Should Governments regulate fraudulent religions?

[EquALLity]

It's not an issue of it being between two members of the party, but the parties themselves. Most of the time political affiliation wouldn't come up in a trial for murder, for example, or even typical cases of libel or slander. There may be some cases of famous politicians being tried where both their fans and detractors have to be eliminated resulting in a more or less non-partisan jury.

If the DNC was in a case against the RNC, yes, highly partisan members of the jury would have to be removed.
Research "strike for cause", which can be done for perceived ideological bent, where relevant to the case or the plaintiff or defense.

And thus is an innate problem with jury selection. It affects everybody. We just do our best to overcome it.
You can argue that our best isn't good enough yet (for example, there's probably a conservative bias to juries based on the process) but churches shouldn't be exempt from the law secular organizations have to abide by. So, probably not worth arguing about here because I think you agree: they should be held to the same standards as anybody else, flaws and all.

I agree that this is a problem with juries in general.

Yes, they are pressed as civil suits.

"The Vegan Cheetah" is being sued for it right now.

In secular matters it is very simple... but courts are reluctant to touch anything to do with churches. Case law is... complicated.
Here's a little bit of it if you're interested in reading some crazy church drama:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1731171.html

Is it frequent, though?

Companies are restricted in advertising by the FTC, they can't make false claims. Same laws.

As I mentioned, a church isn't a company.
Additionally, making a statement that all non-believers of a religion will be punished by god isn't a lie, because the people who say it aren't intentionally spreading a falsehood. In fact, it cannot even be proven to be a falsehood, so it cannot be a lie.

Not per capita, no.

Yes they do, but your original claim was not about per capita. You stated that religions don't donate much money to charity, and that many companies massively outdo them.

You cherry picked the largest denomination in the U.S.

Actually, Protestants are the largest denomination, not Catholics, and I didn't base my example off of denomination size.

What percentage of the population does that represent? If it's less than 17% then that's an impressive contribution.
But no, it's 22% of the population, meaning they aren't even pulling their weight.

As I mentioned, 17% is the conservative estimate. The top estimate is 34%, so there is a chance that the percent of funding to social-services done by Catholic-affiliated groups is higher than the percent of Catholics in America. Additionally, that 17% refers to charity by Catholics in relation to Catholicism, so you wouldn't expect it to be equal to the percent of Catholics, because it doesn't represent all the funding of social services done by Catholics. The 17% refers only to funding by Catholic-affiliated groups, not Catholics in general, making it IMO quite impressive.

Catholics are also an outlier, running one in six hospitals. There are only a couple protestant religions big on opening hospitals.

I didn't mention hospitals, but that means about 16.67% of hospitals are run by Catholic-affiliated groups, which is again quite impressive.

My point in this is that, unlike companies, the goal of religion isn't to make money. Sure, many people profit off of religion, but that isn't the central goal of the religion for most of its followers. The central goal cannot be profit, as religions do things that make them lose money for the sake of helping people.
The primary goal of a company is profit. The primary goal of a religion is spreading its religion. Companies and religions have different central goals.

But atheists are much better at directing their charitable donations and not wasting money on proselytism and the overhead of running churches that only benefit the members who are the very ones doing the donating-- to themselves.

Claims of increased religious philanthropy are very dubious:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/28/are-religious-people-really-more-generous-than-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/

At least giving is on a positive trend:
http://news.gallup.com/poll/224378/religious-giving-down-charity-holding-steady.aspx

Atheist giving is about the same, but they're making better choices on what to give to. The only significant difference is that they aren't volunteering time at churches... which is pretty meaningless

This is all irrelevant to the point I was making. We aren't discussing whether or not religious people are more generous than atheists, but rather if religions are considered companies or not.

Sure, and Catholics are some of the most progressive (again, they're a bit of an outlier among churches).
But charity is still more effective when it's secular. And religious owned charity is causing problems (like denying women right to certain reproductive healthcare).

As I mentioned, I am not trying to debate if religious or atheist (by the way, secular charity isn't the same as atheist charity) charity is better. I am simply pointing out that religions have interests beyond gaining profit, which you have just acknowledged here. This proves that religions aren't companies.

[brimstoneSalad]

Most companies have some additional goals beyond profit.
Often they want to do right by their communities.
Even corporations donate huge amounts to charity.

But we can also look at for profit companies like Beyond meat or Just whose goals are primarily altruistic acting through capitalism and changing the economy of food.

They are not exempt from advertising standards or laws relating to libel and slander.

And if you want to talk non-profits only, NO secular non-profit is exempt.

