© Todd Richmond / File / Associated PressAnnie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation
Gaylor, head of the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, wants to stop it - and she's asking a federal judge for help.
The standoff is the latest twist in a court battle over the parsonage exemption for clergy, a tax break that allows "ministers of the gospel" to claim part of their salary as a tax-free housing allowance. Gaylor's organization says the exemption gives religious groups an unfair advantage. That makes it unconstitutional, the foundation's lawsuit contends.
But government lawyers say atheist leaders can still be ministers, because atheism can function as a religion. So leaders of an atheist organization may qualify for the exemption after all.
No thanks, says Gaylor.
"We are not ministers," she said. "We are having to tell the government the obvious - we are not a church."
The legal status of the parsonage exemption has been challenged for more than a decade, ever since a dispute between the IRS and the Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California.
Gaylor and her husband, Dan Barker, want the allowance eliminated. Their legal battle with the government over the exemption has been part chess match and part high-stakes poker game.
Their case is simple: The foundation board voted to give both Gaylor and Barker a housing allowance of $15,000 a year. But the couple says they can't claim that as tax-free income, since they are not clergy.
The government disagrees.
In a brief, the Department of Justice argued leaders of an atheist group may qualify for an exemption. Buddhism and Taoism don't include a belief in God and are considered religions, the government's lawyers argued, so why not atheism?
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. Belief in a deity is not required.
"Plaintiffs may not presume that a law's reference to religion necessarily excludes beliefs that are specifically non-theistic in nature," the government argued in a motion to dismiss the foundation's suit.
Religion-like
Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., said the government is partly right.
Atheist groups can be religion-like, he said. They have regular meetings, shared ideology and even revered symbols - like the Darwin fish or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a symbol that satirizes intelligent design.
They also can be true believers about their cause, in the same way that soccer or music fans can seem to worship their idols.
But there's no real belief in a supernatural power, he said. That's where the comparison to religion breaks down.
"Soccer fans don't really believe that David Beckham was born of a virgin," he said. "They don't really believe Jimi Hendrix is a god."
Larry Crain, president of the Brentwood-based Church Law Institute and a longtime First Amendment lawyer, said the government attorneys make an interesting point.
"If they apply for the exemption, they might get it," he said.
But the government's argument misses the point, said Gaylor. She hasn't filed a tax return claiming the allowance and doesn't know if she'd accept one if the government allowed it.
"That's not what we are after," she said.
The foundation is also suing the government over several nonprofit laws that govern churches. They want the government to enforce rules that ban pastors from giving political endorsements and to require churches to file the same 990 tax returns as other charities.
Special privileges
Gaylor said the government should not give religious groups any special treatment.
But Eric Stanley, senior counsel of the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Alliance Defending Freedom, says the First Amendment does give religious groups special privileges.
Too much government regulation of churches would interfere with religious freedom, he said.
Stanley believes the Department of Justice has called Gaylor and her husband's bluff in the parsonage lawsuit.
"What is really going on is that they don't like the housing allowance," he said. "The foundation wants the government to be hostile to religion."
Gaylor is amused by at least one part of the government's recent legal filings. She said the parsonage allowance was first put in place in the 1920s to help ministers fight against "godlessness."
"They can't now reward the Freedom from Religion Foundation to fight for godlessness," she said.
Critics of the housing allowance say it is unfair to the general public - they pay more since the clergy pays less.
Defenders of the allowance point out that most clergy are considered self-employed and so pay higher tax rates than other workers. The tax allowance helps balance that out, they say. A clergy member can claim the tax break for only one house, and it's limited to either the fair market rental value or the money actually spent on housing.
Even some of its detractors don't see any court doing away with the parsonage allowance.
"Americans love religion," said Zuckerman. "Americans love Christianity. It's part of the fabric of life."
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter