<![CDATA[
Apparently belief in the “spiritual” is, however.
Where do you read that?
“The Internal Revenue Service does require, among other things, that a “minister” be seen as a spiritual leader ]>
Where do you read that?
“The Internal Revenue Service does require, among other things, that a “minister” be seen as a spiritual leader ]>
Apparently belief in the "spiritual" is, however.Where do you read that? "The Internal Revenue Service does require, among other things, that a “minister" be seen as a spiritual leader and provide services for a religious organization." Lois, first why did you put the word "the" in front of spiritual? As in "apparently belief in the spiritual is." Spiritual in that sentence was used as an adjective. Next, spiritual leader can be interpreted many ways. In fact cheerleaders are spiritual leaders. Leaders is right in the name, and the whole purpose of a cheerleader is to raise the school spirit or the "spirits" of the Home Team. Thus-spiritual leaders. Those atheists in the news article are ridiculous. They should take the tax-breaks. After all their insistence that they aren't "ministers" or "clergy" while true, is taking on a Holier than thou type attitude. Seriously! If violation of the separation clause is going to take place, like it always has, then atheist orgs should just jump in and get their tax breaks too. Maybe that will lead to a closer examination of the whole process in the first place. If not, at least the atheists can save a few bucks. The Federal Court said belief in a deity is NOT required. What else do you want?
Apparently belief in the "spiritual" is, however.Where do you read that? "The Internal Revenue Service does require, among other things, that a “minister" be seen as a spiritual leader and provide services for a religious organization." Tja... That is a perfect example of you chiming in on a word which is meant differently. You react as a bull on the red cloth on what you think that 'spiritual' means, and not what the author of that sentence meant with it. Reading it in context makes perfectly clear what the author wants to say. VYAZMA is right. (At least in his first three sentences...)
My thinking.
This is a very dangerous ruling by the IRS and Justice Department in the form of commercializing religion.
Think about Santa Clause for example. Maybe Santa could be seen as a spiritual leader of the children, like a minister he tells them to be good. There are many Santa books written giving examples of how to be good. If so then the department stores are promoting a religion at Christmas time.
Anyway, the real point I wanted to make here was there is this group of Atheists going after the churches in the tax courts. And can you imagine their surprise at the ruling. Just trying to make my point that Atheist are having a hard time viewing the word “Atheists" in the same context or views as the rest of the world. And I bet most of the Atheists here are thinking the brief ruling is all screwed up.
Apparently belief in the "spiritual" is, however.Where do you read that? "The Internal Revenue Service does require, among other things, that a “minister" be seen as a spiritual leader and provide services for a religious organization." Lois, first why did you put the word "the" in front of spiritual? As in "apparently belief in the spiritual is." Spiritual in that sentence was used as an adjective. Next, spiritual leader can be interpreted many ways. In fact cheerleaders are spiritual leaders. Leaders is right in the name, and the whole purpose of a cheerleader is to raise the school spirit or the "spirits" of the Home Team. Thus-spiritual leaders. Those atheists in the news article are ridiculous. They should take the tax-breaks. After all their insistence that they aren't "ministers" or "clergy" while true, is taking on a Holier than thou type attitude. Seriously! If violation of the separation clause is going to take place, like it always has, then atheist orgs should just jump in and get their tax breaks too. Maybe that will lead to a closer examination of the whole process in the first place. If not, at least the atheists can save a few bucks. The Federal Court said belief in a deity is NOT required. What else do you want? I want something that can't be so easily misinterpreted.
Lois-I want something that can't be so easily misinterpreted.Well for example, you'll never have to worry because you most likely won't use the word spiritual. And even though I almost never use the word either, I don't care if it gets contextually misinterpreted because I don't care if people think I might be religious. In fact after years of watching the shock on lot's of people's faces after discovering that I don't believe in any gods and I know we rot in the ground after death, I've realized that most people: strangers and loose acquaintances, most likely think that you and I are religious. Just by default. And association.
Does the IRS define the term?