Churches should be held to the same standards, not receive special privileges and exemptions.

Is it frequent, though?

Yes, libel and slander laws are frequently used to keep companies and even secular non-profits from attacking each other. This is why advertising is not attack style like politics is, but "our product is best because X" style.
Advertising is positive in nature, not negative.

Religions have more a tendency to slander each other, particularly to their own adherents, but in public venues, and sometimes very broadly.

As I mentioned, a church isn't a company.

Then non-profit organizations, if you want. They are usually ignored by the FTC, but can't flagrantly violate its mandate either.

Additionally, making a statement that all non-believers of a religion will be punished by god isn't a lie, because the people who say it aren't intentionally spreading a falsehood. In fact, it cannot even be proven to be a falsehood, so it cannot be a lie.

It's not about lies, it's about falsehoods.

A company can't say its product cures cancer, either, even if they believe it and even if it hasn't been proved false and is practically impossible to prove false since such a test of a common product would never pass an ethics committee for human trials.

If a church wants to talk about verses in the Bible (fact), and their interpretations of what those verses mean (opinion), that's fine.
It needs to be couched in a specific understanding that this is a faith based assertion.

JUST LIKE companies selling supplements have to specify that the claims have not been evaluated by the FDA and it's not intended to treat or cure any disease.
Except in this case a disclaimer like it being an unfalsifiable position of faith based on their opinion of scriptural interpretation.

Yes they do, but your original claim was not about per capita. You stated that religions don't donate much money to charity, and that many companies massively outdo them.

It makes no sense except by a per capita basis.
And no, protestantism is not a denomination.

Additionally, that 17% refers to charity by Catholics in relation to Catholicism, so you wouldn't expect it to be equal to the percent of Catholics, because it doesn't represent all the funding of social services done by Catholics. The 17% refers only to funding by Catholic-affiliated groups, not Catholics in general, making it IMO quite impressive.

You would expect it to make up the vast majority of their charitable contributions. Catholics have a wide array of Catholic charity options, and they will always prefer a Catholic charity to a secular one, unless they are basically lapsed in practice.

The central goal cannot be profit, as religions do things that make them lose money for the sake of helping people.

No they don't, they persist in making capital gains. Their image as charitable is what generates their profits.
The difference is that those profits do not enure substantially to private individuals. However, they do enure to the group.

There are serious loopholes in religious non-profit law, and it comes from them not being bound by the rule of law.

The primary goal of a company is profit. The primary goal of a religion is spreading its religion. Companies and religions have different central goals.

Spreading their religion is not strictly charity. They don't even spread their religion to their own detriment; these are future donors.

by the way, secular charity isn't the same as atheist charity

Didn't say it was, but it's the kind of charity atheists tend to give to, while religious predominately give to their churches which predominately spend that money back on them-- the donors.

If you don't want to call them companies, just say they should have to abide by the same rules of any secular non-profit.

[EquALLity]

Most companies have some additional goals beyond profit.
Often they want to do right by their communities.
Even corporations donate huge amounts to charity.

But we can also look at for profit companies like Beyond meat or Just whose goals are primarily altruistic acting through capitalism and changing the economy of food.

They are not exempt from advertising standards or laws relating to libel and slander.

And if you want to talk non-profits only, NO secular non-profit is exempt.

Churches should be held to the same standards, not receive special privileges and exemptions.

I disagree. Most companies solely have the goal of making profit. Regardless if a company has other goals, a company's primary goal is to make money. This isn't the primary goal of a church. So, you cannot hold a church to the same standard as a company.

Yes, libel and slander laws are frequently used to keep companies and even secular non-profits from attacking each other. This is why advertising is not attack style like politics is, but "our product is best because X" style.
Advertising is positive in nature, not negative.

Religions have more a tendency to slander each other, particularly to their own adherents, but in public venues, and sometimes very broadly.

Source?

It's not about lies, it's about falsehoods.

A company can't say its product cures cancer, either, even if they believe it and even if it hasn't been proved false and is practically impossible to prove false since such a test of a common product would never pass an ethics committee for human trials.

If a church wants to talk about verses in the Bible (fact), and their interpretations of what those verses mean (opinion), that's fine.
It needs to be couched in a specific understanding that this is a faith based assertion.

JUST LIKE companies selling supplements have to specify that the claims have not been evaluated by the FDA and it's not intended to treat or cure any disease.
Except in this case a disclaimer like it being an unfalsifiable position of faith based on their opinion of scriptural interpretation.

That is a company, which is different from a church.

