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.

[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.

[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. :(

[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

[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!