Atheism and religion in law - Page 6 - Religion, God, and Theology

If for some reason a government form for something had a section where you had to fill out what kind of shirt you were wearing and one of the boxes was "none" that wouldn't imply that none is a type of shirt.

Actually, it would. It's a classification of shirt types. People are identifying their shirt type as "none." You are in the "none" category.

Quote

08-31-2015 , 05:50 PM

#127

Sun Tzu

laconic

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84,770

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Sun Tzu, this is a settled legal question. The Supreme court has repeatedly and consistently considered atheism a religion for establishment clause purposes. And as you point out, for tax purposes, we have also consistently ruled that certain athiest organizations can be considered to satisfy the conditions for religious tax exemptions. So while you might be correct that the latter doesn't imply the former, both the latter and the former are true. Which is a good thing, because these interpretations allow athiests - and athiest organizations - the same freedoms and privileges of religious people and religious organizations.

Right. I get that and have no problem with it.

Quote

08-31-2015 , 06:00 PM

#128

Sun Tzu

laconic

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84,770

The only way I can see that organization's objection to tax exempt status being reasonable is if they have an agenda that includes fighting the idea that such tax exemptions should even exist.

Quote

08-31-2015 , 06:11 PM

#129

Sun Tzu

laconic

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84,770

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Actually, it would. It's a classification of shirt types. People are identifying their shirt type as "none." You are in the "none" category.

No, I'm in the t-shirt category and none being a legal shirt status would not mean that it's a type of shirt any more than someone's middle name is "None" because they don't have one.

Quote

08-31-2015 , 06:33 PM

#130

Sun Tzu

laconic

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84,770

When I was in the Navy, my dog tags said, "NORELPREF". That doesn't imply that norelpref is a religion. It just meant that for purposes of my funeral and/or burial in the event of my death, no special religious considerations were necessary.

Quote

08-31-2015 , 09:42 PM

#131

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

The only way I can see that organization's objection to tax exempt status being reasonable is if they have an agenda that includes fighting the idea that such tax exemptions should even exist.

Again, it doesn't really matter what you think. The law has been interpreted already and your personal objections, no matter how strenuously you make it, does not change reality.

Quote

08-31-2015 , 11:27 PM

#132

Sun Tzu

laconic

Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 84,770

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Again, it doesn't really matter what you think. The law has been interpreted already and your personal objections, no matter how strenuously you make it, does not change reality.

I have no objection to the law here and I don't see how this post has anything to do with the post it's quoting.

Did you even read it before you replied?

Quote

08-31-2015 , 11:50 PM

#133

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

I have no objection to the law here and I don't see how this post has anything to do with the post it's quoting.

Sorry -- I skipped a couple words.

Quote:

The only way I can see that organization's [] tax exempt status being reasonable is if they have an agenda that includes fighting the idea that such tax exemptions should even exist.

---

Quote:

Did you even read it before you replied?

More than 90% of it.

Quote

09-01-2015 , 12:14 AM

#134

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3791314.html

I'm having an amusing time reading the 7th circuit court's ruling.

http://ffrf.org/images/Decision7thCircuit.pdf

Quote:

A third way for individuals to establish standing in an Establishment Clause case, which plaintiffs rely on here, is to demonstrate that “they have incurred a cost or been denied a benefit on account of their religion. ...

The plaintiffs here argue that they have standing because they were denied a benefit (a tax exemption for their em-ployer-provided housing allowance) that is conditioned on religious affiliation. This argument fails, however, for asimple reason: the plaintiffs were never denied the parsonage exemption because they never asked for it.3 Without a request, there can be no denial. And absent any personal deni-al of a benefit, the plaintiffs’ claim amounts to nothing more than a generalized grievance about § 107(2)’s unconstitutionality, which does not support standing.

...

Plaintiffs, apparently recognizing the constitutional and practical problems of extending standing to anyone that is part of an allegedly discriminated-against group, suggest a limiting principle: only those discriminated-against taxpay-ers who are “similarly situated” to the taxpayers receiving the exemption have standing to sue. Here, Gaylor and Bark-er argue that they are similarly situated to the ministers re-ceiving the § 107(2) exemption because they too receive a housing allowance. The only reason, they argue, that they cannot take advantage of § 107(2) is that they are not “minis-ters of the gospel.”

We reject this proposal for multiple reasons... Finally, it is quite possible that the IRS or the Tax Court will interpret an exemption to apply to a party that is “similarly situated.” And a party who re-ceives an exemption has no standing to challenge it.

They don't have standing because they didn't apply for the exemption. But if they apply for exemption and they receive it, they won't have standing because they won't have actually been discriminated against. It seems like a horribly conceived legal strategy.

Quote

09-01-2015 , 02:40 AM

#135

BeaucoupFish

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 4,575

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

It's certainly a legally well-protected tax benefit!

What's your view on religious organisations getting automatic tax exemption status (as highlighted recently by John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show, I'm sure you've seen it)? Broad question, I know.

Quote

09-01-2015 , 05:25 AM

#136

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

Actually, it would. It's a classification of shirt types. People are identifying their shirt type as "none." You are in the "none" category.

So, by legal standards a homeless person isn't lacking a home. His home is merely less.

Well, jokes aside...

I'm certain both atheists and theists in the US have the full legal right to be counted as "holding no religious preference" by both themselves and the court. That some of these could hypothetically form religious organizations under the establishment clause is not in opposition to this.

Quote

09-01-2015 , 10:20 AM

#137

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish

What's your view on religious organisations getting automatic tax exemption status (as highlighted recently by John Oliver's Last Week Tonight show, I'm sure you've seen it)? Broad question, I know.

Yeah, I saw it. I created that thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...lists-1555447/

I don't think the tax exempt-ness matters that much. If they weren't tax exempt, those people could probably *still* prey on people. They may not be as rich or as profitable, but they will still be rich and profitable. So it doesn't stop them by taking away their status, and it probably hurts the thousands of smaller organizations that use the status.

As far as basically automatic exemption goes, if there's increased scrutiny, FFRF probably doesn't qualify, and you run into issues. In the general application of the law, I believe this helps smaller organizations that benefit the local community in some form, so taking these away would hinder a lot of smaller churches that do things like food shelters and other community services, and that's bad for the poor.

Quote

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 6 of 6

First

1 2 3 4 5 6

Last