The head of the Red Cross gets a million a year. Are they non-profit?

They are and have had SERIOUS book-keeping and corruption issues.

I'd love to read them, if you'd quit editing them after you post. Your original post said only "I was joking as well. Geez." My request for clarification was legitimate. In addition, your edited version of your post still makes no sense:

Your definition of what is neither?
Show you why what? If you mean show you why a non-profit theatre troupe and a church serve similar purposes to society, and both should follow the same rules regarding tax exemption, I've already done that, but I can summarize again for you:

1.) Both pay flat salaries to their employees (i.e., pastors and actors) and use remaining funds primarily for growth of the organization (i.e. spreading the message of the church and spreading their art to the community.)
2.) Patrons of both churches and theatres go for the feelings it gives them, and to spend time with other people who enjoy the same things they do.
3.) A sermon, a wedding, or a funeral are all equivalent to a play in terms of time invested and voluntary attendance by anyone who wishes to see. The one major difference is that a play sets a specific price that one must pay to enter, whereas a church allows anyone to come for free for as long as they like.

Honestly, I would have thought you'd be all over the religion-as-entertainment analogy, rkz.

I knew you were joking. The primary difference between a profit and a non-profit business is a for-profit business has a direct owner, whereas a non-profit kind of "owns itself". Their employees get paid a set salary, and any money over that goes towards whatever the function of the nonprofit is. They'll have a board of directors who make decisions for the company, but none of them get to take home any extra money if the non-profit has a record year. No one owns stock in the company. If the head of the board of directors wants to leave he just leaves, he can't sell the business to someone else because he doesn't own it. Think of it like a college fraternity, they collect dues and throw a party, but if they don't end up spending it all they just spend the money on the next party, the head of the fraternity doesn't get to just keep the extra money. When he graduates, they put someone else in charge, he doesn't get to take the fraternity with him.

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.
Again, I think the status of art as non-profit is an excellent conversation for another thread.

I wish I could find this for you...

I saw a special recently, this man is in a wheelchair and his poor deluded wife wheels him into one of those sick places where they “heal” people.
Every day he gets wheeled back out.
They interviewed them.
They have been doing it for THIRTY YEARS!
“The pastor tells us to keep praying and soon it will be his time, as long as we believe hard enough” his crying wife says, as he looks down at his legs trying not to look at her or cry.
People in the background rejoice as this is going on, hugging their “healed” loved ones that, as we know, statistics tell us they will be just as sick very soon, as the adrenaline wears off.
He tells us, “I keep hoping this week will be my turn, but it will happen soon, pastor ___ keeps telling me and I know if I pray hard enough I’m going to get out of this chair”.
He is an L4 complete para.
They are both openly crying now.
They will not tell the crew how much they give to the church. They seem ashamed.

Every time someone tells my wife that she needs to take me to church it is all I can do…
You have no idea the sickness these people have to prey on those at their weakest just to make money off of them, to perpetrate their lies and deceit.
It is the deepest sickness.
They love to tell me that I “don’t know”, so I tell them to show me quantifiable proof of a healed full para or amputee and I will then go with them.
For SOME reason I never hear back from anyone. Fucking scumbags.
And YES, they DO KNOW EXACLTY WHAT THEY ARE DOING!

How do you know for a fact that it is a lie? And just for clarification purposes on my first post, I was referring to paying the "church" bills, not the ministers. Most ministers of small churches, may not get paid at all. So they have another job. (just wanted to make sure you knew what i was referring to on the "bill" part).

Is it the truth, have they seen a limb regrown before their eyes? Someone they KNOW is a true para get up and walk?
No?
Lie.

I thought you were referring to the "message" itself as a lie, not healing. However, I get what you are saying, on all accounts. I don't feel the same way. That's just my position.

Well, that's just the thing, isn't it? Many religious people do claim that they know for a fact. If you are using the inherent uncertainty of religious issues to question rkzenrage, then a claim of certainty by a religious person should be given the same treatment.Of course, the healing is a more obvious lie, and could be tested, but I expect that the people would exhibit similar reactions to the dowsers I posted earlier, and be unwilling to accept that no healing actually occurred.

HM, I understand what you're saying. It's basically someone's fact/opinion vs another's fact/opinion. This is something that could be debated "forever", it is probably the most difficult thing, to "sway" someone away from a belief that they have held for most of their entire life.

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?

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.

Well, it is more annoying when a lying, cheating, scumbag is also tax-exempt.

A lot of avant-garde theatre is damned annoying too.

I'm not really willing to start making legislative distinctions based on how annoying something is; are you?

Not as such, but I certainly would have more objection to Miss Cleo than I do now if she got tax exemption.