An Idea Regarding Atheism

Then how come Scientology is recognized by the government as a religion?

On October 1, 1993, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service formally announced that the Church of Scientology and its myriad corporate entities had been granted tax exemption.

So it has nothing to do with a religious test to hold government office.

 

To both you and honestjoe: The issue of atheism being a religion is pretty well summed up in the link provided here: http://www.politicalforum.com/4990150-post44.html

I looked at the website, surveyed the FAQ on that site and lo and behold, it is an atheist church and it is recognized by the State of Texas. It is given the right of passage to form such a 'church' under the auspices of the Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing the rights and privileges of other religions and that church had to pass the test in order to be recognized as a church.

 

This 'church' in Texas does not mean the Supreme Court decided atheism is a religion.

Whether or not they are a church in name only is another discussion. You can start with a definition of a church that allows that place, a place without a doctrine or creed or belief system, to actually be called a church and at the same time excludes any other gathering place where people think from also being called a church.

 

Did I say that such was the case? No? Then what is the point of you mentioning that aspect of the situation?

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/BO/2/22/I/22.401

Chapter 22 is entitled "Non Profit Corporations"
"TEX BO. CODE ANN. § 22.401 : Texas Statutes - Section 22.401: DEFINITION
Search TEX BO. CODE ANN. § 22.401 : Texas Statutes - Section 22.401: DEFINITION

In this chapter, "church benefits board" means an organization described by Section 414(e)(3)(A), Internal Revenue Code, that:

(1) has the principal purpose or function of administering or funding a plan or program to provide retirement benefits, welfare benefits, or both for the ministers or employees of a church or a conference, convention, or association of churches; and

(2) is controlled by or affiliated with a church or a conference, convention, or association of churches.

Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 182, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006."

It is a matter of Corporate Status. Not whether one is recognized by others as being a 'church'. It is a corporate status with all the rights and privileges as other places called a 'church'. So, hey, an atheist fought for that right and won that right... Congratulations.

If you have a problem with that status or with the fact that there is now a State Recognized church that is of Atheist design and purpose... then take it up with the fellow atheists that were involved in such emancipation and expression of rights and privileges.

 

The point in bringing up that aspect was that was why you brought up the atheist 'church' in the first place:

Second, to call it a state recognized church is misleading when what it is in reality is a group using the name church to exploit the weak wording of the law governing tax exempt status.

 

First question: Answer: To respond to your concerns about atheism being a religion.

Second question: Answer: It has to be State Recognized in order for the State to issue the necessary 'incorporation' papers. Does it bear the title of 'Church'? Yes! Then it is a 'church'. As for the possibility of 'exploiting the weak wording of the law governing tax exempt status', are you suggesting that there is something illicit or perhaps illegal in what the Church is doing; or are you just suggesting that they are taking advantage of an opportunity afforded to Religious groups?

 

What questions are these answers to?

I had asked for a definition of a church earlier and still haven't gotten that.

And I meant exactly what I said; this is a group calling themself a church in name only to exploit the weak wording of a law.

 

One group's tax dodge makes anyone who lacks a belief in Gods religious? How silly. Too silly.

 

The two that you asked in that previous post.

On the contrary. I gave you all the information you needed to obtain that definition per the laws that govern that particular church. From that point you need to do some study. Oh my goodness... that would require you to expend a little of your own energy. Shameful.

Then they are a church. Good. And an Atheist one at that.

In fact, at the following site, the same subject and ironically the same church is discussed. Though this larger group refer to it as 'non-religious' (which is par for the course of those Atheists who don't want to recognize the findings of the Supreme Court), they do not deny that it is a church or that it has all the rights and privileges as other churches.
http://atheistsays.blogspot.com/2007/03/non-religious-church.html

 

Great exchange, y'all. Kudos!

Nothing stands between atheists and non-profit status except organization. Somebody has to fill out the IRS paperwork... and list a bunch of other people as players in the organization. They also have to state a purpose and source of operating funds. And a location.

