Add one more item to the list of reason why I’m proud to be a Texan: The Office of the Texas Comptroller has had the good sense to note that Unitarianism isn’t a religion–and deny it tax exempt status on that basis.
You may be surprised that this question would be handled on the state level, but the question of whether an organization is exempt from state taxes is a question each state handles for itself, and in Texas the state comptroller has had the integrity to actually inspect the groups claiming to be religions before issuing them tax exempt status. Contemporary Unitarian Universalism, the comptroller has recognized, isn’t a religion.
The test that’s being applied? That the group in question must profess some kind of belief in God, gods, or a higher power.
By this standard, Unitarianism used to count as a religion. When Unitarianism first started, it did profess belief in God. That’s how it got its name: “Unitarianism” was meant as a to contrast to Trinitarianism. Unitarians believed in a God who was one Being subsisting in one Person. (As a corrollary to this, they rejected the deity of Christ.)
Over time, however, the Unitarian creed crumbled, and now as a group they don’t profess any specific beliefs about God, the gods, or higher powers. You can believe in any or all of these–or none–and be a Unitarian. Indeed, many atheists are Unitarians. As things stand today, Unitarianism is basically a religious discussion club, and by the Texas comptroller’s interpretation of state law, that means they are not a religion–at least not anymore.
And that’s right–assuming that there’s not some other requirement in the wording of the law that affects the situation.
Laws mean something, and not every group that wants tax exempt status can claim itself to be a religion. Being a religion means something, and Unitarianism has rejected what that means.
I do have to say, though, that I would quibble with one aspect of the comptroller’s test for whether something is a religion. Some have suggested that the test would result in Buddhism not being classified because it doesn’t require belief in God, the gods, etc. That’s not quite true. Some branches of Buddhism do profess belief in various gods. Some do not. Under the Texas comptroller’s test, only the latter Buddhist groups would fail to qualify as religions.
I would dispute this. One has to understand the language of the law in the sense it was meant at the time of the law’s ratification, and at the time the Texas statute was ratified, Buddhism in all its standard varieties would have been understood as a religion. Thus the definition being used today by the comptroller’s office needs to be tweaked.
On what grounds would Buddhism have been counted as a religion? Though the historical Buddha and the groups who follow his teachings are agnostic by profession on the existence of gods, they did/do have definite beliefs about the afterlife. They believe in reincarnation and that it is to be escaped through applying the Eightfold Path, which constitutes the means of salvation in the Buddhist system. This provides a basis for recognizing their status as a religion.
If I were counselling the Texas comptroller, I would suggest that the test for whether something counts as a religion for purposes of this law should be tweaked to something like the following: “A group is a religion only if as a group it professes belief in the existence of God, gods, a divine aspect to reality, or the afterlife.”
Unitarians as a group do none of the above, and hence they are not a religion.
Which brings to mind an old joke:
Question: What do you get if you cross a Jehovah’s Witness and a Unitarian?
Answer: Someone who rings your doorbell for no good reason.
Now, if Texas (foolishly) decided to grant tax exempt status to religious discussion clubs then Unitarnianim would qualify.
I agree unitarinism seems to bee a little of every thing with a focus on nothing.
This is ridiculous! By your definition, Scientology should be a religion too. That’s fine with me, but I don’t think you’d be too happy with it though.
“I don’t think you’d be too happy with it though.” Based on what?
This reminds me of the comment Mort Sahl had about Uniterian belief: They think Moses came down from Mt. Sinai carrying the Ten Suggestions>
If tax-exempt status for religion was eliminated this problem would go away and separation of church and state would be protected.
If government stopped swilling all the tax money it can waste, people might want to consider such a solution.
Dear Al
No, quite on the contrary and according to common sense, taxing the free exercise of religion would violate the separation of church and state.
That the taxing violates a principle found in the constitution does not tell us anything about whether the taxing is a good idea. The constitution is legally binding; it is not inerrant as to what the best ordering of American society consists in. I am also not aware of any holding by SCOTUS that tax exemption is constitutionally required.
My understanding was also that the Catholic church considers political activity, as part of being a leaven in society, to indeed be an expression of Christianity. Yet current law would make entities that engage in political activity of certain forms taxable. So a religious community with a pro-life charism that violated IRS regulations by mentioning a political candidate and how it was immoral to vote for her may pose a problem to your view.
Historically, some Catholic theologians have even said that the exemption from secular taxation is a privilege granted by the State (other theologians have opined differently) — the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to this.