Taxing religious institutions

[Jess]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion -- if that's the case, why are religious institutions tax exempt? I think they should be taxed like any other organization or business.


What do you think? Should religious institutions be taxed? Why or why not?

[FreeFall]

I'll say no. That line actually means that congress has no business with the religious establishment and to leave it alone, like don't bother it. If they start paying taxes, they'll start the fight to have a say in things. They'll feel that since the government's taking their money, they'll have a voice as an organization to say what happens with that money. Much like everyday tax payers do. Government's supposed to leave religion alone, and religion stays out of Government, separation of church and state. At least that what they tell us.

[Gigablue]

In an ideal situation, where religion stayed out of government, they shouldn't be taxed. If they were it would be taxation without representation. In such a situation, they shouldn't be taxed for their operating costs. If they operated as a for profit business, they should be obligated to pay taxes like any other business.

In reality, religion doesn't stay out of government. As a result, they are exempt from tax and get a major say in government as well. Therefore I think religious organizations, in their present form, should be taxed. Religion should either stay out of government or accept being taxed.

[ArsenicCatNip]

I'll say no. First of all churches(or any other building for religious purposes) are not like like a business because they do not make an income and aren't made for that purpose, this is why the Red Cross isn't taxed either.

[Jess]

But shouldn't they pay...property tax or something?

(I just thought that if we taxed churches, we would get in a lot of money....?)

[Noirtier]

I believe that it is typically justified by the second portion of the amendment clause, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I think religious institutions should remain tax exempt, in an effort to continue separation of church and state. However, that also applies on the other side of the road--religious institutions shouldn't become engulfed in political affairs, because that kind of defeats the whole purpose of separating the church and state as well.

[Texas warrior]

I think that the smaller churches should remain tax exempt, but tax the larger ones that use there money for politics.

[Antisthenes]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion -- if that's the case, why are religious institutions tax exempt? I think they should be taxed like any other organization or business.


What do you think? Should religious institutions be taxed? Why or why not?

I have to comment on the sophistical representation of the First Amendment.

You only gave a small piece of it.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

You gave the underlined part. However, you seemed to have purposely neglected the part afterwards that I put in bold, that explains the other condition on the first part and contains the rest of the idea. This act is known as quoting out of context and it is fallacious.

An edit:
To demonstrate another example of this fallacy: Consider if someone was to say, "That's ridiculous. Who said that I support baby killing?"

And I was to then quote them saying only, "I support baby killing" without the rest of this statement. I have misrepresented their entire statement. The same is the case here and what you've done with the First Amendment.

[Jean Poutine]

It has nothing to do with the Establishment clause. That clause is so Congress does not prefer a religion over another or does not establish a state religion. Read it carefully.

The answer to this question simply is "separation of Church and State", in its entirety. Tax a Church and the State enters into relations with the Church. Church is one body and the State is another. Were the State to raise taxes on churches, religion would become subservient to the State : as inacceptable as the State being subservient to religion.

There's a case on this : Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York.

EDIT : I thought I would comment further.

I think it's funny atheists are all for separation of Church and State and bellow it as loud as they can, any chance they get.

I am not for separation. Yes, you heard me right. I am against separation of Church and State.

Separation of Church and State implies a bidirectional relationship where both entities stay the Hell out of each other's business. You know what? I think this is a fucking disgrace. Religion does not deserve to be put on the same pedestal as the State. It does not deserve special privileges. It is as absurd as asking for a tax exemption for Disneyland. Atheists misunderstand that the concept goes both ways : religion stays out of government, BUT government stays out of religion. They then say they want to tax religion. This is a non sequitur.

I want the State to have power over Church, without reciprocity. I want the State to tax places of worship, to regulate them, to keep crazies on check. I want the State to stop extremists and fundamentalists from abusing not only their family, their children, but also their own countrymen. I want to State to be able to crush the Westboro Baptist Church, to be able to rip the Nation of Islam apart, to be able to stomp on Scientology and to be able to pulverize Chassidism. I want the State to be able to say "enough is enough" when belief impedes the lives of other citizens. I want the State to be able to force parents to stop raising their kids religiously if it hurts their development or causes them anguish, I want the State to get rid of denominational schools, I want the State to be able to declare religious doctrine as unconstitutional and slash it from practice, I want "divine" law to be given back to humanity and enforced by it.

I want the State to have some pants. Stop talking about separation of Church and State. It is humiliating, truly horrendous for a nation in the 21st century to shout this as a slogan. Give the State reasonable power over religion once and for all.

[Gigablue]

I think it's funny atheists are all for separation of Church and State and bellow it as loud as they can, any chance they get.

I am not for separation. Yes, you heard me right. I am against separation of Church and State.

Separation of Church and State implies a bidirectional relationship where both entities stay the Hell out of each other's business. You know what? I think this is a fucking disgrace. Religion does not deserve to be put on the same pedestal as the State. It does not deserve special privileges. It is as absurd as asking for a tax exemption for Disneyland. Atheists misunderstand that the concept goes both ways : religion stays out of government, BUT government stays out of religion. They then say they want to tax religion. This is a non sequitur.

I want the State to have power over Church, without reciprocity. I want the State to tax places of worship, to regulate them, to keep crazies on check. I want the State to stop extremists and fundamentalists from abusing not only their family, their children, but also their own countrymen. I want to State to be able to crush the Westboro Baptist Church, to be able to rip the Nation of Islam apart, to be able to stomp on Scientology and to be able to pulverize Chassidism. I want the State to be able to say "enough is enough" when belief impedes the lives of other citizens. I want the State to be able to force parents to stop raising their kids religiously if it hurts their development or causes them anguish, I want the State to get rid of denominational schools, I want the State to be able to declare religious doctrine as unconstitutional and slash it from practice, I want "divine" law to be given back to humanity and enforced by it.

I want the State to have some pants. Stop talking about separation of Church and State. It is humiliating, truly horrendous for a nation in the 21st century to shout this as a slogan. Give the State reasonable power over religion once and for all.

I couldn't agree more. I think that separation of church and state is better than the church controlling the government, but ideally the government would have more power. There is nothing special about religion, except that our laws grant it many exemptions. Religion needs to be controlled by the government to stop it from getting even more out of control.

[havingfun]

Many atheist institutions are a 201c3 non profit, do you think they should be taxed too?
We sure don't want a double standard, do we?

[toomuch]

I totally agree, the mojority dont do anything good.

[Jean Poutine]

Many atheist institutions are a 201c3 non profit, do you think they should be taxed too?
We sure don't want a double standard, do we?

Do you mean 501(c)3?

(a) Exemption from taxation
An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401 (a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502 or 503.

(c) List of exempt organizations
The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501

There are many things in there. Know what we should do with this?

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes

Atheism can always fit under scientific. lololololololol

[havingfun]

You're right, 501 was the number I was referring to.

[Charles Finley]

(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes

Atheism can always fit under scientific. lololololololol

Nope. EXCLUSIVELY for charitable, scientific, testing... educational purposes. If they're not trying to spread their non-beliefs (I don't mean that term in a derogatory sense; many atheists with whom I've spoken take offense at my discussion of their 'beliefs') then they're not an atheist organization under most common meanings of the term. If they are, then they're not exclusively scientific. Before you bring up "educational purposes," I will remind you that if you view "telling others about your beliefs" is an educational purpose, then religious institutions would be eligible for the same exemption.

[Gaybaby94]

They should be taxed!

Also they should pay for women contraceptives, education, and scientific advancement.

[Jean Poutine]

Nope.

Sarcasm immune, are you, little man?

If they're not trying to spread their non-beliefs (I don't mean that term in a derogatory sense; many atheists with whom I've spoken take offense at my discussion of their 'beliefs') then they're not an atheist organization under most common meanings of the term. If they are, then they're not exclusively scientific. Before you bring up "educational purposes," I will remind you that if you view "telling others about your beliefs" is an educational purpose, then religious institutions would be eligible for the same exemption.

Nope. (see I can do it too)

Religious institutions are clearly differentiated from educational institutions in the law by the will of the legislator. Therefore, it would be unthinkable to try to distort a word to get churches to fit in. It would be the judiciary trying to pass themselves as the legislative branch and any such suggestion would be dismissed by any semi-competent judge.

