Grr.

[chipotle]

The good folks in Texas have decided that
Unitarian Universalism is not a religion because it "does not have one system of belief." The state comptroller's office denied them tax-exempt status, and says for any organization to qualify as a religion, members must have "a belief in God, gods, or a higher power."

Now, I'll grant that UU is an unconventional religion -- being less about the destination than about the path (which is, I submit, what attracts people to it) -- but it has a long deist history, not to mention a close association with several of America's founders. And what about Buddhism, which isn't a theistic religion at all? Do we deny it religious status as well?

While it's easy to wonder why this is coming up now in particular, the more concretely disturbing issue is summed up in a brief excerpt from the Star-Telegram article that reported on this: "What constitutes religion? When and how should government make that determination? Questions that for years have vexed the world's great philosophers have now become the province of the state comptroller's office."

So when did the idea of separation of church and state fall so far out of favor? The country was undeniably founded on Christian principles, but it was explicitly not founded as a Christian state. Anybody else remember that? That was the specific intent of many of those founders -- people like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Thomas Paine, Unitarians or Universalists all. (From the very beginning, they were the denominations of "freethinkers" -- deist and, in most ways, Christian, but always willing to question authority, even seemingly divine authority. The actual doctrines that both unitarianism and universalism name are, by canonical Christian doctrine, heretical.)

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how many of them would have approved of the idea of a tax-exempt status for any religion. (Ethan Allen, who UUs claim but who had little use for anything resembling organized religion, surely wouldn't have.) Yet I can't help suspect they'd be uncomfortable with how Texas is drawing the line.

Comments

[bfdragon.livejournal.com]

Why churches get tax exempt status at all is beyond me. It’s not just because they are non-profit, right? From the sounds of it, it’s a special class all of its own. Could someone clear this up for me? That just seems wrong to me.

[gatcat.livejournal.com]

In my universe, they'd pay double. But I'm cruel that way.

It Encourages the Separation of Church and State

[inner-linbo.livejournal.com]

If churches are paying taxes, then they'd have greater direct stake in how that money's should be spent and therefore would have significant lobbying power, especially at the local level. By not taking money from them the government is not beholden to them.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

You are talking about the disbursement of taxes, which has everything to do with the government and what the people of a given state wish to do with that money, not the establishment clause in the Constitution, which is there for a very different purpose indeed (to prevent the establishment of a specific, state religion, to counter the notion of English religious dictate which rather peeved off the Puritans). To confuse the two issues, one very pragmatic and concerned with state politics and money, and the other of the mind of the framers, will never yield a conclusion of any sense whatsoever.

And Buddhism is considered by its own followers to be a philosophy, not a religion.

[rafn.livejournal.com]

Just another petty bureaucrat with an axe to grind and no legal leg to stand on. Unfortunately they are becoming more and more common, what with the sterling examples at the top.

I'd be curious to see when the tax codes first places the exempt status on religious organizations, and what the precise wording is. Another thing to look up this weekend.

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

Well, separation of church and state is a nice catch phrase that has been attached to, but doesn't seem to mean the same thing as the 1st Amendment which states that the government shall establish no official religion/religious preference a-la Church of England. (oh yah, and something about free speech).

prester_scott has brought this subject up before, regarding the Anglican Church he attends, and there is some concern that accepting money from the government, or even the tax-exempt status, obligates the church to follow the rules that the government establishes. Proper religions should not be concerned about maintaining a tax-exempt status, and he feels it might be necessary to suffer paying taxes for a freer church.

So, don't know what to conclude. The UU is experiencing what some christian churches are contemplating, and I'd have to agree that some government preference is being shown, with a footnote that while the preference favours a christian generica, it comes with a lot of (as they'd say) secular humanist provisions that "true believers" don't want to conform to either.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Witness the Catholic charity in California being made to offer birth control coverage to their employees, though it is utterly contrary to their belief. The church was essentially made to PAY FOR something it believes it is a sin, simply because it provides help to those who are not Catholic. Unbelievable.

That was the final blow for me and the ACLU - they described it as a "great victory for California women and reproductive freedom."

[pawslut.livejournal.com]

From what I understand, the reason that churches are not taxed is because taxation promotes inequality between churches, favoring ones that have money versus those who don't (or, as it is in our day and age, favoring the ones that can afford to get -out- of paying taxes through high-priced accountants and attorneys, versus those who have to pay them).

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

Exactly the example I'd forgotten about, yes.

I never know what to think about the ACLU. Every time I start respecting it, it does something stupid. Every time I'm ready to utterly discount it, it does something I respect. It's by no means equal parts piss-off/please.

