1

You could call it a religion or a cult, but you can't call it Christianity.

2

"it's our duty to help defend their religious liberties"

What the heck does this post have to do with religious liberties? The Unitarians can continue being Unitarians to their hearts content. They can continue to call themselves a religion. No problem. Enjoy.

There is no right to be untaxed in the Constitution as far as I know, so arguing that this is a matter of religious liberty is specious to say the least.

3

Sean,

There is no right to be untaxed in the Constitution as far as I know, so arguing that this is a matter of religious liberty is specious to say the least.

While that is true, the government still has a responsibility to apply the standard fairly. If the government is going to decide that religous organizations are tax-exempt then they shouldn't exclude religions that are clearly "real religions" just because they don't fit into a theistic paradigm.

But the issue isn't just about a tax-exemption. The reason, I believe, that its a liberty issue is because once the government has the power to define whether your belief is "religion" then it has the power to exclude that belief from certain constitutional protections.

4

I suppose it comes down to whether they act in the public good or interest. Like a charity. That's why charities get tax-exempt status.

5

Loved the post, Joe. How does one measure uniformity of belief? The Unitarians should have the benefit of the doubt here. I'm glad to see an evangelical back up such a liberal denomination.

6

Sean;

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

"There is no right to be untaxed in the Constitution..."

In general, the constitution doesn't grant us rights; It's the document we use to grant powers to the government. Powers not specifically granted to the government are retained by the states, and the people. Granted, now days that's honored more often in the breach than in the observence.

In this particular case, not only does the constitution not grant this power to the government, but it specifically forbids the congress to make such laws. Churches aren't tax exempt because a generous government grants them that privilege, but because the constitution denies the government the power to tax them.

Whether any particular organization is a church or not is a different story. I agree that the Unitarians are on the right side of the line. We all need to defend each other's liberty. Like the man said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Regards,
Tom Harrison

7

"Churches aren't tax exempt because a generous government grants them that privilege, but because the constitution denies the government the power to tax them. "

Tom, please tell me where the Constitution denies government the power to tax churches.

8

Very interesting. My understanding of the tax exemption for churches is that it is based on a common law theory that a lower cannot tax a higher. Thus for religious institutions, God is the ultimate 'owner' of religious property, etc. The lower, human government, can't tax God. So...

In the case of the Universalist, not believing in God, what does that make his organization? How can it be seen to be 'higher' than the state?

I think that if the Universalists want to argue that they are a charitable organization and should be exempt on the basis of good works, that is a possibly legitimate argument. But to argue exemption on the basis of religion (given my theory of how it works) would seem to be problematic.

If I am right on the theory, it could be a case where the lack of religion in Univeralist belief has come around to bite them.

Of course, I am not a lawyer and I could be all wet in my understanding of common law here.

9

Joe, I hope there's a part 2 to this. What does constitute a "real religion"?

Much as I hate to say it, it looks to me like the Texas Supreme Court is likely to have to make that decision.

10

Rice,

Joe, I hope there's a part 2 to this. What does constitute a "real religion"?

Actually, that was the post I was writing right now. Jeffrey Collins (who wrote a post on the subject himself) mentioned that also and made me realize it was a question worth exploring.

11

I'm reminded of a Unitarian Universalist prayer joke - "Dear God, if there is a God, forgive me for my sin, if I have sinned."

12

If I'm not mistaken, Churches are tax-exempt not because the constitution guarantees this, but because they are non-profit organizations. And they are subject to the same rules (no partisan politics) as those NPOs, or they lose their tax exemption.

But I love the post, Joe. Over at my site, I've been arguing quite a bit with a guy who seems to be under the impression that government neutrality on religion amounts to state-sponsored atheism, and that only Godless heathens want true separation. You, as an evangelical Christian, provide a fine counterexample.

Separation protects the church from the state, and vice versa.

I will say, though, that deciding what constitutes a true religion can be a sticky wicket.

13

Sean;

"please tell me where the Constitution denies government the power to tax churches"

I was refering to the first amendment, the part about free exercise. This is just based on my reading of it. I don't know if a majority of the Supreme court shares my understanding.

Another (maybe) interesting angle is: The constitution, by amendment, authorizes income tax. You might be able to say that non-profits by definition have no income. Maybe this is consistent with tgirsch's point.

Regards,
Tom Harrison

14

If non-theistic ethical culture, freethought, and unitarian universalism are forms of religion, is the non-theistic ethical character education (mandated in many states) taught in public schools a form of religion?

15

"If I'm not mistaken, Churches are tax-exempt not because the constitution guarantees this, but because they are non-profit organizations. And they are subject to the same rules (no partisan politics) as those NPOs, or they lose their tax exemption."

tgirsch, speaking as a lawyer, I can tell you that's correct.

16

I'm glad that you focus on the big issue here, but it's insane to claim that Unitarians just proclaimed themselves a religious group in order to get tax-exempt status in the sovereign state of Texas. Unitarian and Universalists have been around longer than the sovereign state of Texas itself.

17

So, of course, have the Masons, but that doesn't make them a religion. It seems to me that the state of Texas is simply using a standard definition of a religion. The UUs want to qualify as a religion based on what, exactly? The fact that they meet on Sundays and call themselves a church?

If that's sufficient, then the (IL or US?) gov't was wrong to deny tax-exempt status to the World Church of the Creator, which held meetings, called itself a religion, and taught that the only religion was what was good for the white race.

18

Some one from the other side of the political spectrum has written about this, and reaches similar conclusions.

19

I am unaware of any definition of religion that does not include some acknowledgement of a higher power. Although some atheists and environmentalists embrace their causes with religious zeal, this does not make the ADL or GreenPeace religious organizations. I don't know enough about Unitarians to criticize their specific belief structure, but if it is true that they do not acknowledge God, then I think that defending them under the guise of freedom of religion is silly. That is not to say that I think they should be disbanded. I wholeheartedly support the constitutional freedom of assembly, but if we are going to draw a distinction between religious organizations and other types of social groups, let's make sure we don't make the line to blurry.

20

Tom Harrison said that

"[the Constitution denies government the power to tax churches in] the first amendment, the part about free exercise. This is just based on my reading of it. I don't know if a majority of the Supreme court shares my understanding."

Tom, as a lawyer, I can tell you that not only does the majority of the Supreme Court not share your understanding, NO member of the Supreme Court shares your understanding. Moreover, no majority of the Supreme Court has EVER shared that understanding and I would surprised if any single member of the Supreme Court ever had that understanding.

I am happy to be proven wrong, however.

21

Bob, the apocryphal "joke prayer" has more serious and older roots.
An Enlightenment-era Spanish skeptic first wrote: "O God, if there be a god, save my soul, if I have a soul."
I think, otherwise, the way to keep the state out of deciding what is a "church" is to allow churches standard non-profit org exemptions but nothing beyond.

22

Sean:
I would surprised if any single member of the Supreme Court ever had that understanding.

What about Scalia? He's got some pretty oddball views, and nothing he came up with would surprise me very much.

23

Tgirsch

"What about Scalia? He's got some pretty oddball views, and nothing he came up with would surprise me very much."

Scalia's tone may shock but the outcomes rarely do. I think reading a Constitutionally-mandated tax break into the First Amendment would punch a gaping hole in his strict constructionist balloon (which has quite few pinholes in it already, granted).

24

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/003534.html#003534

Unitarianism is a religion again.