On the other hand, atheist organisations already fit in under educational. They do not spread beliefs. They talk about evolution, the Big Bang, science and mankind's potential as a sentient species. There is a clear differentiation in the law about religious doctrine and educative doctrine.

Would be kind of a shame saying creationism is education OH WAIT THIS IS THE UNITED STATES HAHAHAHAHA but then again a SC bench ready to strike out religion from this section would not be terribly enclined to view creationism as education.

[Gaybaby94]

Sarcasm immune, are you, little man?



Nope. (see I can do it too)

Religious institutions are clearly differentiated from educational institutions in the law by the will of the legislator. Therefore, it would be unthinkable to try to distort a word to get churches to fit in. It would be the judiciary trying to pass themselves as the legislative branch and any such suggestion would be dismissed by any semi-competent judge.

On the other hand, atheist organisations already fit in under educational. They do not spread beliefs. They talk about evolution, the Big Bang, science and mankind's potential as a sentient species. There is a clear differentiation in the law about religious doctrine and educative doctrine.

Would be kind of a shame saying creationism is education OH WAIT THIS IS THE UNITED STATES HAHAHAHAHA but then again a SC bench ready to strike out religion from this section would not be terribly enclined to view creationism as education.

Creationism is the exact opposite of education: ignorance.

[Jean Poutine]

Creationism is the exact opposite of education: ignorance.

My point exactly, my overly LIberal troll friend.

[Human]

I personally think they should tax religious institutions... it doesn't seem right that they should be exempt.

[Mothership]

It has nothing to do with the Establishment clause. That clause is so Congress does not prefer a religion over another or does not establish a state religion. Read it carefully.

The answer to this question simply is "separation of Church and State", in its entirety. Tax a Church and the State enters into relations with the Church. Church is one body and the State is another. Were the State to raise taxes on churches, religion would become subservient to the State : as inacceptable as the State being subservient to religion.

There's a case on this : Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York.

EDIT : I thought I would comment further.

I think it's funny atheists are all for separation of Church and State and bellow it as loud as they can, any chance they get.

I am not for separation. Yes, you heard me right. I am against separation of Church and State.

Separation of Church and State implies a bidirectional relationship where both entities stay the Hell out of each other's business. You know what? I think this is a fucking disgrace. Religion does not deserve to be put on the same pedestal as the State. It does not deserve special privileges. It is as absurd as asking for a tax exemption for Disneyland. Atheists misunderstand that the concept goes both ways : religion stays out of government, BUT government stays out of religion. They then say they want to tax religion. This is a non sequitur.

I want the State to have power over Church, without reciprocity. I want the State to tax places of worship, to regulate them, to keep crazies on check. I want the State to stop extremists and fundamentalists from abusing not only their family, their children, but also their own countrymen. I want to State to be able to crush the Westboro Baptist Church, to be able to rip the Nation of Islam apart, to be able to stomp on Scientology and to be able to pulverize Chassidism. I want the State to be able to say "enough is enough" when belief impedes the lives of other citizens. I want the State to be able to force parents to stop raising their kids religiously if it hurts their development or causes them anguish, I want the State to get rid of denominational schools, I want the State to be able to declare religious doctrine as unconstitutional and slash it from practice, I want "divine" law to be given back to humanity and enforced by it.

I want the State to have some pants. Stop talking about separation of Church and State. It is humiliating, truly horrendous for a nation in the 21st century to shout this as a slogan. Give the State reasonable power over religion once and for all.

This. Absolutely this.
It's almost like separation of church and state has become a one way street, in a sense. Religion influences many ideas in laws and politics in general. (ie. abortion, gay marriage, etc) I also am against separation of church in state, in favor of the state, of course.

As for taxing religious institutions, for now, I think it would be a good idea to tax them.
In an ideal situation, where religion stayed out of government, they shouldn't be taxed. If they were it would be taxation without representation. In such a situation, they shouldn't be taxed for their operating costs. If they operated as a for profit business, they should be obligated to pay taxes like any other business.

In reality, religion doesn't stay out of government. As a result, they are exempt from tax and get a major say in government as well. Therefore I think religious organizations, in their present form, should be taxed. Religion should either stay out of government or accept being taxed.
And this is my reasoning for why they should be taxed. Religion doesn't stay out of the government, so the government should get in religion.