Does the IRS define the term?No. I doubt it. The Federal Court defined "church and minister" loosely I'm sure. I haven't read the briefs, but apparently from the USA Today article they determined that the church didn't need to worship a deity either. Because buddhists or taoists don't worship deities. So I'm assuming that buddhist temples for example must get tax exemptions. None of this matters anyways PlaClair. On a few levels... 1. The IRS thing was a sidebar used to try and nail down semantics. 2. That court ruling can be challenged in the future and be taken in any direction. 3. The ironic thing was that the atheists didn't want the tax exemption, because they didn't want to be labeled as a church. Because then they would loose the semantical argument that was raised in No.1 above here.
IMO, the underlying principle the court used is the non-profit status of an registered organization which is not engaged in commerce.
IMO, the underlying principle the court used is the non-profit status of an registered organization which is not engaged in commerce.Maybe. There's not much we can gather from a USA Today blurb.
It would be unusual for a governmental body such as the IRS, and the tax courts, to make a tax-relevant category contingent on something like spiritual leadership without in some fashion defining the term.
This memorandum suggests that a minister is a spiritual leader if his congregation so considers him. From what I can glean from this, the courts that have passed on the question do not seem to have been considering secular organizations but instead were wrestling with the parameters of spiritual leadership within theistic churches. There’s not much meat on these bones. http://www.norcal.org/webfiles/Memo #12 - Who Is a Minister for Tax Purposes.pdf
However, you may be right. This discussion topic is the third item to appear on a Google search of “IRS definition spiritual leader.”
Does the IRS define the term?No. I doubt it. The Federal Court defined "church and minister" loosely I'm sure. I haven't read the briefs, but apparently from the USA Today article they determined that the church didn't need to worship a deity either. Because buddhists or taoists don't worship deities. So I'm assuming that buddhist temples for example must get tax exemptions. None of this matters anyways PlaClair. On a few levels... 1. The IRS thing was a sidebar used to try and nail down semantics. 2. That court ruling can be challenged in the future and be taken in any direction. 3. The ironic thing was that the atheists didn't want the tax exemption, because they didn't want to be labeled as a church. Because then they would loose the semantical argument that was raised in No.1 above here. I have no idea what people mean when they use the word "spiritual." Presumably they know what they mean. I don't know what it means and I never use the term. But the IRS has used it and they have not defined it. Whatever a "spiritual leader" is, they are using that undefined term to determine who is eligible for tax relief. Does anyone here think that's a good idea? Lois
Most people in the United States will tell you that spirituality indicates connectedness - to be a part of a greater whole. That is a perfectly good secular way of looking at things. We are products of and part of the universe - nothing wrong with that.
To that, I add that spirituality includes internal integration, or wholeness; and a powerful sense of vitality. William James describes this well in The Varieties of Religious Experience.
Granted, the idea of spirituality gets thoroughly mushed up. But then so does the idea of secularism.
I want something that can't be so easily misinterpreted.In the context of the text it is clear what is meant. A minister or priest is seen as a 'spiritual leader' in Christian religions. So they mean a person that has a similar role in an atheistic organisation. That's it, nothing more. Your easy misinterpretation comes from cursory reading. Not the first time.
PLaClair, Post #326
Does the IRS define the term?
Good question, in the middle of harvest now and do not have the time to do the research.
But I do know that the IRS and other government departments, state and federal do define words for their laws. For example words like (employee, employer and business) are common words, yet you can not use the dictionary or Black’s Law Dictionary for the meanings, you have to go to the individual departments and get their meanings for dealing with each department laws and regulations.
