Atheists Reject Tax Break From Federal Government To Protest Religious Exemption

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/atheists-reject-tax-break_n_3791314.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

USA Today | By Bob Smietana
Posted: 08/21/2013 3:34 pm EDT


Freedom From Religion Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor stands in front of the door at the foundation headquarters in Madison, Wis.


(RNS) The federal government wants to give Annie Laurie Gaylor a tax break for leading the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

But Gaylor, an outspoken atheist from Madison, Wisc., wants to stop them — and she’s asking a federal judge for help.

The standoff is the latest twist in a court battle over the parsonage exemption for clergy, a tax break that allows “ministers of the gospel” to claim part of their salary as a tax-free housing allowance.

Gaylor’s organization says the exemption gives religious groups an unfair advantage. That makes it unconstitutional, the foundation’s lawsuit claims.

more at link

[rug]

1. Thet get a $2,500 a month housing allowance from FFRF.

[cbayer]

2. This didn't go quite the way they had anticipated.

Overall, I think it's a good thing and I am sorry that they are rejecting it. Expanding the definition of religion seems to make sense for organized atheism.

[Goblinmonger]

5. Organized atheism seems to think

that they aren't a religion. I tend to agree. I also tend to agree that the problem is that we have the tax break for religions.

[Leontius]

10. Taxing religions is an implicit violation of the free exercise clause.

[Goblinmonger]

11. So pastors are religions?

They get paid to do a job just like everyone else. I teach high school. Why don't I get a break? I'm doing "important stuff," too.

[MrModerate]

7. Gurk! Errm, why do you say that?

Since it your statement strikes me as, well . . . let's just say 'conceptually unsupportable.'

[cbayer]

8. Because it's not the outcome they wanted at all.

They were challenging the parsonage exemption. In order to have standing, they made the case that they should be entitled to it. It was their hope that the court would say, "No, you are not entitled to it, and as a matter of fact, no one should be". Instead, the court said, "OK, you can have it, too."

It was not the outcome they were looking for or anticipated.

I hope that explains to you why this kind of backfired on them.

[MrModerate]

12. I don't see in the story where they claimed to be eligible for an exemption . . .

Only that the foundation's board gave the allowance (not at all unusual).

Apparently, the two individuals have not filed tax returns claming the exemption. Are you looking somewhere other than the HuffPo piece?

[cbayer]

13. You will have to read further to get the full story.

Try this one:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/08/18/government-lawyers-advocate-for-atheism-as-a-religion/

It was an interesting legal conundrum involving standing. Now it's not clear what they will do.

[MrModerate]

14. OK, I've read the Forbes story . . .

And it doesn't seem to support your post #7. Nowhere does it say that they argued they were eligible for the exemption.

But that may be straining at gnats.

More important to me is your assertion that expanding the definition of religion would be a positive for 'organized atheism' (a term I have a bit of difficulty with in its own right — but no matter).

Unless the machiavellian plan is to expand the definition of religion to the point that it's diluted into meaninglessness (a path the Unitarians might be accused of following), I can't see why having the government maintaining that not-religion is actually religion benefits the atheist viewpoint.

[cbayer]

16. They claimed that not being entitled to it was unfair to them.

The court decided that the answer was to grant it to them, an outcome they were not looking for at all.

As far as the expansion of the term, I think that including groups that deal with "matters of conscience" may resolve some of the issues that the FFRF is legally exploring. Whether they take that route or not, it's a pretty interesting set of circumstances.

As organized atheism becomes more of a political force, which I foresee happening, these questions are going to come up more and more. Some groups may embrace it, others may reject it.

There's a reason why atheism is extensively discussed in the religion group.

Machiavellian? That's pretty hilarious.

[MrModerate]

17. I'd say that atheist activism is on the rise . . .

While disagreeing that 'organized atheism' will become more of a political force. As I suspect you know, your atheist-in-the-street is mostly uninterested in organizing to promote his/her lack of engagement with religion. However, that same atheist is almost certainly aggravated that religion enjoys protected status that it has neither earned nor deserves.

If there's a parallel, it might be the antiwar activism that peaked during the Vietnam War. That did involve, I suppose, 'organized antiwarism' of a sort (and hence might be seen to correspond to your 'organized atheism'), but what eventually brought the war to a close was not the activists but the great mass of the people who finally decided that the war itself was not something they were willing to support.

So it will go, I predict, with the unfair advantages granted religion in the US: the activists will highlight the issue, the bulk of atheists will inconstantly support social change to remove those advantages, and ultimately the tipping point will be reached among the general population and pro-religion laws will begin to fall by the wayside.

That's what I see happening right now in Australia, where I currently live, and it hasn't taken much in the way of atheist organizations to promote such change.

(And regarding my reference to Machiavelli, that wasn't meant to be a joke — although I'll take credit for one anyway — but was meant in the context of "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.&quot

[xfundy]

3. Proof? A link?

Or are you just increasing your post count?

[rug]

4. Do you have a reading problem?

The case is simple: The foundation board voted to give both Gaylor and Barker a housing allowance of $15,000 a year.

It's in the OP link.

Not very rational to jump to conclusions and invent explanations.

[2ndAmForComputers]

15. Yes. It's exactly that money the government says is religion-y.

So?

[rug]

18. Two things:

One, that's a high stipend for a charity, on top of salary and benefits.

Two, it's precisely the same type of stipend clergy get and which FFRF is complaining about.

Why don't you send them a donation?

[Goblinmonger]

19. It's not the stipend they are complaining about

it is the tax break for the stipend. One which they have not claimed on their taxes from what I have seen.

That's not really that high of a stipend for someone running an organization of that magnitude. You should know how much they do from all the stories you post about their actions.

[rug]

20. It is a high stipend.

And with an annual budget of 1.6 million dollars its magnitude is not that great.

Together, their salaries are $173,000 in addition to this stipend, representing one dollar of of every 8 going into their pockets.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7003#.UhfJnU7D_3g

Here's the Better Business Bureau rating of it as a charity. Pay attention to Standard 10.

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/civil-rights/freedom-from-religion-foundation-in-madison-wi-18414

[MellowDem]

6. Good

The federal government is trying to continue giving unfair advantages to religion, and are having to twist themselves in logical pretzels to do so. Atheism isn't a religion. Housing allowances that are tax-free should be unconstitutional when given only to religions.