[ArsenicCatNip]

This. Absolutely this.
It's almost like separation of church and state has become a one way street, in a sense. Religion influences many ideas in laws and politics in general. (ie. abortion, gay marriage, etc) I also am against separation of church in state, in favor of the state, of course.

As for taxing religious institutions, for now, I think it would be a good idea to tax them.

And this is my reasoning for why they should be taxed. Religion doesn't stay out of the government, so the government should get in religion.

What exactly do people mean by Religion doesn't stay out of the government?

[Gaybaby94]

What exactly do people mean by Religion doesn't stay out of the government?

Anti-gay, anti-women, ignorant bigotry. Look at the Westboro Church. Look at Chick Fil-A. Religion likes to put their noses in social issues such as same sex marriage and women's rights. So for that reason they should pay a heavy tax.

[ArsenicCatNip]

Anti-gay, anti-women, ignorant bigotry. Look at the Westboro Church. Look at Chick Fil-A. Religion likes to put their noses in social issues such as same sex marriage and women's rights. So for that reason they should pay a heavy tax.

It's not religious institutions who make those laws, the people who were raised on those beliefs do. Laws are based on morals, but I think I'll get to that later.. Secondly the Westboro Church has been proven to just be very skilled lawyers who only push people's buttons eventually leading to the people attacking them. That'd be like saying Zionists, and Jihadists are the only people to practice Islam and Judaism. Except it isn't because they practice what they preach, despite how venomous it is while Westboro is a blight on society. No politician has ever referenced Fred Phelps as a "modern day hero" they have no influence on anything except newspaper headlines.

As for Chic-Fil-A; It's not a religious institution it's a fast food restaurant that the CEO personally donated his money to, which I may not agree with what he donated it's his personal choice. If he donated 3 million dollars to support gay marriage would you feel the same way?

I brought up laws are based on morals, and reasoning, I wouldn't be afraid to assume that most congressmen and women are for the most part Pro-life and against gay-marriage. This doesn't mean that religious institutions have anything to do with it, it is just their morals.

[Sugaree]

They should be taxed!

Also they should pay for women contraceptives, education, and scientific advancement.

Why should they pay for scientific advancement against their will? I'm all for taxing their property, but come on. Don't be a fucking dolt.

[Charles Finley]

Nope. (see I can do it too) The difference is that when I do it, I am correct.

Religious institutions are clearly differentiated from educational institutions in the law by the will of the legislator. You keep using that word. I don't think you know what that word means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislator) Therefore, it would be unthinkable to try to distort a word to get churches to fit in. An atheist organization, that is, an organization dedicated to spreading atheism, is no more deserving of a scientific exemption than is a religious organization. A scientific organization, that is, an organization dedicated to spreading science, is deserving of a scientific exemption.
They talk about evolution, the Big Bang, science and mankind's potential as a sentient species. There is a clear differentiation in the law about religious doctrine and educative doctrine. That's... not an atheist group, that's a scientific one. An atheist group would be one dedicated to the idea that there is no god. I am a theistic evolutionist, and none of what you just detailed conflicts with my religion.
What you just described is a scientific institution.

[Gaybaby94]

Why should they pay for scientific advancement against their will? I'm all for taxing their property, but come on. Don't be a fucking dolt.

So you would rather have a mega-pastor buy their 7th car than pay for a cure for cancer or AIDS?

[Jean Poutine]

The difference is that when I do it, I am correct.

Or are you?

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what that word means. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislator)

Oh no, I do, and I do believe that I know quite a bit more about it than you.

The will of the legislator, the intent of the legislator, legislative intent. They all mean the same thing. The legislator is judicial fiction to talk about the whole of the lawmaking body. I don't care how American judicial tradition butchered the word, if you talk about legislative intent or the will of the legislator it doesn't make sense to pick one lawmaker and try to figure out what that person really meant by either tabling the bill or amending it. The feelings of one specific person are irrelevent. Legislative intent is an extremely well known interpretative principle and it is not used by applying it to a legislator, but the legislator, the spirit of the whole lawmaking body, from tabling to royal assent.

