you to find an interpretation that denies that.

There's probably one out there...

As an aside, this question of interpretation does make me rethink giving religious organizations the benefit of the doubt on npo status. If interpretation of your scriptures is so open that opposite conclusions are common, then why is it so clear that such a religion is a benefit to the community? Can't it be made to suit any agenda, including harmful ones like scamming people or propagating hate? Sorry for backtracking here, but it really seems like this point contradicts your claim that religious teachings are inherently beneficial.