[pawslut.livejournal.com]

This doesn't surprise me about Texas. This is a state that just fried someone who was paranoid schizophrenic a day or two ago. They're really fucked up people. Having attended a Unitarian Universalist church, and having almost considered joining, I know that they're also the most liberal of churches/philosophies out there. Their political views are also extremely liberal (pro-women rights, which means pro-choice, and they've also held national spotlight for marrying gay couples in Mass now, and New York earlier). So this is all more the reason for Texas to villainize them -- they're liberal hippie fucks!

To give you a little bit of a background on the UU people, they were originally founded as a split off of Christianity. So their roots are, in fact, with the same religion that Bush is a fundamentalist of. They split on the Unitarian ideal, originally -- that Jesus Christ was a teacher/philosopher, not a 'trinity' of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So saying that these people aren't a real religion is, in my opinion, like saying most of Chrisianity isn't a real religion. The UUs do teach Christian philosophies, but they teach them alongside Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Native American Religions, etc. Just because they're not Evangelical Bible-beating holy-rollers shouldn't declassify them as a Christian-founded religion, though. The UUs facilitate the quest for truth, but acknowledge that what is true for one person isn't true for everyone -- you must know this because you mentioned that they concentrate on the path and not the ends. Many UU members believe in a God, divine spirit, or "higher power" as the retarded Texas legislature put it.

UU is also a very well-established religion/philosophy. It's not something that sprung up out of the ground like other Texan beauties, such as the Branch Davidian cult. UU members are not gun-toting lunatics -- you would be hard pressed to find a single one carrying a gun. But with membership totaling up to something like 2 million worldwide, and with over a thousand established centers of worship just in this country, plus two seminaries at prestigious universities (University of Chicago and University of California-Berkeley), it would be difficult to deny that they've been a long-established religion that's been around for ages.

So knowing all this, plus everything you've mentioned about what is considered religion, I think it's safe to say there has to be some other driving force behind this. I doubt there's a single mind on the Texas Legislature -- Comptroller included -- that is capable of even knowing what a theology is, let alone getting to hand-pick what it is. I imagine this will go to court, quickly, and that it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Some rednecked bull-whipping cowboy fucktard isn't going to have the last say.

(Just one last note: Ben Franklin wasn't a UU -- he was a Quaker who attended a Unitarian church once or twice when he was in England).

[chastmastr.livejournal.com]

You have my GRRRR as well. :(

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

Actually, Puc, I attend a UU church and have off-and-on for many years. (In fact, in several of Chipotle's outfits on FurryMUCK, there's a Unitarian Universalist chalice, which a few people have commented on over the years.) This is largely why this ended up in my personal journal rather than my 'political' one.

There may well be political components to this, of course -- it's hard not to notice the timing of this, since the UU church has been rather vocal about supporting gay marriage -- but the Star-Telegram article noted that the comptroller's office has been more active than usual in denying tax-exempt status to churches in the last few years, and that most of the churches denied are "non-traditional" ones. This leads me to suspect that it's less political than an act of essentially misguided moralism.

[pawslut.livejournal.com]

Actually, Puc, I attend a UU church and have off-and-on for many years. Cool beans!

comptroller's office has been more active than usual in denying tax-exempt status to churches in the last few years, and that most of the churches denied are "non-traditional" ones.

Even if they focus on tradition, it's been the tradition of the UUs to be liberal about their religion. And quite frankly, the argument could be made that Evangelical Christianity is not even close to being traditionalist -- that'd leave Eastern Orthodoxy and Latin Roman Catholic in the Christianity bunch.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

The California law specifically exempts religious employers "whose main purpose is to inculcate religious values and who primarily employ and serve people who share their religious beliefs." Catholic Charities conceded that they don't provide a religious service, their work is directed to the public at large, and that three-quarters of their employees were not Catholic. CC is not associated with the church, and it looks like about 75-80% of their funding comes from government grants and private secular sources. (Their web site lumps donors in with a 14% that also includes monies from the United Way and the 'Combined Federal Campaign' drive, with the rest coming from program fees and investments.) Essentially, the argument was that if you run a charity organization, it may be a non-profit, but the determination of whether it is a religious non-profit is based on who you serve and who you employ, not what you believe -- even if your motivation and guiding principles are founded in your religious beliefs. One may argue with this interpretation, but it doesn't strike me as so intrinsically outrageous.

At any rate, this is somewhat far afield from whether churches should be able to get tax-exempt status. Churches themselves have been tax-exempt on the grounds that they're churches since 1919, if I'm remembering the year right, and traditionally the church doesn't even have to file for that status -- it's automatically granted. This usually runs into challenges when the church group itself is becoming politically active in an official capacity, that is, endorsing or opposing specific candidates or legislation. (Taking positions on political issues that are obviously also religious, like gay marriage or abortion, is a different matter.) When it chooses to break the church-state boundary on its own, it may lose some of the privileges that separation has been deemed to provide. Obviously, the case can be made that a church is, in some sense, freer if it goes ahead and forgoes the tax-exempt status.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

So if the Catholic charity had only been more Catholic (for which they would have been bashed on many other grounds) and less generally helpful to the community, they would not have had to spend money to provide birth control.