PS : the first thing I was ever taught in law school is that if I ever dared pluralize the legislator or talk about it as a person that actually exists in an exam, I would get failed. It is a fallacy of the highest order in French legal discussion to talk about legislators as people. I'm not American and I sincerely didn't know about how you people screw up English (in sometimes quite interesting ways) but please do not treat me like I don't know what I'm talking about. I say a lot of shit, but not on this topic and certainly not this once.

An atheist organization, that is, an organization dedicated to spreading atheism, is no more deserving of a scientific exemption than is a religious organization. A scientific organization, that is, an organization dedicated to spreading science, is deserving of a scientific exemption.

You really are sarcasm immune! But OK, I'm gonna waltz.

An atheist institution could very well get a scientific exemption if it collates scientific data and makes it public.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title26-vol7/pdf/CFR-2012-title26-vol7-sec1-501c3-1.pdf

(2) scientific research carried on for the purpose of obtaining scientific information, which is published in a treatise,
thesis, trade publication, or in any other form that is available to the interested public;

An atheist organization carrying out scientific collation? Check. Published? Sure, why the Hell not?

You will notice that the underlying motive doesn't matter one lick. "Scientific research carried on for the purpose of obtaining scientific information" is Legalese for "collating data". It doesn't matter WHY it is collating this data, as long as it makes its collation available to the public. The TR doesn't mention anything else. Spreading atheism via science can count as a scientific organization.

That's... not an atheist group, that's a scientific one. An atheist group would be one dedicated to the idea that there is no god. I am a theistic evolutionist, and none of what you just detailed conflicts with my religion.
What you just described is a scientific institution.

Sounds familiar? See above.

Atheism and science go hand in hand - you cannot spread atheism without bringing up science. Science is why modern, Western atheism exists. And according to the IRS, such an organization can get a scientific tax break because it collates scientific data and makes it available to the public, it doesn't matter for which dedication. A prudent attorney would file under both educational and scientific though.

That is besides the point, anyway. If religious organizations got struck off the law, legislative intent would prevent them from being retrofitted in another category. As atheist organizations are by definition not religious institutions, they could technically remain untaxed no matter in what category they try to fit in - you took a small jab at atheists and turned it into some kind of ungodly clusterfuck. Priorities, man!

[Sugaree]

So you would rather have a mega-pastor buy their 7th car than pay for a cure for cancer or AIDS?

That is their money to spend and they have the right to spend it how they wish. What you are proposing is forcefully making parishes donate money to things they don't want to donate to. It has nothing to do with their beliefs, it has nothing to do with how "ignorant" you think they all are; forcing anyone into doing anything is fucking stupid and you should know that by now. Then again, I'm talking to someone who thinks all Christians are vile scum; might as well talk to a brick wall. :rolleyes:

[Charles Finley]

Or are you?
Oh no, I do, and I do believe that I know quite a bit more about it than you.

The will of the legislator, the intent of the legislator, legislative intent. They all mean the same thing. The legislator is judicial fiction to talk about the whole of the lawmaking body. I don't care how American judicial tradition butchered the word, if you talk about legislative intent or the will of the legislator it doesn't make sense to pick one lawmaker and try to figure out what that person really meant by either tabling the bill or amending it. The feelings of one specific person are irrelevent. Legislative intent is an extremely well known interpretative principle and it is not used by applying it to a legislator, but the legislator, the spirit of the whole lawmaking body, from tabling to royal assent.Your argument amounts to "I don't care how you guys do it, this is the right way and therefore I was correct. That's a ridiculous argument. Knowing little about any European court system, I can still say that while you may be correct in terms of European terminology, at the very least you were incorrect in "correcting" someone else for using a term correctly.


An atheist organization carrying out scientific collation? Check. Published? Sure, why the Hell not?

You will notice that the underlying motive doesn't matter one lick. "Scientific research carried on for the purpose of obtaining scientific information" is Legalese for "collating data". It doesn't matter WHY it is collating this data, as long as it makes its collation available to the public. The TR doesn't mention anything else. Spreading atheism via science can count as a scientific organization.

That's all well and good, but if all you're doing is disseminating scientific information, you're not an atheist organization. It's when you attempt to use that information to disprove theism that you become an atheistic organization.

Atheism and science go hand in hand - you cannot spread atheism without bringing up science. How is that relevant? You can spread science without bringing up atheism. Atheism isn't inextricable from science. Atheism is no more inherently scientific than solipsism or nihilism.