If a church states, "Believe in god or go to hell", that is their opinion. If you don't let them say that because you believe it's a falsehood, then you are violating the first amendment by essentially stating that a religion is incorrect in the opinion of the government.

It makes no sense except by a per capita basis.
And no, protestantism is not a denomination.

You stated that religions don't donate much money to charity, so I responded by pointing out that Catholics do. I was just responding to your statement.

While Protestantism is composed of many subsets, it is considered a denomination.

You would expect it to make up the vast majority of their charitable contributions. Catholics have a wide array of Catholic charity options, and they will always prefer a Catholic charity to a secular one, unless they are basically lapsed in practice.

The article you posted of total donations to religious groups declining but total donations rising seems to contradict this, and even if it doesn't, I don't think this is necessarily true.

No they don't, they persist in making capital gains. Their image as charitable is what generates their profits.
The difference is that those profits do not enure substantially to private individuals. However, they do enure to the group.

There are serious loopholes in religious non-profit law, and it comes from them not being bound by the rule of law.

Yes they do. As I mentioned, Jesus having helped the needy is a major reason why Catholics donate to charity.

Spreading their religion is not strictly charity. They don't even spread their religion to their own detriment; these are future donors.

And I never claimed that it was. I claimed that spreading religion isn't the same as obtaining profit.

Didn't say it was, but it's the kind of charity atheists tend to give to, while religious predominately give to their churches which predominately spend that money back on them-- the donors.

If you don't want to call them companies, just say they should have to abide by the same rules of any secular non-profit.

Atheists are obviously more likely to give to a secular charity than a religious one. I am not sure what the relevancy is of this.

As I mentioned, I am not debating whether or not religious people or atheists give more money to charity. I am simply using charity as an example to show that religions aren't companies.

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you think a non-denominational protestant is?
No, protestantism is not a denomination.

A denomination has a unified ecclesiastical government and canonical interpretation.

I disagree. Most companies solely have the goal of making profit.

Well, you're wrong. Go to ANY local company and ask them. Look at mission statements. etc.
Are they all lying? Are they all evil?

Large corporations, particularly publicly traded ones, are more often purely profit driven, but that's because the nature of the stock market and shareholders insulate them from personal values, but still not 100%.

Small companies, particularly family companies, are very value-driven.

Regardless if a company has other goals, a company's primary goal is to make money.

Again, not true. They MUST remain solvent, but that's the #1 goal of churches too. Money going out can't be more than money coming in, or they would no longer exist.

The Catholic church has amassed profound levels of wealth, and continues to do so.

This isn't the primary goal of a church. So, you cannot hold a church to the same standard as a company.

#1. Bullshit. Everybody has to be solvent. Even the good ones (that I don't fault them for).
#2. Personal profit doesn't always have to be monetary enurement. A significant number of mega-churches are effectively members-only social clubs with tax deductible dues for upper and upper middle class white people to give them somewhere to hang out and make each other feel good about themselves.
This is not the case for all churches. There are churches that are very important, and do significant good in their communities (virtually all of those in low-income neighborhoods serving marginalized groups, particularly those focusing on youth and drug addiction, have good arguments to make on their behalf).

Others are monsters that enure their tax free profits back to the congregation that "donated" them, and which can expel anybody they don't like.

Source?

Watching these pastors and reading their arguments about other churches.

The majority of religious conversion is horizontal: you can look that up to confirm it. They are in direct competition, and the primary weapon is fear of hell because the other church is wrong (which is more retention)... and bribery by enuring more exclusive goods back to their congregations (which is recruitment, look at how nice our church is! Oh, and free lunch!).

That is a company, which is different from a church.

The question is their practice. Normal non-profits have little motivation to lie, it's different with churches. Look into the faith industry a little more.

If a church states, "Believe in god or go to hell", that is their opinion. If you don't let them say that because you believe it's a falsehood, then you are violating the first amendment by essentially stating that a religion is incorrect in the opinion of the government.

Not what I said.
They can say it, they can give a disclaimer that it's their unprovable opinion, and either say it's not based on anything or provide the scriptural reference they're interpreting if they claim the Bible as authority.

Like any supplement company making claims.

You stated that religions don't donate much money to charity, so I responded by pointing out that Catholics do. I was just responding to your statement.

In general they do not. Most money goes to overhead (and giving their members free stuff), and advertising, particularly in the megachurches that predominate across much of the U.S.

Yes they do. As I mentioned, Jesus having helped the needy is a major reason why Catholics donate to charity.

