In alt.talk.creationism, catshark <catshark@yahoo.com> wrote in
<u55sa050e0rd1nkuf7i91h6bpt4pqc1hrb@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 20 May 2004 20:25:59 +0000 (UTC),

"David M. Cook" <davecook@nowhere.net> wrote in message

BTW, when do atheists get their tax exemption. Some UUs in Texas just had
theirs taken away!

Dave Cook

My wife setup this organization: Austin Elthical Society--with a central tenet
that you don't have to believe in supernatural powers to treat everyone with
dignity and respect.

Some years ago, they applied for tax expemp status which would have amounted
to a burden on the state of some $12.35 per month (monthy mailing to 30 people).
Ronny Earle first granted said exemption and the next day withdrew when mss
Keyton (ne. Strayhorn) indicated that you can't be a religion in the state
of Texas without worshiping a supernatural entity (never mind Bhudists don't).
Since the UUs already are recongized and allow belief in any number of powers
they do not run afoul of Carolines versions of acceptable religions.

Ethical Society was first setup in New York around the turn of the previous
century, and is recognized in 17 states as a religious organization.

Ranny and Caroline have lost A) texas state court, B) texas court of appeals,

The decision can be found here:
<http://www.3rdcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/htmlopinion.asp?OpinionId=11583>

C) texas supreme court,

Which affirmed the above without a decision of its own.

and have now appealed to the US supreme Court. All
in the name of $12.35/month. Other than the extreme time involved, this is
little burden to the AES and rather humourous to the lesser involved (me).

Of course, the amount of money involved in your wife's particular case is
not all that is at stake. As the Texas court said:

The Legislature has provided that certain religious, educational,
and charitable groups are exempt from the franchise, sales and
use, and hotel taxes. (citations omitted). The Comptroller's
implementing administrative rules require that a group be
organized for the purpose of religious worship. (citations omitted)
Because exempt status is not favored by state law, any organization
seeking a tax exemption has the burden to show, without doubt, that
it meets the applicable requirements and any doubt regarding the
organization's qualifications will result in denial of the exemption.
(citations omitted). The Comptroller assesses each application
according to a non-exclusive set of factors set out in internal
agency documents, most of which are objective factors, including
whether the organization meets regularly for services, when and
where services are held, the approximate number of people attending
services, and whether the organization ordains clergy.

So far, all well and good. These are nothing more than reasonable indicies
to separate legitimate religions from (among others) the spate of tax
cheats in the 1970s and 80s who were trying to use mail-order divinity
degrees to set up private "religions" to avoid income taxes.

In addition, the Comptroller has apparently made an informal
determination, applied in this case, that an organization must meet
what we have called the Supreme Being test, requiring belief in a
"God, Gods, or higher power" in order to qualify for tax-exempt
status.

This Supreme Being requirement does not appear in the tax code or
the administrative code. From the documents contained in the record,
it appears that the Ethical Society met all of the objective
requirements contained within the Comptroller's internal memorandum:
among other things, it holds regular meetings, maintains a separate
bank account that profits no individual, and undertakes only
activities having to do with its congregational meetings. The Tax
Policy Group, based on the Ethical Society's application, granted
the exemption. It appears, then, that the Comptroller's decision was
based entirely on the determination that Ethical Culture does not
require belief in a Supreme Being.

The court essentially found that such a narrow "litmus test" is, on its
face, Constitutionally invalid because it is arbitrary and capricious:

Although the Ethical Society's tenets and beliefs may not explicitly
reference a divinity, they evidence enough of a sense of spiritual
feeling that the Society's claim to religious status should be
carefully assessed. The Comptroller's litmus test does not allow
for a closer assessment of the Ethical Society's claims and, because
it forecloses careful evaluation of the ways in which Ethical Humanism
may be more religious than personal, it violates the First Amendment.
Therefore, we hold that the Comptroller's reliance on a Supreme Being
litmus test to determine whether an organization qualifies as a
religion for purposes of the tax code is constitutionally infirm.

Having disposed of the Comptroller's test, the court then proceeds to
determine if the Ethical Society would meet a correct test for wether an
organization is a religion and evokes what is known as the "Malnak test":

The Malnak test gives a court the basis on which to determine whether
an unfamiliar religion is entitled to First Amendment protection by
comparing it to familiar religions. The test requires that a set of
beliefs: (1) address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do
with deep and imponderable matters such as the meaning of life and
death or man's role in the universe; (2) be broad in scope and
comprehensive in nature; and (3) be accompanied by the presence of
certain formal and external signs.

The "formal and external signs" aren't "signs from god" but those indicia
of religious organizations discussed above and which are not considered
dispositive in any case. The court found the Ethical Society met the
Malnak test.

Now all that is background for this: it seems clear to me that the
Comptroller's use of a belief in a supreme being as a litmus test for a
religion is doomed in any appeal to SCOTUS, as it is clearly improper.
Whether the Malnak test would be upheld is more questionable, but I can't
imagine any alternative being so significantly different as to exclude the
Ethical Society from being a religion for purposes of tax laws.

Does anyone know or has Carole Keeton Strayhorn made clear her personal
religious beliefs? The reason I ask is: it is just possible that she is
using her office to get SCOTUS to make a clear determination that ethical
humanism organizations are religious organizations in furtherance of
fundamentalist claims that "secular humanism" is a religion and that,
therefore, anything they want to tie to the tail of humanism, such as
evolutionary theory, can and must be banned from public schools.

Highly convoluted, I grant, but just because you're paranoid don't mean
someone ain't out to get you.

I don't follow her, but it seems that you attribute far more
intelligence to her than she has shown to this point. I'll bet on
religious bigot, it fits much better.