Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:
So you're saying it's ok for the government to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion?

Find me anywhere I said that. When you see I didn't, go on to read the rest of this post;

Separation of Church and State is not a gag order doctrine that forbids the state from ever talking about religion or enacting policy to deal with religion. It forbids the US government from establishing a state religion ala the Church of England (which this ruling does absolutely nothing to do). The free exercise of religion, and protecting it, inherently requires the government to establish a legal bounds for what religion is and what religion is not. Adapting that to real world policy, and to balance the needs of the state with individual and social religious freedom, innately requires law makers and jurists to make decisions concerning religion, and you cannot do that while bound and gagged forever forbidden from talking about it.

I.E. These doctrines do not function the way you think they do.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?

Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?

That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?

It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.

Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.

 LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
So you're saying it's ok for the government to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and impeding the free exercise of religion?

Find me anywhere I said that. When you see I didn't, go on to read the rest of this post;

Separation of Church and State is not a gag order doctrine that forbids the state from ever talking about religion or enacting policy to deal with religion. It forbids the US government from establishing a state religion ala the Church of England (which this ruling does absolutely nothing to do). The free exercise of religion, and protecting it, inherently requires the government to establish a legal bounds for what religion is and what religion is not. Adapting that to real world policy, and to balance the needs of the state with individual and social religious freedom, innately requires law makers and jurists to make decisions, and you cannot do that while bound and gagged.

You just said it again, you're saying the government should establish what is and is not a religion. they're making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

 agnosto wrote:
That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith.

That way lies madness. You end up in a situation where things like honor killing, genital mutilation, and suicide bombing are protected forms of expression.

Noir wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?

Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?

That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?

It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.

Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.

That someone else said the religion is a joke is irrelevant to the person practicing the religion.

Noir wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?

Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?

That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?

It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.

Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.

No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it. The jews say jesus wasn't the messiah, the muslims say he wasn't the son of god, so shouldn't that settle it and christianty should not be considered a religion?

 skyth wrote:

That someone else said the religion is a joke is irrelevant to the person practicing the religion.

What are the established tenets of Pastafarianism?

sirlynchmob wrote:

You just said it again, you're saying the government should establish what is and is not a religion. they're making laws respecting the establishment of religion.

Why do I bother?

"Establishment of Religion" is a legal phrase with a specific meaning and that meaning is not whatever combination of the words "religion" and "establishment" you decide to be upset about. It is part of the Establishment Clause and forbids Congress from establishing a "State Religion." Establishing a legal definition of what is religion is, or by which to determine religious practice from non-religious practice, is not even remotely the same thing. The later is a necessity if we're to go about protecting Free Exercise. You can't protect something that has no beginning and no end. The law can't function in a realm of absolute ambiguity.

 dogma wrote:

 skyth wrote:

That someone else said the religion is a joke is irrelevant to the person practicing the religion.

What are the established tenets of Pastafarianism?

Irrelevant. It is whatever tenets that the person practicing the religion chooses to use.

 dogma wrote:

 skyth wrote:

That someone else said the religion is a joke is irrelevant to the person practicing the religion.

What are the established tenets of Pastafarianism?

You must speak like a pirate on talk like a pirate day, just a guess as I'm not in their religion. but I hear that's their high holiday.

for a interesting read:
http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Pastafarian

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.

The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.

We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.

 LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.

The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.

We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.

When you hate all religion it is easy to get butt hurt when a parody is dismissed but actual religions are not. I think this thread makes that pretty clear. I'm amazed it has been allowed to go on as long as it has.

 dogma wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith.

That way lies madness. You end up in a situation where things like honor killing, genital mutilation, and suicide bombing are protected forms of expression.

Damn... that's a very good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.

The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.

We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.

When you hate all religion it is easy to get butt hurt when a parody is dismissed but actual religions are not. I think this thread makes that pretty clear. I'm amazed it has been allowed to go on as long as it has.

Dude... the back-and-forth has been enlightening.

And, everyone's on their "good behavior" too!

sirlynchmob wrote:

You must speak like a pirate on talk like a pirate day, just a guess as I'm not in their religion. but I hear that's their high holiday.

I imagine most Pastafarians can't speak Somali.

 LordofHats wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it.

The origin is so-so important, but what really matters is that we're not required to turn our brains off the moment the word religion appears. Everything about FSM screams parody, even without the founder's words. Here is a link to a PDF of the expanded Loose Canon, the Holy Book of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Go ahead and read through it. If you're even remotely familiar with the Bible or Christianity, there's no way to accept this as anything but satire. It opens with a spoof of the Nicene Creed. Further, good luck finding much theology in there. It's great at poking hilarious fun at the Bible, but there is no consistent theology within it. To be fair, it would be hard to be so funny at spoofing the Bible while having a consistent theology so i think we can forgive them.