Jesus was all about giving EVERYTHING, not saving for later; his motto was insolvency, because it didn't matter since the end times were near. Churches make capital gains; goal #1 is solvency, otherwise they don't stick around long. Churches that don't focus on keeping the doors open first close, simple.

Charitable endeavors come as a distant third after that and member services (weddings, funerals, and generally preaching to the choir and giving people a nice social club with tax exempt membership fees).

Like it or not, this is how most churches work.

1. Keep the lights on
2. Serve our members
3. Help other people to make us feel good about ourselves and advertise how good we are to the world/attract more members

Sometimes #2 IS #3, and those are the good churches. Communities that are marginalized need community centers.
Rich white people do not. Most churches do virtually no good in the world unless you count entertaining rich people and making them feel better about themselves than they already do as a major good.

I claimed that spreading religion isn't the same as obtaining profit.

Doesn't matter if it's not the same as monetary gain; the important component is what it motivates people to do. What kind of bad practice does it encourage?
Many Christians count "souls saved" toward their personal God brownie points; even believing they must in order to get into heaven. They'll do anything to save souls, like the most psychopathic corporate CEO will do to maximize profit. This includes lying and extorting money from people; no less than any for-profit company would do.

I am simply using charity as an example to show that religions aren't companies.

Then companies aren't companies either, because they give to charity too?

[EquALLity]

What do you think a non-denominational protestant is?
No, protestantism is not a denomination.

A denomination has a unified ecclesiastical government and canonical interpretation.

Wikipedia has a list of Christian denominations that includes Protestantism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#Protestantism_-_920_million

Well, you're wrong. Go to ANY local company and ask them. Look at mission statements. etc.
Are they all lying? Are they all evil?

Large corporations, particularly publicly traded ones, are more often purely profit driven, but that's because the nature of the stock market and shareholders insulate them from personal values, but still not 100%.

Small companies, particularly family companies, are very value-driven.

I never claimed they are evil; I claimed their number one goal is to make profit. That's not evil, it's just what businesses are designed to do.

Again, not true. They MUST remain solvent, but that's the #1 goal of churches too. Money going out can't be more than money coming in, or they would no longer exist.

The Catholic church has amassed profound levels of wealth, and continues to do so.

The primary goal of a company is profit. A company is designed to make profit. Profit is not the number one goal of churches, it is something that churches need to support their number one goal.

#1. Bullshit. Everybody has to be solvent. Even the good ones (that I don't fault them for).

Yes, everybody needs to make more money than they lose to survive, and I did not claim otherwise. It is irrelevant.

#2. Personal profit doesn't always have to be monetary enurement. A significant number of mega-churches are effectively members-only social clubs with tax deductible dues for upper and upper middle class white people to give them somewhere to hang out and make each other feel good about themselves.
This is not the case for all churches. There are churches that are very important, and do significant good in their communities (virtually all of those in low-income neighborhoods serving marginalized groups, particularly those focusing on youth and drug addiction, have good arguments to make on their behalf).

Others are monsters that enure their tax free profits back to the congregation that "donated" them, and which can expel anybody they don't like.

I am not sure what the relevancy of this is. As I mentioned, I am not trying to debate whether or not churches are good or bad overall.

Watching these pastors and reading their arguments about other churches.

The majority of religious conversion is horizontal: you can look that up to confirm it. They are in direct competition, and the primary weapon is fear of hell because the other church is wrong (which is more retention)... and bribery by enuring more exclusive goods back to their congregations (which is recruitment, look at how nice our church is! Oh, and free lunch!).

Actually, I was asking for a source that slander laws are really that enforced.

The question is their practice. Normal non-profits have little motivation to lie, it's different with churches. Look into the faith industry a little more.

Regardless of whether or not you are correct, it doesn't make a church a business, and a church stating its belief is not lying.

Not what I said.
They can say it, they can give a disclaimer that it's their unprovable opinion, and either say it's not based on anything or provide the scriptural reference they're interpreting if they claim the Bible as authority.

Like any supplement company making claims.

Actually, it is. You are saying they cannot simply say, "Believe in god or go to hell." You want to require them to qualify it in some way based on their statements being falsehoods, which is the government taking a position on a religious belief being a falsehood.

In general they do not. Most money goes to overhead (and giving their members free stuff), and advertising, particularly in the megachurches that predominate across much of the U.S.

Can we please stay on the topic of whether or not a church is a business? I think we are getting side-tracked here.

Jesus was all about giving EVERYTHING, not saving for later; his motto was insolvency, because it didn't matter since the end times were near. Churches make capital gains; goal #1 is solvency, otherwise they don't stick around long. Churches that don't focus on keeping the doors open first close, simple.

