Should Atheists Be Tax Exempt?

[Madeline]

Since this is purely hypothetical maybe ones wages could be taken as a donation to ones own "church of atheism". As it stands the Christians have gamed the system to favor their belief with tax exemption. Who can say absolutely without error that the smallest "religion" is not the correct one. There would have to be some adjustments in the tax code to accommodate a one man religion. Now don't get stupid on me... I am not suggesting EVERYONE should be able to just say they are the head of their own religion. There must be proof that every religion meets some minimum standard.

Your donations to an atheist organization will be tax deductible if the organization is tax deductible. Tax exempt status at the federal level is not automatic (except for government property, etc.). You have to apply for it, follow the rules, etc.

But yes, when the government exempts all church property and income from tax, it forces me, the taxpayer, to make a donation to organizations I do not support. Others argue this enhances separation of church and state -- personally, I dun find that argument persuasive, but the SCOTUS have spoken.

 

[Madeline]

No, however I don't believe any business operated by a religious organization should be tax exempt.

It is not. Any profit center inside a tax exempt organization will be taxed.

 

[HUGGY]

Prem Rawat AKA Maharaji

This guy claims he is a religion and he owns a massive compound in Southern California, huge yacht, flies around in a corporate jet and has property all over the planet.

Signs of the Times Exposé: Spiritual Predator: Prem Rawat, Maharaji

I know people that have given EVERYTHING to this piece of shit.

Is he a religion?

 

[JBeukema]

 

[Mini 14]

Prem Rawat AKA Maharaji

This guy claims he is a religion and he owns a massive compound in Southern California, huge yacht, flies around in a corporate jet and has property all over the planet.

Signs of the Times Exposé: Spiritual Predator: Prem Rawat, Maharaji

I know people that have given EVERYTHING to this piece of shit.

Is he a religion?

He himself is not a religion.

But DLM is, and he is their leader.

 

[pinqy]

The OP's question was decided 10 years ago in Comptroller of Public Accounts v Ethical Societyn of Austin where the Ethical Society, a Humanist organization, had been denied religious tax exempt status in Texas because they did not require belief in any deities. The court ruled they did qualify as a religious organization.

 

[Dr.Drock]

It is annoying that I'm taxed more in order to give religious places tax breaks, since I don't believe in any of them.

 

[HUGGY]

The OP's question was decided 10 years ago in Comptroller of Public Accounts v Ethical Societyn of Austin where the Ethical Society, a Humanist organization, had been denied religious tax exempt status in Texas because they did not require belief in any deities. The court ruled they did qualify as a religious organization.

It appears that the Texas supreme court pulled those "rules" right out of their asses. It says no such thing in the Constitution of the United States.

 

[pinqy]

The OP's question was decided 10 years ago in Comptroller of Public Accounts v Ethical Societyn of Austin where the Ethical Society, a Humanist organization, had been denied religious tax exempt status in Texas because they did not require belief in any deities. The court ruled they did qualify as a religious organization.

It appears that the Texas supreme court pulled those "rules" right out of their asses. It says no such thing in the Constitution of the United States.

There's nothing in the Constitution about tax exempt status for religions at all. The only question was whether or not the Comptroller's requirement for belief in a Supreme Being was legal. There was no such requirement in the tax code, and the Ethical Society otherwise met the requirements for being a religion and thus eligible for tax exemption.

Buddhism, Taoism and Shinto are all unquestioned religions that do not require belief in a Supreme Being.

The "Supreme Being" rule was what the Comptroller pulled out of her ass.

 

[Madeline]

The OP's question was decided 10 years ago in Comptroller of Public Accounts v Ethical Societyn of Austin where the Ethical Society, a Humanist organization, had been denied religious tax exempt status in Texas because they did not require belief in any deities. The court ruled they did qualify as a religious organization.

It appears that the Texas supreme court pulled those "rules" right out of their asses. It says no such thing in the Constitution of the United States.

The SCOTUS have said that the first amendment right to freedom of religion and the anti-establishment clause mean that religious organizations shall not be taxed, Huggy.

 

[HUGGY]

The OP's question was decided 10 years ago in Comptroller of Public Accounts v Ethical Societyn of Austin where the Ethical Society, a Humanist organization, had been denied religious tax exempt status in Texas because they did not require belief in any deities. The court ruled they did qualify as a religious organization.

It appears that the Texas supreme court pulled those "rules" right out of their asses. It says no such thing in the Constitution of the United States.

There's nothing in the Constitution about tax exempt status for religions at all. The only question was whether or not the Comptroller's requirement for belief in a Supreme Being was legal. There was no such requirement in the tax code, and the Ethical Society otherwise met the requirements for being a religion and thus eligible for tax exemption.

Buddhism, Taoism and Shinto are all unquestioned religions that do not require belief in a Supreme Being.

The "Supreme Being" rule was what the Comptroller pulled out of her ass.

That's what I was referring to.

 

[HUGGY]

The OP's question was decided 10 years ago in Comptroller of Public Accounts v Ethical Societyn of Austin where the Ethical Society, a Humanist organization, had been denied religious tax exempt status in Texas because they did not require belief in any deities. The court ruled they did qualify as a religious organization.

It appears that the Texas supreme court pulled those "rules" right out of their asses. It says no such thing in the Constitution of the United States.

The SCOTUS have said that the first amendment right to freedom of religion and the anti-establishment clause mean that religious organizations shall not be taxed, Huggy.

I was not challenging the SCOTUS stand ...just the Texas one. I doubt the Texas rule would stand up in the SCOTUS.

