Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
I am... but with one difference entertainment does not state that it is true, lying to the public to give them false hope to steal money from them based on false promises.
The enhancement that art gives is tangible and clearly stated, no inflated with lies and false claims of mystical properties "this painting will heal your child's cancer if you believe enough and give enough to the galleries fund", ever heard that? I think not.
There is NOTHING educational about religion.
|
Yes, there are liars and cheats and scumbags in religion just as in elsewhere in life. Which has nothing to do with their non-profit or tax status. People waste ridiculous sums of money on Miss Cleo too--we call them stupid but do not attempt to force Miss Cleo out of business. If people willingly give their money to churches there is nothing you can do about it. This tangent you've gone off on is irrelevant to the concept of a church's status as a non-profit organization.
To use an expression you love so much...
it's very simple: do they meet the guidelines, or don't they? And if they don't, in what way do they fail the test where a non-profit theatre troupe passes it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
Again, I think the status of art as non-profit is an excellent conversation for another thread.
|
And again, I'm not debating that issue. Art can be designated non-profit or not, I don't care. But a church should be designated the same, whatever it is. 'Being factual' is not a requirement for non-profit status.