Charitable endeavors come as a distant third after that and member services (weddings, funerals, and generally preaching to the choir and giving people a nice social club with tax exempt membership fees).

Like it or not, this is how most churches work.

1. Keep the lights on
2. Serve our members
3. Help other people to make us feel good about ourselves and advertise how good we are to the world/attract more members

Sometimes #2 IS #3, and those are the good churches. Communities that are marginalized need community centers.
Rich white people do not. Most churches do virtually no good in the world unless you count entertaining rich people and making them feel better about themselves than they already do as a major good.

Christians are not trying to apply the economic policies of Jesus, they are trying to follow his teaching in helping the needy.

I am not saying that charity is the number one goal of churches; I am saying that the fact that churches do charity to help the needy proves they are not driven by profit like a corporation.

Doesn't matter if it's not the same as monetary gain; the important component is what it motivates people to do. What kind of bad practice does it encourage?
Many Christians count "souls saved" toward their personal God brownie points; even believing they must in order to get into heaven. They'll do anything to save souls, like the most psychopathic corporate CEO will do to maximize profit. This includes lying and extorting money from people; no less than any for-profit company would do.

I'm not debating the morality of religion. I am saying religion isn't a business.

Then companies aren't companies either, because they give to charity too?

No, because companies give to charity to get good publicity, believing it will result in future profits. Religions give to charity to gain converts, but also because they believe it is the right thing to do.

[brimstoneSalad]

What do you think a non-denominational protestant is?
No, protestantism is not a denomination.

A denomination has a unified ecclesiastical government and canonical interpretation.

Wikipedia has a list of Christian denominations that includes Protestantism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members#Protestantism_-_920_million

As a category of denominations, not as a denomination. Please read the article.

Protestantism is the second largest major group of Christians after the Catholic Church by number of followers. Estimates vary considerably, from 400 million up to more than a billion.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] One of the reasons is the lack of a common agreement among scholars about which denominations[PLURAL] constitute Protestantism.

Protestantism is not a denomination, it's a massive grouping of many many protestant denominations (and a vague one, since there's ambiguity on which denominations count as protestant or not).

Calling Protestantism a denomination is like calling "animals" a species.

I never claimed they are evil; I claimed their number one goal is to make profit. That's not evil, it's just what businesses are designed to do.

#1 goal is simply solvency, and it's the same as a church. Any company or non-profit that is not solvent will go bankrupt and cease to be.

Not all for-profit companies have a #2 goal of profit, not all non-profits don't have a #2 goal of making capital gains or even indirect enurement of those gains through services to their owners.

This is just a false distinction between technically "for-profit" organized (by IRS standards) and technically "non-profit" organized companies.

It's naive to believe that "for profit" and "non-profit" actually represent their goals; these standards only refer to the very specific technical act of direct monetary enurement to shareholders.
With ACTUAL secular non-profits, the IRS mostly prevents substantial enurement of non-monetary profit/benefit. With a church there's a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, and it's well exploited and there's effectively no legal oversight.

Please read up on the issues:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicc90.pdf

There's no way we can discuss this if you don't understand the basis of non-profit laws or the complexity of determination.
...Or the loopholes churches can exploit.

The primary goal of a company is profit. A company is designed to make profit. Profit is not the number one goal of churches, it is something that churches need to support their number one goal.

You're just making assertions here, you have no idea what you're talking about.

For-profit and non-profit are forms of tax-relevant determination that have certain rules, but many for-profit companies run as non-profits, dealing with the capital gains tax as an inconvenience because non-profit determination is too hard to obtain. Other non-profits run as for-profit companies with the sole intent to enure benefit to private individuals and shield them from tax liability.

Yes, everybody needs to make more money than they lose to survive, and I did not claim otherwise. It is irrelevant.

That's the #1 goal, full stop.

Beyond that we can talk about the goal of capital gains for the company to extend its reach or efficacy (which may or may not have long-term goals of distributing increased profit to holders; often they do not), or of distribution of those gains in monetary form to investors or share holders.

NonZeroSum can probably talk your ear off on companies that ARE organized as for-profit but are collectively owned and have a culture of growing and creating jobs rather than distributing profits.

I am not sure what the relevancy of this is. As I mentioned, I am not trying to debate whether or not churches are good or bad overall.

It's relevant because it negates any relevant inherent distinction between for-profit companies and non-profits, particularly churches.

Actually, I was asking for a source that slander laws are really that enforced.

