Source: https://jonathanturley.org/2012/12/31/group-challenges-different-treatment-by-irs-of-religious-and-non-religious-groups/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:20:15+00:00

Document:
The Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has filed a lawsuit with the Internal Revenue Service that raises an interesting question. The group challenges the government’s different treatment of religious and non-religious non-for-profit organizations. While tax-exempt 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations must file a detailed application form, fee and annual information to obtain and maintain their tax-exempt status, churches and other religious organizations are exempted from the requirement to file the reports and fees. The lawsuit alleges that the added expensive and detailed paperwork is a form of discrimination against non-religious groups.
The lawsuit does raise a valid question of why such forms are not uniformly required or waived for all groups. An atheist group is presumably not treated as falling under a religious exception despite that fact that it is an alternative to such faith organizations. The lawsuit alleges that “[t]he preferential treatment provided to churches and other affiliated religious organizations constitutes an exclusive and discriminatory benefit to religion in violation of the Establishment Clause, as well as the equal protection rights required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” states the lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Madison.
electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
before the recent Presidential election.
actions also violate the Plaintiff’s Equal Protection rights.
award injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §1443 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65.
actions that seek specific relief other than money damages, as in this case.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e), where FFRF has its principal office.
Code, and as such, FFRF must and does abide by the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.
Defendant Shulman is sued in his official capacity.
a condition of their tax-exempt status.
§501(c)(3) of the Tax Code are subject to the prohibition against political campaign intervention.
candidate for elective public office.
religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue.
Tax Code if the discussion contains overt support for or opposition to a particular candidate.
distinguishing candidates for a given office.
undertaken in their individual capacities.
inquiries about potential violations of §501(c)(3) by a church or religious organization.
Church may have violated the requirements for tax exemption under §501(c)(3).
matter on its website at www.billygraham.org.
recording their partisan activities and sending the evidence to the IRS.
against churches and other religious organizations.
which are required to comply with the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).
organizations, including the plaintiff FFRF in this case.
including the plaintiff FFRF, solely on the basis of religious criteria.
treatment that is not neutral and generally applicable to all tax-exempt organizations.
Clause of the First Amendment.
churches and other religious organizations.
electioneering, which is something secular tax-exempt organizations cannot do.
Plaintiff FFRF does not qualify solely because of the application of religious criteria.
with the concomitant right to also engage in electioneering activities.
Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
e. Awarding such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated this 13th day of November 2012.
For the sake of humility, I think I’ve met him once in my life and I’m not sure I shook his hand, by strict numbers, the USA is only 75% Christian now. The time’s they are a changin’. Thank you for pushing me to look.
Can you remind me of a tax burden from the secular side which burdens unfairly the religioun?
Quakers, Mennonites, even Amish (do Amish earn enough to pay taxes?). They are all pacifist, so any dollar going to war in anyway is unfair to them if you allow them to make their own decision as to what is fair. My statement though was without fairness: “Ultimately, we pay taxes as a communal effort, I certainly wouldn’t want religionists saying their taxes shouldn’t go for anything they deem secular (there’s a buried joke there).” Fairness never entered into the equation with regard to tax burden. It’s communal.
As for my numbers, yeah they’re probably off but I did draw them from memory of the last poll I saw. In my 20s it was 95% plus religious, with 90% plus Christian, but demographics have changed. Looking it up, 75% are definitely Christian and roughly 20% have no religious affiliation (want to make a bet if you scratch most they bleed Christian, not Shinto or Buddhist or even New Age, with the remainder likely Atheist or agnostic). For full disclaimer, I think those raised in a culture from X religion are still members of that religious culture, whether they embrace or repudiate that culture. The latter still fight in terms of that culture by the framing and by way of intellectual tradition.
Only those in a fully separate sub-culture aren’t part of that larger culture.
A source of confusion is considering any secular thought as meaning no religious thought. If that were the case our Founders were all secularists as they attempted to create a secular government. However, they did it from the standpoint of religious turmoil, not to create a government or society for the benefit of those secular in all aspects of life.
the church will go under ground, and let the devil do their bidding.
there is not much to say for something that could have been done in a day.
that is how I am destroying this country, enjoy.

References: §501
 §1443
 §1391
 §501

§501
 §501
 §501
 §501