Great state.

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

No, in fact, I'm not talking about the disbursement of taxes. I'm talking about the collection of taxes. This is not a question of who the state gives collected tax money to, it's a question of who is exempt from paying tax. And the reason this is raising eyebrows is chiefly because the case was specifically making a "litmus test" out of theism.

According to the Drepung Loseling Institute for Tibetan Buddhist Studies, "To the approximately 300 million practitioners worldwide, Buddhism is considered their religion. Like all major religions Buddhism contains an explantion of the origin of existence, a morality, and a specific set of rituals and behaviors." With all due respect, I am inclined to give the Buddhists more weight on this question.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Disbursement/collection, money. It's still a state matter and has nothing I can see to do with the establishment clause of the Constitution, the only basis anyone has ever claimed for a "separation of church and state".

And I've known several Buddhists, and my wife took a class taught by one last semester. Funny, they all call it a "philosophy".

[cetasdolphin.livejournal.com]

Um this is my first time posting a reply in your journal Chipotle so don't take me wrong or anything. Personally I feel I agree with what you are saying, I have always beleived in a strong "Seperation of Church and State" it doesn't lead to good things if you combine them, just a lot of tyranny and despots. Myself I have a strong belief in the theories of Charles Darwin and usually don't take heart of any religious matters, I am one of those "Science will show the way" types. I do however try to lead a good lifestyle and basically follow the path as it were rather than look to the destination. As for the Texans I still can't believe there is a state in the union that after we release the black footed ferret back into the wild after being extinct they want to exterminate all praire dogs, organinizing hunts and such.

Cetas

[rancourt.livejournal.com]

Suffice it to say, my father spent the better part of my childhood attending service at the Zen monastery in Tremper, New York. In addition to attending session, he joined the order as a practicing Rinzai monk. I think he would find this question nothing short of hilarious. Buddhism is beyond a doubt a religion, and if this can be recognized in the cool and philosophical stylings of Rinzai Zen, surely it can't be missed in the loudly festive celebrations of the mainstream Mahayana sects, with prayer wheels, high holidays, and immense, ornate temples to the glorious and myriad incarnations of the Buddha?

I'm utterly with you here, and amazed anyone would argue otherwise.

[cowboy-r.livejournal.com]

Yes. Well. Certainly, if you're going to give churches a seperate status, such as tax-exemption, you have to decide who does, and who does not, merit that status. Otherwise, you have three people who get together to play cards on thursday nights claiming that they're worshipping Fortuna, and where will that get you?

Yet, I wonder. Why are we treating churches as seperate from other businesses? In my opinion, they should be treated as any other 501 non-profit organization, so long as they can meet those criteria, and if they can't, well, treat 'em as the profit-making enterprises some of 'em are.

After all, as "Uncle Bob" Heinlein said, if you want to make a million dollars, start a church!

[chipotle.livejournal.com]

The primary difference historically for churches has been that they don't need to incorporate as a non-profit to have non-profit status. They need to function as a non-profit, so the practical benefits (and limitations) are the same. From what I've found in a bit of reading on the subject today, the theory behind this was essentially that some religious leaders felt that the separation of church and state could be compromised if churches had to "register" with the government as state-chartered corporations. This is also the historical reason for making them tax-exempt in the first place -- essentially, so that donations to the church couldn't be taken by the government and put to "ungodly" purpose.

If a church is being run as a for-profit enterprise it loses tax-exempt status. There are other restrictions that come with even the automatic exemptions, in practice, on what you can and can't do and still be considered a church -- but those limitations are (at least in states other than Texas) limitations on actions, not on beliefs. Theoretically, three people playing cards on Thursdays and claiming that forms a worship group could claim tax exempt status, but if they tried to reap some financial benefit from it, they'd be inviting a big heap o' trouble.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

That truly is odd, because my Buddhist teacher (who is a Buddhist) did say that Buddhism is a philosophy, which explains why it is practiced so differently across sects: it absorbed the gods of the region and placed them within the framework of Buddhism.

There are several different schools of Buddhism which vary in their asceticism and their philosophical stance. The original form of Buddhism, Theravada, is extremely philosophical. It wasn't until it moved eastward, to China that Mahayana started making Buddhism more like a religion, which finally solidifed in Tibet.

Not all Buddhism is a religion. If you examine its Theravadan tenets, it sort of fails some of the important litmus tests of religion. :)