Google excludes churches from its non-for-profits discounts

[Vonhelmet]

That's a bit of an odd decision, given that religious charities are still charities and are still run on a not-for-profit basis.

 

[StriderX]

To bring this back to some semblance of the topic bought up in the OP, What do people think about this part of the article:




Would secular organisations fill the void and if you believe they would, then why are they not doing so now?


Also, it refers to this:



Maybe someone can track down the actual research, as I am still posting from a phone, assuming the research is valid, how would removing religious charitable status from churches forcing them to either close or severely restrict their programs worldwide impact the poorest and most disadvantaged in society? Would secular organisations pick up where the religious ones left off?

Human organisations.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

That's a bit of an odd decision, given that religious charities are still charities and are still run on a not-for-profit basis.

But they tend to have an agenda which is contrary to Google's social beliefs, which is liberalism, equal rights, etc.

 

[Glaucus]

But they tend to have an agenda which is contrary to Google's social beliefs, which is liberalism, equal rights, etc.

They aren't banning funds for religious based charities and most religious Based charities do not have agendas anymore.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

They aren't banning funds for religious based charities and most religious Based charities do not have agendas anymore.

I presume they just don't want an organisation promoting a religion, even indirectly, because they don't want to be associated with the stigma religious organisations tend to bring. Rightly so. Same reason why the Conservative party doesn't want to be associated with UKIP.

 

[Glaucus]

I presume they just don't want an organisation promoting a religion, even indirectly, because they don't want to be associated with the stigma religious organisations tend to bring. Rightly so. Same reason why the Conservative party doesn't want to be associated with UKIP.

They haven't stopped funds to religious charities.
Or am I reading the quote in castiels post wrong.

Just churches which makes sense to me, why do churches need such funds.
Other than castiels post about a soup kitchen. Couldn't that be registered easily enough though?

 

[Vonhelmet]

But they tend to have an agenda which is contrary to Google's social beliefs, which is liberalism, equal rights, etc.

Are they going to vet all charities for any beliefs they disagree with, or is this going to be just a blanket ban on religious organisations?

Because my money is on the latter.

 

[Castiel]

Human organisations.

 

[Glaucus]

Their list seems odd.

Google also added a remarkable list of restrictions for eligible charitable groups and institutions. Among those not able to apply for the program are websites where people donate cars to charity; child care centers, unless the “entire” purpose is to serve a disadvantaged community; hospitals; websites “that result in a poor experience for the viewer”; and -- most troublesome -- “places or institutions of worship (e.g., churches, ministries, temples, synagogues).”

What's wrong with hospitals.
Does this affect great ormond street and other hospital charities?

 

[StriderX]

Their list seems odd.



What's wrong with hospitals.
Does this affect great ormond street and other hospital charities?

I imagine they are fine.

The point they are making is confusing, it may have to do with human leeching in these organisations.

(Fraud and the like.)

 

[Glaucus]

Yeah maybe it needs to be direct charities rather than a church or hospital or workplace, with unclear boundaries.

But red cross, hospital charities, and charities for workplaces are fine.

 

[Castiel]

They haven't stopped funds to religious charities.
Or am I reading the quote in castiels post wrong.

Just churches which makes sense to me, why do churches need such funds.
Other than castiels post about a soup kitchen. Couldn't that be registered easily enough though?

Restrictions

The following organizations are not eligible for Google for Nonprofits:

Commercial / Goods and Services

Car, boat and real estate donation websites
Websites with a primary focus on selling goods, products or services
Consumer credit

Communities and Groups

Programs requiring membership and/or providing benefit solely to members, such as clubs, sports teams, alumni, networking and other membership organisations

Religious content or proselytizing on website as well as organisations that use religion or sexual orientation as factor in hiring or populations served
Groups serving a primarily political function such as lobbying, think tanks and special interests

Schools, childcare centers, academic institutions, and universities, unless the organization’s sole (entire) purpose entails serving a disadvantaged community (e.g., the blind, hearing impaired, low-income members, etc.) or the organization is a philanthropic arm of a school (e.g. research programs)
Places or institutions of worship (e.g., churches, ministries, temples, synagogues)

Other

Promotion of illegal or disruptive tactics
Governmental entities and organizations
Hospitals, unless the organization is a philanthropic arm of a hospital
Websites serving solely as a portal or directory
Websites participating in Google AdSense program
Websites of poor quality, an unclear mission statement or that result in a poor experience for the viewer

Google reserves the right to award or deny the application of any organization, and to supplement or amend these eligibility guidelines at any time. Selections are made at Google’s sole discretion, and decisions regarding award recipients are final.

 

[Glaucus]

Actually that sounds perfectly acceptable.

It basically rules out any group serving themselves, rather than others and any group that discriminates for any reason.
And isn't just about religion.

 

[Castiel]

Actually that sounds perfectly acceptable.

It basically rules out any group serving themselves, rather than others and any group that discriminates for any reason.
And isn't just about religion.

No, it isn't about only religion. However the evidence will not be in the wording of the restrictions but the application of them.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Because my money is on the latter.

Mine too

 

[Pudney]

Actually that sounds perfectly acceptable.

It basically rules out any group serving themselves, rather than others and any group that discriminates for any reason.
And isn't just about religion.

What about schools?

 

[StriderX]

What about schools?

Only for full disability schools and frankly i agree with Google.

 

[Johno please?]

Geo-Political reasons based on the foreign economic and political policies of that country and it's allies.

So they would have flown planes into buildings if they were not religious? I think not.

 

[Castiel]

Only for full disability schools and frankly i agree with Google.

It seems strange that many charitable organisations will be restricted including gender specific ones such as Refuge and Orchid.

While the OP focused primarily on religion, I feel there is a wider discussion here on the reasons why Google would impose such restrictions in it's pricing policies, corporate donations are one thing, this is pricing discrimination across a broad range of non-profit charities and organisations that may ask why?

 

[Castiel]

So they would have flown planes into buildings if they were not religious? I think not.

What makes you think so?

Are religious ideologies the only ones that people are willing to sacrifice themselves for? Really?.

Islamism is a political movement. It seeks to justify it's stated goals within Islam, however to attribute it solely to religion is ignoring the reality of why Militant Extremist Islamism has gained traction among certain Arab and Muslim populations, those reasons are largely political, not religious.