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.
2016/04/21 20:02:02
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
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....
AFH qualifies as a charity and educational service, not a religious organization.
LordofHats wrote: To be fair, I think there's plenty of good arguments that 501(c)(3) is just a really silly way of going about tax exempt organizations
It could be worse, it could be 501(c)(4).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/21 20:06:08
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/21 20:10:29
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
Just looked that up, and saw Citizens United v. FEC in the related searches. Ugh.
AFH qualifies as a charity and educational service, not a religious organization.
And maybe because there's confusion about this, 501(c)(3) is not just for religious organizations. Most non-profits in the US are registered as 501(c)(3). Though my understanding is that "Churches" have some special exemptions under this law that only apply to them (like not having to pay property taxes on church buildings). And before anyone jumps anywhere, Churches as defined by the IRS is not just Christians. They use the word to define basically religious congregation. Other religious bodies, like say the "International Committee for Philosophically Talking about Interfaith Stuff" likely wouldn't qualify. It is a religious organization, but not a church.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/21 20:14:35
LordofHats wrote: . 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.
And if you're even remotely familiar with older Pagan religions, it's obvious that Christianity is a spoof on them...
2016/04/21 20:24:33
Subject: Re:Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
LordofHats wrote: . 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.
And if you're even remotely familiar with older Pagan religions, it's obvious that Christianity is a spoof on them...
There is a fine difference between spoof and syncretism (and really, prety much all religions currently evident in human socities were born syncretically). Christinaity's development out of Judaism in the first and second centuries has been getting much better understood in the past few decades. It's a subject I very much enjoy
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/21 20:25:10
Because Pastaferianism incorporates some elements of Christianity (Since it originated in a culture seeped with Christian traditions) it doesn't mean that it has to be a parody. Yes, I believe it was intended to be a spoof, but I also think someone could find genuine faith in it. I don't want someone in power to have the ability to declare that it isn't a 'real' religion and thus deserves no rights.
2016/04/21 20:35:45
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
skyth wrote: And the difference is in the eye of the beholder.
It's really not (def 1 is what I refer to). We could say a spoof could eventually become religion via syncretic processes, but that's something in the future. With their own book making their intent clear not just in the parody itself, but in plain terms I highly doubt that'll ever happen. It could though*, but we can't go making laws for hypothetical non-extant things.
*and it would be incredibly hilarious given the original intent. The world really is a comedy.
I don't want someone in power to have the ability to declare that it isn't a 'real' religion and thus deserves no rights.
And I don't want to pay taxes every April. The realities of running a functioning state really reminds me of that song by the Rolling Stones about what is wanted and needed.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/21 20:40:17
skyth wrote: And the difference is in the eye of the beholder.
It's really not (def 1 is what I refer to). We could say a spoof could eventually become religion via syncretic processes, but that's something in the future. With their own book making their intent clear not just in the parody itself, but in plain terms I highly doubt that'll ever happen. It could though*, but we can't go making laws for hypothetical non-extant things.
Like voter impersonation having an effect on an election in the US, or people impersonating trans people in order to get into womens bathrooms
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/21 20:45:50
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/04/21 20:53:09
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
To be clear, the article I linked to was not defining religion, it was discussing the fact there wasn't a legal definition of religion, looking at the ways the law looked at religion, and arguing there should be some attempt to make a legal definition. Written in 1982, but still relevant today, perhaps.
Kilkrazy wrote: To be clear, the article I linked to was not defining religion, it was discussing the fact there wasn't a legal definition of religion, looking at the ways the law looked at religion, and arguing there should be some attempt to make a legal definition. Written in 1982, but still relevant today, perhaps.
I enjoyed skimming it.
Even the linked legal treatise doesn't have an outright legal definition but a smattering of court decisions that wind up still leaving it vague.
Edit:
Regarding the CoE. Meh. I was wrong, I didn't look into where they arrived at their status. Upon reflection, I suppose a stronger argument would be that the IRS has neither the authority to create law nor the ability to create legal precedence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/21 21:55:10
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/21 22:55:54
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
Regarding the CoE. Meh. I was wrong, I didn't look into where they arrived at their status. Upon reflection, I suppose a stronger argument would be that the IRS has neither the authority to create law nor the ability to create legal precedence.
No, but it does have the authority to execute the law which is under its mandate and some of those laws necessitate determining what a religion is.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/22 01:41:54
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
Regarding the CoE. Meh. I was wrong, I didn't look into where they arrived at their status. Upon reflection, I suppose a stronger argument would be that the IRS has neither the authority to create law nor the ability to create legal precedence.