We're human beings and we're intelligent creatures. Religion as grown around us. We're really quite familiar with it. We're also extremely familiar with parody. I'd hope we can have enough respect for ourselves to be able to tell one from the one.

why must they be mutually exclusive? How about we take their 30 day challenge, they have a god back guarantee, then we can have a more educated discussion on if parodies can be religions.
http://www.venganza.org/about/

209 pages? now that's a respectable size holy book, I'll get back to you on that one, and by that I mean I'll consider reading it, but I won't

cptjake Who hates all religions? I surely don't.

I'll save you some time and laughs then and get to the point (though I highly suggest reading Frequently Asked Questions of page 63, cause it's god damn awesome);

Now I don't know how you feel about the issue, but basically we're opposed to the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classrooms. 7 We're not out to prove it wrong, just that it's not science. ~ LC, page 149

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the members of which are referred to as Pastafarians) is dedicated to keeping Intelligent Design (ID) out of public school science classrooms. At this point in time, ID cannot be falsified, tested, or observed. 3 These characteristics are fundamental to science and any idea that does not possess them is not science. Furthermore, ID is clearly based on religion and therefore it cannot be taught in public school due to the separation of church and state. ~ Loose Canon page 153.

The conclusion on Page 205 is a wonderfully well written thesis on deity and character as well, though notable for a complete rejection of divinity and transcendence, which would squarely place the conception of FSM outside the bounds of what we call religious The conception presented is actually quite similar to non-religious variations of Taoism.

 dogma wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
That said, I honestly believe that it is neither the business of the government nor in the society's best interest for courts to be in the business of deciding what constitutes a valid religion or a valid expression of religious faith.

That way lies madness. You end up in a situation where things like honor killing, genital mutilation, and suicide bombing are protected forms of expression.

Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Noir wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What concessions do Landover Baptists ask for?

Are Landover Baptists a satire or a genuine religion?

That's the question of the day, who get's to decide these things?

It should be up to the landover baptists if they're a satire or a genuine religion.

Sure but if the guy who founded it says point blank it is a joke, shouldn't that settle it. Thats the important thang here and part of what the ruling is based on.

No, the origin is unimportant, it's if the people in it, believe it. The jews say jesus wasn't the messiah, the muslims say he wasn't the son of god, so shouldn't that settle it and christianty should not be considered a religion?

Which is why the relevant federal laws hinge on "sincerely held belief" rather than religion which goes back to my contention that the judge should have kept his nose out of trying to say something is a valid religion or not and just stuck with established procedural protocols for denial of the plaintiff's case.

 agnosto wrote:

Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.

If the state is allowed to burden the expression of religion in some case, then it stands to reason that it might burden it in others according to its judgment.

 agnosto wrote:
Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.

That doesn't really cover what he's getting at.

Example;

Under US law, Religious institutions are allowed to apply for non-profit status with the IRS. They've always been able to do this, but under LBJ we added them to 501(c)(3) in a bid to get religious institutions out of politics (actually a really good historical hypothesis being explored now that this shift in tax policy helped give rise to the modern Religious Right but that's another discussion). Under 501(c)(3) a religious institution can avoid property taxes for chapels, synagogues, etc. Monkey Tamer made this comparison before that if we are uncritical about what is and is not religion, than anyone can proclaim their house a religious building and no one will ever pay property taxes. The state reasonably accepts religious institutions as a non-profit activity,* but for that exact reason the government has to note what is and is not religion, or else it ends up in a ludicrous position of accepting all claims uncritically.

This is of course madness. It's also happened before; in the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had a serious tax crisis. One of the many problems was that so many religious tax exemptions (some going back centuries) had been handed out, and so liberally, that the state was starting to be unable to legitimately tax property and commercial activity. This crisis, and the inability of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code to fully rectify it contributed to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

* (though as has often been noted there is a lot of profit to be had in non-profit )

 CptJake wrote:

When you hate all religion it is easy to get butt hurt when a parody is dismissed but actual religions are not. I think this thread makes that pretty clear. I'm amazed it has been allowed to go on as long as it has.

The FSM is exactly as valid as any other religion. The Prophet was touched by the noodly apendage whether he believes in it or not. And you can't disprove it!

Present some evidence to prove what you believe is true, otherwise why SHOULD you get any special protections and rights above and beyond what anyone else gets?

As noted directly above, the state cannot afford for everyone to be able to decide they have a sincerely declared belief and thereby become a religion and not pay taxes.

Also as noted by other people earlier, the state cannot grant religions exemptions to any kind of behaviour that people might want to practice in the name of religion (e.g. cutting the living hearts out of people and consuming their flesh in a cannibalistic orgy.)

Therefore when someone claims they have a religion and it requires them to perform such and such a rite, the state, the law, is compelled in some fashion to take a view on whether this is going to be allowable. No doubt due to the separation of state and church, the courts have normally laid a very light hand indeed on this issue.