Depends on the state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_law_in_modern_practice

In some states it's 100% civil, in which case it'd be almost impossible to count, in some it's criminal. Wikipedia has stats on criminal prosecutions. at the bottom of that section.

Regardless of whether or not you are correct, it doesn't make a church a business, and a church stating its belief is not lying.

FTC's mandate is based on practice. And there's no inherent relevant difference between a technical non-profit and a for-profit company.

Doesn't matter if you can prove they're lying or not, anybody can be delusional, what matters is a false claim.
Look into the kinds of claims the FTC regulates, and you'll get a better sense of its limits.

Actually, it is. You are saying they cannot simply say, "Believe in god or go to hell." You want to require them to qualify it in some way based on their statements being falsehoods, which is the government taking a position on a religious belief being a falsehood.

No, they need to qualify it as opinion that is unfalsifiable (can not be proved), not false. Or they need to qualify it as interpretation based on the Bible, if they're appealing to that, and give a reference so people can check the verses themselves.

I'm not going to argue with you about what my own opinion is.
I think I'm an expert in my own opinion. If you interpreted me as saying anything else, then we miscommunicated.

In general they do not. Most money goes to overhead (and giving their members free stuff), and advertising, particularly in the megachurches that predominate across much of the U.S.

Can we please stay on the topic of whether or not a church is a business? I think we are getting side-tracked here.

This is one of the rationales for churches being given tax exemption.
If you don't think they should be tax exempt, and you aren't arguing that they actually do good, then that's fine.

Christians are not trying to apply the economic policies of Jesus, they are trying to follow his teaching in helping the needy.

Those were his teachings. The Bible is very explicit on this. It doesn't matter, though. They can interpret it any way they want, but churches still first and foremost want to remain solvent, and they usually want to make capital gains on top of that.

I am not saying that charity is the number one goal of churches; I am saying that the fact that churches do charity to help the needy proves they are not driven by profit like a corporation.

Then the fact that corporations donate to charity, and do charity, as well proves they are not driven by profit.

You have a double standard here.

You can say corporations are only doing that for good PR and advertising, but I can say the same about churches.
BOTH do charity. Some churches as some technical for-profit corporations are driven by goals other than profit, some churches and some for-profit corporations are driven by profit.

I'm not debating the morality of religion. I am saying religion isn't a business.

And yet many religions very clearly are.

No, because companies give to charity to get good publicity, believing it will result in future profits. Religions give to charity to gain converts, but also because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Do you see how silly this double-standard assertion is?

[EquALLity]

Do you see how silly this double-standard assertion is?

No, I disagree with you. Are you actually asking, or trying to make a point by asking a loaded question without an argument?

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you see how silly this double-standard assertion is?

No, I disagree with you. Are you actually asking, or trying to make a point by asking a loaded question without an argument?

I'm saying it's silly as an argument, because it's not an argument: it's a belief-based assertion.

You say one thing, I say the other.

[EquALLity]

As a category of denominations, not as a denomination. Please read the article.

The part of the article that you quoted doesn't state that Protestantism is not a denomination, but rather states that it has denominations within it, which I didn't deny. Regardless, it is irrelevant whether or not we call it a denomination. Catholicism can be divided into groups as well... Anyway, this is off topic.

#1 goal is simply solvency, and it's the same as a church. Any company or non-profit that is not solvent will go bankrupt and cease to be.

Not all for-profit companies have a #2 goal of profit, not all non-profits don't have a #2 goal of making capital gains or even indirect enurement of those gains through services to their owners.

This is just a false distinction between technically "for-profit" organized (by IRS standards) and technically "non-profit" organized companies.

It's naive to believe that "for profit" and "non-profit" actually represent their goals; these standards only refer to the very specific technical act of direct monetary enurement to shareholders.
With ACTUAL secular non-profits, the IRS mostly prevents substantial enurement of non-monetary profit/benefit. With a church there's a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, and it's well exploited and there's effectively no legal oversight.

Please read up on the issues:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicc90.pdf

There's no way we can discuss this if you don't understand the basis of non-profit laws or the complexity of determination.
...Or the loopholes churches can exploit.

The main goal of a business is profit. The purpose of a business is to make money, which is why businesses sell products at a higher amount than they obtain them. They also lack an ideological message, unlike Churches, which are mainly based off of an ideological message.

Sorry, but I can't read 52 pages. Are you able to cite what you are referencing or quote what you want to point out?

You're just making assertions here, you have no idea what you're talking about.

For-profit and non-profit are forms of tax-relevant determination that have certain rules, but many for-profit companies run as non-profits, dealing with the capital gains tax as an inconvenience because non-profit determination is too hard to obtain. Other non-profits run as for-profit companies with the sole intent to enure benefit to private individuals and shield them from tax liability.