No, but it does have the authority to execute the law which is under its mandate and some of those laws necessitate determining what a religion is.
Please quote the law that requires or allows the IRS to define religion.
More likely, what has occurred is that in the absence of law, the IRS has determined that a definition of a Church or Religious Organization (note, these are institutions not religions in and of themselves) is needed for them to determine eligibility for tax exemption status. As I mentioned before, it is entirely possible for a specific Christian Church (for example) to break the restrictions on tax-exempt status and for them to lose that status without any impact whatsoever on the status of other Churches of the same religion. The IRS has no definition of a religion that I am able to find; if you find one, please post it. Rather, they have a definition of institutions related to religions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 01:42:20
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/22 07:37:17
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
Rather, they have a definition of institutions related to religions.
If you don't think there is an IRS definition of "religion", then it seems odd to believe that there is a separate definition of "religious institution".
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2016/04/22 11:37:32
Subject: Re:Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
Rather, they have a definition of institutions related to religions.
If you don't think there is an IRS definition of "religion", then it seems odd to believe that there is a separate definition of "religious institution".
As Killkrazy points out in the post below yours. The page that he linked as well as the document that I linked earlier in the thread provide the IRS definitions of "Church" and "Religious Organization"; I apologize if my use of the word "institution" caused any confusion. Organizations and Churches are not the same as religions. What the IRS is doing is defining their criteria for a body to claim tax-exempt status. This status has no bearing whatsoever on what a religion is as a church from an "established" religion could not qualify for tax-exempt status through the IRS yet still be part of the overall religion it belongs to.
Again, to my knowledge there is no federal definition of what constitutes a religion. Instead there are a number of court cases and laws that refer to "sincerely held religious belief" which still shies away from attempting to define religion. In the case of incarcerated persons, as in this case, there is an existing law which applies which also does not define religion. In fact the existing law, which has been upheld so far by SCOTUS, only defines religious exercise:
any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief
Note that the federal definition even states that someone could be performing a religious act that is not even a part of a system of religious belief. I can't think of how they could have written that more broadly.
Additionally, the Lemon Test is used frequently and still upheld by SCOTUS. Here is what the federal court system has to say on religion and the 1st amendment:
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Check out similar cases related to Engel v. Vitale that deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I'm glad that I found this because it does a very good job of outlining the historical interpretation of what "establishment" means in the 1st Amendment and then goes on to describe how the courts interpret this today.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 13:10:28
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/22 13:23:50
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
Religion isn't unique in not having a single definion. A word like "disability" has wildly different meanings to Social Security, VA, Department of Labor, or Health and Human Services.
Likewise, "household" has different meanings to the Census Bureau than the IRS.
So yes, "religion" is going to be defined in many different ways in many different applications.
2016/04/22 19:13:33
Subject: Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
agnosto wrote: Organizations and Churches are not the same as religions. What the IRS is doing is defining their criteria for a body to claim tax-exempt status. This status has no bearing whatsoever on what a religion is as a church from an "established" religion could not qualify for tax-exempt status through the IRS yet still be part of the overall religion it belongs to.
True, but they get the benefit of the doubt because they are established religions. You're talking about hundreds, or thousands, of years; not ~11.
agnosto wrote: Organizations and Churches are not the same as religions. What the IRS is doing is defining their criteria for a body to claim tax-exempt status. This status has no bearing whatsoever on what a religion is as a church from an "established" religion could not qualify for tax-exempt status through the IRS yet still be part of the overall religion it belongs to.
True, but they get the benefit of the doubt because they are established religions. You're talking about hundreds, or thousands, of years; not ~11.
The law says that the government can't play favorites. Court cases have been won over perceived favoritism. Larson v Valente (1982) for example resulted in a ruling that found:
Freedom of religion would not exist if the state were allowed to provide favorable treatment to certain religions. The Establishment Clause requires legislatures and citizens to treat all religions with the same respect and deference they afford their own.
Again, to my knowledge there is no federal definition of what constitutes a religion.
Alright, but Incorporation of the Establishment Clause isn't fully settled.
True but until current court rulings are overturned, I feel there is substantial existing judicial precedence to support my statement.
Interesting stuff. I've enjoyed the conversation in this thread and feel like I've learned quite a bit that I didn't know coming into it.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2016/04/23 01:31:29
Subject: Re:Court Rules That Pastafarianism Is Not A Religion