 LordofHats wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Nope. Please read the rest of my post where I refer to laws that are in place that allow the state to burden the expression of religion. Admittedly I could have written the segment you quoted better but I think, in context, what I wrote makes sense.

That doesn't really cover what he's getting at.

Example;

Under US law, Religious institutions are allowed to apply for non-profit status with the IRS. They've always been able to do this, but under LBJ we added them to 501(c)(3) in a bid to get religious institutions out of politics (actually a really good historical hypothesis being explored now that this shift in tax policy helped give rise to the modern Religious Right but that's another discussion). Under 501(c)(3) a religious institution can avoid property taxes for chapels, synagogues, etc. Monkey Tamer made this comparison before that if we are uncritical about what is and is not religion, than anyone can proclaim their house a religious building and no one will ever pay property taxes. The state reasonably accepts religious institutions as a non-profit activity,* but for that exact reason the government has to note what is and is not religion, or else it ends up in a ludicrous position of accepting all claims uncritically.

This is of course madness. It's also happened before; in the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire had a serious tax crisis. One of the many problems was that so many religious tax exemptions (some going back centuries) had been handed out, and so liberally, that the state was starting to be unable to legitimately tax property and commercial activity. This crisis, and the inability of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code to fully rectify it contributed to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

* (though as has often been noted there is a lot of profit to be had in non-profit )

The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is. The exact information can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
For a particular Church or religious organization to qualify for tax-exempt status, they must meet the criteria as defined by the IRS; this does not mean that the organization or church is not a legitimate religious entity, just that it does not qualify. Here's a simple outline from the document:

IRC Section 501(c)(3). IRC section 501(c)(3) describes charitable organizations,
including churches and religious organizations, which qualify for exemption from
federal income tax and generally are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
This section provides that:
n an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious or other
charitable purposes,
n net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,
n no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
n the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and
n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental
public policy.

I think it's easy to see how an entity from an established religion could be involved in one of the prohibited activities from that list and not qualify as 501(c)(3). Do they suddenly stop being a religion at that point? I'd be afraid if the IRS is the final arbiter in what is and isn't a religion.

If that's all it takes to be a religion then the "Church of Euthanasia" qualifies as it does possess that status.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As noted directly above, the state cannot afford for everyone to be able to decide they have a sincerely declared belief and thereby become a religion and not pay taxes.

Also as noted by other people earlier, the state cannot grant religions exemptions to any kind of behaviour that people might want to practice in the name of religion (e.g. cutting the living hearts out of people and consuming their flesh in a cannibalistic orgy.)

Therefore when someone claims they have a religion and it requires them to perform such and such a rite, the state, the law, is compelled in some fashion to take a view on whether this is going to be allowable. No doubt due to the separation of state and church, the courts have normally laid a very light hand indeed on this issue.

It's a bit trickier than that. There have been cases like Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, whereby a municipality passed an ordinance that prevented mutilation of animals which the Santaria church protested and SCOTUS ruled in favor of the church.

When it comes to law, the Lemon Test remains the established measuring stick for religious liberty. Again, this only applies to religious expression as there are no laws or court cases that I'm aware (outside of the one related to this thread) which attempt to define what is or is not a religion.

The Lemon Test:
The three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

It would appear they don't stop being a religion but they would lose their tax free status.

For example, General Electric can decide to be a religion, and if people sincerely believe, then it is one, but since its earnings inure to shareholders, it's going to be taxed anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It would appear they don't stop being a religion but they would lose their tax free status.

For example, General Electric can decide to be a religion, and if people sincerely believe, then it is one, but since its earnings inure to shareholders, it's going to be taxed anyway.

Funny example but yes. The Church of Charlie Manson couldn't be 501(c)(3) as it would be to benefit one person.

 agnosto wrote:
The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is.

It's not really a hair split. These are important and meaningful distinctions. The IRS decides what is and isn't acceptable for religious tax exemption every day when they stamp forms with "approved" and "rejected." They're just not the sole deciders. They have to follow laws as laid out by Congress, and when ambiguity arises in the law and practice, the Courts have to resolve them.

n an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious or other charitable purposes,

Define religious. We can always pull a dictionary definition from somewhere like Webster, but how do we in turn apply that definition into policy? People under appreciate the reality of law. By writing down "for religious or other charitable purpose" I've written law yes, but that law is ambiguous. What constitutes religion under the law? How will the law consider acceptable and unacceptable activity? Someone has to interpret this stuff when it becomes unclear what is to be done. We usually hand that responsibility to the courts.

Do they suddenly stop being a religion at that point?