I've always said devout atheists should get together and form their own 'church.' There's lots of REALLY PASSIONATE non-believers who could be their 'preachers' and they could even have anti-God Sunday School classes for their kids where they'd sit around and sing, "No, Jesus Doesn't Love You!"

They'd need some book they could all agree on and a few hymns... like

"Yes, We Shall Gather at the Billboard"

​

Makes sense to me. Can't figure out why they don't do it!

 

A fitting book could be "Origin of the Species". Presumably written by what would be their Messiah and tells about the creation of man.

 

That would work. Then they could worship him, huh?

 

There were no questions in the post you responded to with answers that weren't asked for.

I had asked for a definition of a church that allows that place, a place without a doctrine or creed or belief system, to actually be called a church and at the same time excludes any other gathering place where people think from also being called a church. You failed to produce such a thing. If such a definition exists, why refuse to share it, especially when definitions play such a strong part in your overall posting on this forum?

That place is a church in name only, and by the 'standards' with which they call themselves as such, so too is this forum as well as any go-go bar businessmen meet at to do business in.

 

OK... no questions per se.... on the other hand, there were two points of concern that you expressed that needed to be addressed. This is evidenced in your statement beginning with "Second...", meaning that there was also a 'first'. If those two points were not addressed, then you could effectively say that I had acquiesced to those points.

Unfortunately I chose a wrong word (error on my part) and said 'questions' as opposed to 'points'. At any rate, they were both addressed. Now go to the IRS website and look up the regulations that were cited in the Texas Statutes and you will find the definition. Of course, if you can accurately interpret the nearly 10 pages of type written material, then I need to hire you as a tax consultant.

 

The 'thing' you're looking for is this. Fill it out, get a confirmation letter back from the IRS and BINGO, you're officially a church.

​

You're over-complicating the issue.

 

That looks like a recognition of exemption, not recognition of a church.

Incoporeal brought up the atheist church; the responsibility for over-complication is all on Incorporeal.

 

It's the U.S. Govt's recognition of a church... how much more 'official' can you get?

 

Again, the IRS could not stop the exploitation of badly written law and had to allow the tax exempt status. This is not an official proclamation of the government recognizing them as an actual church in anything but name.

 

And I showed you in Texas law, where that church is recognized as a church; and where in federal statutes it is recognized as a church. Now if the language of the federal statutes or even that of the state of Texas is too complicated for you to comprehend, then you need to go back to school for a couple of course in remedial reading and reading comprehension.

That church, which is Atheist, is recognized by both the state and the federal system as a church, bearing all the rights and responsibilities of any other church with regard to federal and state regulations. It is a CHURCH and it is ATHEIST.

 

ANYTHING BUT NAME? What else is there but NAME? It's an official proclamation of the govt recognizng them as a church!

Your argument is silly. Like debating the meaning of the word 'is'

The IRS writes the laws concerning tax exempt status. There are NO loopholes.

 

You two are ok with churches having their identity and meaning stripped away by tax law? Don't let me stop you. Enjoy.

 

Those are all corporate 501c3 churches, and if you researched my track record on this forum, you would quickly discover that I renounce such churches as being any part of the bride of Christ, as they have gone a whoring and have elected the opportunity to 'serve two masters' as opposed to staying in their original estate. So you see, what those 501c3 churches do, has absolutely nothing to do with me or my relationship with my Lord and King, Jesus, the Christ.

 

By renounce, you mean you do not recognize these 501c3 groups as churches anymore once they attain a tax exempt status as a nonprofit?

 

That would be a correct interpretation of what I have stated.

Edit: Allow me to clarify. When I say church in this regard, I am speaking of two separate and distinct entities.

1: would be the administrative church (the one that got incorporated).

2 would be the congregation who either knew or might have known or might not have known of the implications behind the incorporated status. 2. I still recognize each member as a part of the Body of Christ until such time as they release the information that they knew the implications behind incorporation and still concurred with the betrayal.

 

The ignorance of the religious people is astonishing.