Most people in the United States will tell you that spirituality indicates connectedness - to be a part of a greater whole. That is a perfectly good secular way of looking at things. We are products of and part of the universe - nothing wrong with that. To that, I add that spirituality includes internal integration, or wholeness; and a powerful sense of vitality. William James describes this well in The Varieties of Religious Experience. Granted, the idea of spirituality gets thoroughly mushed up. But then so does the idea of secularism.Secularism is much better defined. It's a separation between government activities and anything for which there is no evidence. In fact it's a fundamental part of true democratic government, despite the fact that believers af many kinds want their own beliefs to be recognized as a central part of it. Spirituality, no matter how defined, cannot be shown to exist outside human imagination. Lois
I want something that can't be so easily misinterpreted.In the context of the text it is clear what is meant. A minister or priest is seen as a 'spiritual leader' in Christian religions. So they mean a person that has a similar role in an atheistic organisation. That's it, nothing more. Your easy misinterpretation comes from cursory reading. Not the first time. As does yours, and not for the first time. If they meant it to mean any kind of moral leader, why didn't they drop the spiritual crap? Lois
Secularism is much better defined. It's a separation between government activities and anything for which there is no evidence. In fact it's a fundamental part of true democratic government, despite the fact that believers af many kinds want their own beliefs to be recognized as a central part of it.So what? That's not a common definition of secularism but I get your point: secularism is about staying grounded in reality as we can observe or demonstrate it objectively to be. OK but what do we do about all those things we can't measure objectively, like love, inspiration and the sense of heightened vitality that is an element of spirituality? Just because these concepts are harder to pin down or measure doesn't mean that people, and societies, can afford to be without them. Some secularists argue that everything can be reduced to material terms but in point of fact, no one lives like that, or can live like that. Clarity is a very important value but it's not the only value; and sometimes we have no choice but to sacrifice a bit of clarity and precision for creativity.
Spirituality, no matter how defined, cannot be shown to exist outside human imagination. LoisNeither can ethics, morality or law. So what?
As does yours, and not for the first time.Examples?
If they meant it to mean any kind of moral leader, why didn't they drop the spiritual crap?Why don't you ask: "why did they use the word 'spiritual'?" Why use this pejorative way of 'asking'? But to answer the question: I don't know, you should ask the author. But still one can understand what the author meant. In your posting here] you reacted on something that the author just did not intend. I can guess the answer a little: 'moral leader' does not work, as a priest or minister is not just a moral leader for his community. He is the organiser, leader in rituals, he is supposed to have knowledge of the belief practiced etc etc. 'Religious' leader would not fit, as atheism is not a religion, and then 'spiritual leader' comes to mind. There are perfect ways to define 'spirituality' that do not conflict with a naturalistic world view, so I do think the choice of 'spiritual leader' is not too bad.
Secularism is much better defined. It's a separation between government activities and anything for which there is no evidence. In fact it's a fundamental part of true democratic government, despite the fact that believers af many kinds want their own beliefs to be recognized as a central part of it.So what? That's not a common definition of secularism but I get your point: secularism is about staying grounded in reality as we can observe or demonstrate it objectively to be. OK but what do we do about all those things we can't measure objectively, like love, inspiration and the sense of heightened vitality that is an element of spirituality? Just because these concepts are harder to pin down or measure doesn't mean that people, and societies, can afford to be without them. Some secularists argue that everything can be reduced to material terms but in point of fact, no one lives like that, or can live like that. Clarity is a very important value but it's not the only value; and sometimes we have no choice but to sacrifice a bit of clarity and precision for creativity.
Spirituality, no matter how defined, cannot be shown to exist outside human imagination. LoisNeither can ethics, morality or law. So what? In this case we are talking about tax relief. If something as tenuous as spirituality can be used to determine who is eligible, why not ethics or morality? (I see law is a different category). You wrote: OK but what do we do about all those things we can't measure objectively, like love, inspiration and the sense of heightened vitality that is an element of spirituality? Just because these concepts are harder to pin down or measure doesn't mean that people, and societies, can afford to be without them. Lois: We are talking about tax law, not whether societies can afford to be without those concepts. Nobody is suggesting that tax law rest on love, inspiration or a heightened sense of vitality. To make spirituality a requirement for tax relief for moral leaders is as ridiculous as making love, inspiration or a sense of heightened vitality a requirement.