That is besides the point, anyway. If religious organizations got struck off the law, legislative intent would prevent them from being retrofitted in another category. As atheist organizations are by definition not religious institutions, How do you figure? Organizations that exist for the purpose of countering religious organizations are definitely religious in nature, just like an organization whose sole premise is "politicians are bad" is political in nature. To paraphrase a friend of mine, "Saying agnosticism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying finding stamps to throw away is a hobby." they could technically remain untaxed no matter in what category they try to fit in - you took a small jab at atheists and turned it into some kind of ungodly clusterfuck. Priorities, man!That's completely untrue. Atheistic organizations are not scientific organizations any more than religious organizations are book clubs. Even if atheism were a result of modern scientific reasoning (which isn't true), that doesn't grant it a scientific exemption.

The activity of spreading the idea that there is no God is NOT scientific in nature. Just because it is justified, by and large, by appeals to science does not make atheism itself scientific.

The activity of compiling scientific evidence and presenting it to the public is not atheistic in nature. In fact, while scientific discoveries have been used as evidence against certain religions, the idea of scientific evidence against theism in general is patently absurd.

In short, if you want a scientific organization, that's great. If you want an atheistic organization, that's great. But when you use science in an attempt to disprove theism, you're no longer solely a scientific organization.

[Charles Finley]

forcing anyone into doing anything is fucking stupid and you should know that by now.

Taxes in general are fucking stupid?

[booboo22]

Many religious establishments are considered "non profit" and all nonprofit organizations are tax free...

[Sugaree]

Taxes in general are fucking stupid?

Yes, taxes in general are fucking stupid. However, without them, government wouldn't really function would it? I'm in support of a flat tax system with one singular rate for everything.

[Jean Poutine]

Your argument amounts to "I don't care how you guys do it, this is the right way and therefore I was correct. That's a ridiculous argument. Knowing little about any European court system, I can still say that while you may be correct in terms of European terminology, at the very least you were incorrect in "correcting" someone else for using a term correctly.

And I admitted as much.

That's all well and good, but if all you're doing is disseminating scientific information, you're not an atheist organization. It's when you attempt to use that information to disprove theism that you become an atheistic organization.

...exactly my point?

How is that relevant? You can spread science without bringing up atheism. Atheism isn't inextricable from science. Atheism is no more inherently scientific than solipsism or nihilism.

You can, but doing so would be completely stupid.

How do you figure? Organizations that exist for the purpose of countering religious organizations are definitely religious in nature, just like an organization whose sole premise is "politicians are bad" is political in nature. To paraphrase a friend of mine, "Saying agnosticism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying finding stamps to throw away is a hobby."

Atheism isn't a religion. There is much more to religion than beliefs. If I didn't come back from a long trip I would spend more time on this, but as I am tired and an asshole I'll let you figure out what qualifies as "religious institutions" under the IRA.

That's completely untrue. Atheistic organizations are not scientific organizations any more than religious organizations are book clubs. Even if atheism were a result of modern scientific reasoning (which isn't true), that doesn't grant it a scientific exemption.

If you cared to reread me, you would notice that nowhere have I said that atheism is scientific by nature. I said it may be granted a scientific exemption via the activities it uses to propagate the idea. This is completely different and you're trying to draw me in a tighter definition of your previous argument when that is not at all what I have responded to.

The activity of spreading the idea that there is no God is NOT scientific in nature. Just because it is justified, by and large, by appeals to science does not make atheism itself scientific.

Never said it was. It was sarcasm. A joke. Do you realize that you're wasting both my time and yours on a stupid joke?

The activity of compiling scientific evidence and presenting it to the public is not atheistic in nature. In fact, while scientific discoveries have been used as evidence against certain religions, the idea of scientific evidence against theism in general is patently absurd.

...I never said it was.

In short, if you want a scientific organization, that's great. If you want an atheistic organization, that's great. But when you use science in an attempt to disprove theism, you're no longer solely a scientific organization.

It doesn't matter if you're not solely a scientific organization. As long as collating data is your hobby then you can be tax exempt. Atheist organizations can and do collate scientific data thus entering them under the scientific exemption criterion. Never said it had to be the only one, in fact I said the exact opposite. That is all.