 

[rikules]

Some atheists actually preach the wisdom of believing in their fellow man. They preach that the origin of life can and is found in science and not some make believe being.

I cannot speak for any other atheist but I know my belief system is every bit as honest, sincere and true as any on earth. I have put in the work to know what I know and share my belief often and usually with respect to others beliefs.

That said every atheist that shares his or her beliefs is a preacher in his own right if he or she has come to that belief honestly is just as devote as any priest in any religion.

So ....should an actively vocal atheist enjoy the same tax status as any other preacher?

should an actively vocal atheist enjoy the same tax status as any other preacher?
YES!

NOBODY should be tax exempt for religious reasons.

conservatives do a lot of whining about high taxes
and they HATE THEIR tax dollars being spent on things they...hate..(npr, public schools)

yet in that typical conservative fassion they don't mind MY TAX DOLLARS being used for things that I do NOT believe in (religion, nascar, sports stadiums)

tax religions!
no more tax breaks for wives and children (why should single people pay MORE in taxes than married people?)
(why should gays pay MORE in taxes than married people with kids?)
no more subsidizing the building of sports arenas or nascar
no more payment for congressional prayer services
and make military career personnel wait until they are 65 before they start recieving retirement pay

 

[Madeline]

Some atheists actually preach the wisdom of believing in their fellow man. They preach that the origin of life can and is found in science and not some make believe being.

I cannot speak for any other atheist but I know my belief system is every bit as honest, sincere and true as any on earth. I have put in the work to know what I know and share my belief often and usually with respect to others beliefs.

That said every atheist that shares his or her beliefs is a preacher in his own right if he or she has come to that belief honestly is just as devote as any priest in any religion.

So ....should an actively vocal atheist enjoy the same tax status as any other preacher?

should an actively vocal atheist enjoy the same tax status as any other preacher?
YES!

NOBODY should be tax exempt for religious reasons.

conservatives do a lot of whining about high taxes
and they HATE THEIR tax dollars being spent on things they...hate..(npr, public schools)

yet in that typical conservative fassion they don't mind MY TAX DOLLARS being used for things that I do NOT believe in (religion, nascar, sports stadiums)

tax religions!
no more tax breaks for wives and children (why should single people pay MORE in taxes than married people?)
(why should gays pay MORE in taxes than married people with kids?)
no more subsidizing the building of sports arenas or nascar
no more payment for congressional prayer services
and make military career personnel wait until they are 65 before they start recieving retirement pay

I could get behind repealing the charitable contribution deduction and the tax exempt status provisions.

 

[pinqy]

It appears that the Texas supreme court pulled those "rules" right out of their asses. It says no such thing in the Constitution of the United States.

There's nothing in the Constitution about tax exempt status for religions at all. The only question was whether or not the Comptroller's requirement for belief in a Supreme Being was legal. There was no such requirement in the tax code, and the Ethical Society otherwise met the requirements for being a religion and thus eligible for tax exemption.

Buddhism, Taoism and Shinto are all unquestioned religions that do not require belief in a Supreme Being.

The "Supreme Being" rule was what the Comptroller pulled out of her ass.

That's what I was referring to.

How? First, the Texas Supreme Court didn't rule on this, it was an appeals court. Second, the ruling disagreed with the Comptroller and ruled against her in favor of the ESA.

And SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, though parts of some SCOTUS rulings were used in support.

It's unclear exactly which position you think is wrong.

 

[HUGGY]

There's nothing in the Constitution about tax exempt status for religions at all. The only question was whether or not the Comptroller's requirement for belief in a Supreme Being was legal. There was no such requirement in the tax code, and the Ethical Society otherwise met the requirements for being a religion and thus eligible for tax exemption.

Buddhism, Taoism and Shinto are all unquestioned religions that do not require belief in a Supreme Being.

The "Supreme Being" rule was what the Comptroller pulled out of her ass.

That's what I was referring to.

How? First, the Texas Supreme Court didn't rule on this, it was an appeals court. Second, the ruling disagreed with the Comptroller and ruled against her in favor of the ESA.

And SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, though parts of some SCOTUS rulings were used in support.

It's unclear exactly which position you think is wrong.

You expect me to READ those links????????

 

[Madeline]

That's what I was referring to.

How? First, the Texas Supreme Court didn't rule on this, it was an appeals court. Second, the ruling disagreed with the Comptroller and ruled against her in favor of the ESA.

And SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, though parts of some SCOTUS rulings were used in support.

It's unclear exactly which position you think is wrong.

You expect me to READ those links????????

I don't. I bet the sun is shining where you are, eh?

 

[HUGGY]

How? First, the Texas Supreme Court didn't rule on this, it was an appeals court. Second, the ruling disagreed with the Comptroller and ruled against her in favor of the ESA.

And SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, though parts of some SCOTUS rulings were used in support.

It's unclear exactly which position you think is wrong.

You expect me to READ those links????????

I don't. I bet the sun is shining where you are, eh?

Yup!

 

[Madeline]

You expect me to READ those links????????

I don't. I bet the sun is shining where you are, eh?

Yup!

Here too! The only thing that could make this day better is sex.

Wanna fuck, Huggy?

 

[HUGGY]

I don't. I bet the sun is shining where you are, eh?

Yup!

Here too! The only thing that could make this day better is sex.

Wanna fuck, Huggy?

You know I would normally jump at an opportunity like that...BUT..The Pitt Bull has been humping pillows on my bed all morning and... well it's just creepy ... gets me out of the mood...