I think that's getting into the murky reality that "law" != "all life." It fundamentally can't account for everything. If the IRS turns down a church's application, that just means it's not an institution whose activities are acceptable for tax exempt status under said law. That might be because someone tried to claim their house as a religious structure, or it might be because the structure and money operations of the body were not non-profit. The IRS doesn't get to decide solely what is religious; only what is deserving of religious tax exemptions. That entails the inherent and very first question that is probably asked "is this a religion, or someone scamming the system?"

I'd be afraid if the IRS is the final arbiter in what is and isn't a religion.

Be afraid if anyone is the final arbiter of anything. Judges decisions are never final. They stand until another judge overturns them. Even SCOTUS' word is not final. A later court can overturn their decisions. The plaintiff in the OP could appeal, though given the nature of his claim I doubt anyone will accept. All other things aside, his claim is very vague. At most, we'd have to wait for another case where a judge might cite one element of this decision in denying another FSM related claim, and that plaintiff might get a chance to appeal on the grounds that this judge's ruling was wrong. That's the basics of how case law works.

well to show how easy it can be to get a 501(c)(3) That is the same type of charity that anita runs for her video series. And it is to the benefit of just one person.

 LordofHats wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is.

It's not really a hair split. These are important and meaningful distinctions. The IRS decides what is and isn't acceptable for religious tax exemption every day when they stamp forms with "approved" and "rejected." They're just not the sole deciders. They have to follow laws as laid out by Congress, and when ambiguity arises in the law and practice, the Courts have to resolve them.

n an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious or other charitable purposes,

Define religious. We can always pull a dictionary definition from somewhere like Webster, but how do we in turn apply that definition into policy? People under appreciate the reality of law. By writing down "for religious or other charitable purpose" I've written law yes, but that law is ambiguous. What constitutes religion under the law? How will the law consider acceptable and unacceptable activity? Someone has to interpret this stuff when it becomes unclear what is to be done. We usually hand that responsibility to the courts.

Do they suddenly stop being a religion at that point?

I think that's getting into the murky reality that "law" != "all life." It fundamentally can't account for everything. If the IRS turns down a church's application, that just means it's not an institution whose activities are acceptable for tax exempt status under said law. That might be because someone tried to claim their house as a religious structure, or it might be because the structure and money operations of the body were not non-profit. The IRS doesn't get to decide solely what is religious; only what is deserving of religious tax exemptions. That entails the inherent and very first question that is probably asked "is this a religion, or someone scamming the system?"

I'd be afraid if the IRS is the final arbiter in what is and isn't a religion.

Be afraid if anyone is the final arbiter of anything. Judges decisions are never final. They stand until another judge overturns them. Even SCOTUS' word is not final. A later court can overturn their decisions. The plaintiff in the OP could appeal, though given the nature of his claim I doubt anyone will accept. All other things aside, his claim is very vague. At most, we'd have to wait for another case where a judge might cite one element of this decision in denying another FSM related claim, and that plaintiff might get a chance to appeal on the grounds that this judge's ruling was wrong. That's the basics of how case law works.

I suppose I did a shoddy job of getting my point across because you basically said everything that I was driving at. There is no legal definition of "religion" and so it has been my issue with this case that the judge, in this case, decided he would just go ahead and punt for the bleachers and make one, in this case.

Again, the Church of Euthanasia is a 501(c)(3) and if they can be considered a religion, anything can. Atheists for Humanity is another one....

 agnosto wrote:

The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is. The exact information can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
For a particular Church or religious organization to qualify for tax-exempt status, they must meet the criteria as defined by the IRS; this does not mean that the organization or church is not a legitimate religious entity, just that it does not qualify.

That means, for all intents and purposes, it is not.

 agnosto wrote:

If that's all it takes to be a religion then the "Church of Euthanasia" qualifies as it does possess that status.

CoE is registered as an educational institution, not a religious one.

 agnosto wrote:
There is no legal definition of "religion"

There is though and KK I believe linked it to you earlier.

Legal definitions are not like dictionary definitions. They're built up, amended, and torn down as the law goes forward. "Religion" in US law is defined by a body of US case law. That's how the concept of sincere belief came about. The lemon test. Everything. We've once again come around to the same issue; common sense was used to note something was a parody. Why does a judge need permission to use common sense, or are they required to turn their brain off and accept without thought because the word "religion" was uttered?

 dogma wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

The IRS determines what qualifies for tax exemption, they do not define what a religion is. I know that's a fine hair to split, but there it is. The exact information can be found here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
For a particular Church or religious organization to qualify for tax-exempt status, they must meet the criteria as defined by the IRS; this does not mean that the organization or church is not a legitimate religious entity, just that it does not qualify.

That means, for all intents and purposes, it is not.

 agnosto wrote:

If that's all it takes to be a religion then the "Church of Euthanasia" qualifies as it does possess that status.

CoE is registered as an educational institution, not a religious one.

But what is a religious institution but one which claims to give an education of the soul?