You brought up "for-profit" and "non-profit" as a point of distinction. I am not trying to debate these terms. I am stating that the primary goal of a business is to make profit, based off of that businesses sell goods at higher rates than they obtain them to make profit.

That's the #1 goal, full stop.

Beyond that we can talk about the goal of capital gains for the company to extend its reach or efficacy (which may or may not have long-term goals of distributing increased profit to holders; often they do not), or of distribution of those gains in monetary form to investors or share holders.

NonZeroSum can probably talk your ear off on companies that ARE organized as for-profit but are collectively owned and have a culture of growing and creating jobs rather than distributing profits.

If the primary goal of a business was simply to make as much money as they are spending, then they wouldn't sell products at higher rates than they obtain them. It is necessary for a business to make more money than they spend to exist, but that's not the primary goal.

It's relevant because it negates any relevant inherent distinction between for-profit companies and non-profits, particularly churches.

What churches are examples of what you were describing?

Depends on the state:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#Defamation_law_in_modern_practice

In some states it's 100% civil, in which case it'd be almost impossible to count, in some it's criminal. Wikipedia has stats on criminal prosecutions. at the bottom of that section.

The statistics provided don't suggest that defamation cases are widely prosecuted.

"Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which six defendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences (average sentence, 173 days). Other criminal cases resulted in fines (average fine, $1,700), probation (average of 547 days), community service (on average 120 hours), or writing a letter of apology.[17]"
For the first time period of 12 years, that is about 3.4 total cases per year, with less than one case resulting in conviction per year. Then, in another time period of 39 years, about 2.4 cases resulted in conviction per year. Again, quite low. If defamation isn't widely prosecuted, I don't think it's fair to make it widely prosecuted with religion.

FTC's mandate is based on practice. And there's no inherent relevant difference between a technical non-profit and a for-profit company.

Doesn't matter if you can prove they're lying or not, anybody can be delusional, what matters is a false claim.
Look into the kinds of claims the FTC regulates, and you'll get a better sense of its limits.

There is a difference between a church and a business, because they both have different primary goals.

In the case of religion, what constitutes a"false claim" is an opinion. Just because you believe that a belief by a church is false doesn't mean that it's objectively false and can be enforced as such legally.

No, they need to qualify it as opinion that is unfalsifiable (can not be proved), not false. Or they need to qualify it as interpretation based on the Bible, if they're appealing to that, and give a reference so people can check the verses themselves.

You stated that churches should need to provide qualifications such as "there is no empirical evidence for this" beside public claims about their religion, suggesting that their claims are incorrect. This violates the First Amendment, because it involves the government taking a stance on religious beliefs.

I'm not going to argue with you about what my own opinion is.
I think I'm an expert in my own opinion. If you interpreted me as saying anything else, then we miscommunicated.

Sorry, but I am stating my interpretation of your opinion, and it takes two to debate. If you don't want to reply, you are not required to.

This is one of the rationales for churches being given tax exemption.
If you don't think they should be tax exempt, and you aren't arguing that they actually do good, then that's fine.

This is off topic.

Those were his teachings. The Bible is very explicit on this. It doesn't matter, though. They can interpret it any way they want, but churches still first and foremost want to remain solvent, and they usually want to make capital gains on top of that.

I think this is a stretch... Jesus didn't teach that a business should end its existence, and I don't think it would matter.

Then the fact that corporations donate to charity, and do charity, as well proves they are not driven by profit.

You have a double standard here.

You can say corporations are only doing that for good PR and advertising, but I can say the same about churches.
BOTH do charity. Some churches as some technical for-profit corporations are driven by goals other than profit, some churches and some for-profit corporations are driven by profit.

No, because as I mentioned, businesses donate to charity to make them look good so they will eventually get more profit. Yes, churches do charity to make themselves to look good, but also because they want to help people because of their religion. That is the difference.

[brimstoneSalad]

The part of the article that you quoted doesn't state that Protestantism is not a denomination, but rather states that it has denominations within it, which I didn't deny.

It explicitly didn't call it a denomination.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_denomination

A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.
The term refers to the various Christian denominations (for example, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and the many varieties of Protestantism).

I.e. not protestantism itself as a whole.

It certainly does get vague with some religions where there's less clear ecclesiastical authority.

Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

A Christian denomination is a distinct religious body within Christianity, identified by traits such as a name, organisation, leadership and doctrine. Individual bodies, however, may use alternative terms to describe themselves, such as church or sometimes fellowship. Divisions between one group and another are defined by authority and doctrine; issues such as the nature of Jesus, the authority of apostolic succession, eschatology, and papal primacy may separate one denomination from another. Groups of denominations—often sharing broadly similar beliefs, practices, and historical ties—are sometimes known as "branches of Christianity".

Catholicism can be divided into groups as well... Anyway, this is off topic.

Catholics don't really see themselves as a denomination, but rather a pre-denomination original church... kind of silly. Anyway, there aren't really sub-denominations of Roman Catholic (which is what we usually mean when we say Catholic); members can be subdivided culturally, but that's much less clear. They share the same governance and ecclesiastical authority.

There are kind of "catholic" denominations (not Roman Catholic ones), but there "catholic" means something very different.

This may help:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/christ7.htm

The main goal of a business is profit.

Not true of all businesses.
Not false of all churches.

The purpose of a business is to make money, which is why businesses sell products at a higher amount than they obtain them.

Also called staying solvent.

They also lack an ideological message, unlike Churches, which are mainly based off of an ideological message.

Not true of all businesses, again.

Sorry, but I can't read 52 pages. Are you able to cite what you are referencing or quote what you want to point out?

Not really, no. It's a general history and understanding; it takes some reading.
IRS is pretty to the point.

I am stating that the primary goal of a business is to make profit, based off of that businesses sell goods at higher rates than they obtain them to make profit.

And that assertion is untrue.

Like saying the primary goal of a man is to have sex.
True for some men? Sure. But not all.

It's wrong for you to make that assertion, it's an unfair generalization.

If the primary goal of a business was simply to make as much money as they are spending, then they wouldn't sell products at higher rates than they obtain them.

You don't seem to understand business. They have to pay their employees a living wage. They have rent, power, etc.
There's overhead. If you sold everything at cost you would go bankrupt.

There are MANY businesses that could charge more than they do for their products, but do not as a matter of principle. The idea is that "if I can make enough money to live, I don't need to rip people off. Good product for a good price" kind of thing.

For example... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH0ZZfjjAmM

MANY business owners run their businesses on such thin margins they make less than minimum wage, and they're OK with that as long as they're doing good.

It is necessary for a business to make more money than they spend to exist, but that's not the primary goal.

It's deeply offensive that you can tell other people what their goals in life are, and that they're primarily out to make a profit.
MANY businesses are started to serve the community, and their goals are based on personal values and principles. They have to stay solvent and pay rent, but that doesn't mean their primary goal is profit.

What churches are examples of what you were describing?

Generally evangelical megachurches, and particularly those preaching the prosperity gospel.

The statistics provided don't suggest that defamation cases are widely prosecuted.

Neither are serial killers prosecuted very often. Case law means that if you have a similar case, it will be prosecuted similarly. The rules are established there, and the fact that they have been followed in modern history creates precedent.
If it hadn't happened since the early 1900's that would be different; a completely unused law is a dead one.

There is a difference between a church and a business, because they both have different primary goals.

Again, you're just asserting this against mountains of evidence.
You just need to meet some small business owners.

Just because you believe that a belief by a church is false doesn't mean that it's objectively false and can be enforced as such legally.

If it's a scientific claim that is false, it's false.

You stated that churches should need to provide qualifications such as "there is no empirical evidence for this"

Just as supplement companies have to.

beside public claims about their religion, suggesting that their claims are incorrect.

It does not claim they are incorrect.

This violates the First Amendment, because it involves the government taking a stance on religious beliefs.

It isn't. But government DOES take stances on religious issues all of the time when it's in the public good.

The first amendment has limits.

I think this is a stretch... Jesus didn't teach that a business should end its existence, and I don't think it would matter.

You need to read the bible.
No, it wouldn't matter. It's fine for them to interpret it however they want as long as they're clear about it being an interpretation.

Then the fact that corporations donate to charity, and do charity, as well proves they are not driven by profit.

You have a double standard here.

You can say corporations are only doing that for good PR and advertising, but I can say the same about churches.
BOTH do charity. Some churches as some technical for-profit corporations are driven by goals other than profit, some churches and some for-profit corporations are driven by profit.

No, because as I mentioned, businesses donate to charity to make them look good so they will eventually get more profit. Yes, churches do charity to make themselves to look good, but also because they want to help people because of their religion. That is the difference.

I just addressed that. You're just asserting this stuff.

I can equally assert that businesses do it to look good and because it is in accordance with their values. Churches do it ONLY to look good, they're just liars and have no values.

See how that works? Not an argument.