more sep. of church and state

[strandinthewind]

Sales tax exemption on Bibles ends
Judge strikes down decades-old state law

By BILL RANKIN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/08/06
A federal judge in Atlanta has struck down an old state law that lets people buy the Bible without paying sales taxes.

The sales tax exemption treats some religious and philosophical works more favorably than others, U.S. District Judge Richard Story ruled Monday.

"It is a fundamental principle of free speech jurisprudence that 'regulations which permit the government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message cannot be tolerated,' " Story wrote, citing a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The decades-old law grants the exemptions to the sale of "Holy Bibles, testaments and similar books commonly recognized as being Holy Scripture."

A challenge was brought in November by Thomas Budlong, a retired Atlanta librarian, and Candace Apple, who owns Phoenix & Dragon, a Sandy Springs bookstore that specializes in the sale of metaphysical, religious and spiritual books. They are represented in their federal lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia.

Budlong has said that he paid sales tax when he purchased the Bhagavad Gita, a sacred Hindu text, and "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values" by Robert Pirsig.

Most book sales at Phoenix & Dragon are subject to sales tax.

Apple said Tuesday she did not file suit because she thought Bibles should be taxed.

"It just shouldn't get preferential treatment," she said. "Books concerning life and death, good and evil, even if they are not of a specific religious orientation, should qualify as books in the same category of the Scriptures. They are being used for the same purpose — to try and lead a better life."

Sadie Fields, state chairman of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, denounced the decision.

"It does not reflect the will of the people in Georgia," she said. "I think it's an outrage."

She also said she would oppose expanding the sales tax exemption to other spiritual philosophies. "I don't see any comparison between Scripture and some metaphysical nonsense," she said.

In a 14-page order, Story found that the "unique and preferential treatment the state provides to 'religious' literature raises serious constitutional concerns."

A month ago, Story, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, ruled against the ACLU when he denied a motion to halt prayers that refer to Jesus Christ before Cobb County Commission meetings. In that case, Story found the ACLU had not shown that Cobb's practice showed a preference of one religious sect or creed over others.

In the sales tax case, however, Story found the exemption incompatible with the First Amendment's prohibition against laws "abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."

On Tuesday, ACLU lawyer Gerry Weber applauded Story's ruling.

"It's a slam-dunk order," Weber said. "The government can't pick and choose which faith it's going to prefer."

The Legislature can now "expand the statute to exempt all philosophical and religious texts — or none at all," Weber said.

Rep. Jeff Lewis (R-White), vice chairman of a House sales tax subcommittee, said Tuesday he had never heard of the law or the lawsuit.

"I believe it's going to be a surprise to a lot of us," Lewis said. "But I think the intent of the Legislature hasn't changed. If necessary, this could be something we take up."

Jim Huston, manager of the Cokesbury Christian Store in Kennesaw, said he was "very disappointed" to hear about the decision.

"Most customers don't know about it, so it's real nice to let them know," Huston said. "Once they find out about it, they believe it's a respect sort of thing. I like the fact that we don't tax Bibles, so everybody can take advantage of it."

State Revenue Department spokesman Charles Willey said the attorney general's office was reviewing Story's decision to determine what to do next.

The law exempts from sales tax the purchases of works on Christianity and Judaism. It also exempts "any religious paper ... when the paper is owned and operated by religious institutions and denominations."

In past years, the state Revenue Department also suspended the sales tax for purchases of the Quran, the holy book of Islam.

The law dates to the 1950s, when then-Gov. Ernest Vandiver issued an executive order suspending the sales tax.

Gov. Lester Maddox issued a similar order in 1970, and the Legislature approved it the following year.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metr...8metbible.html

[irishgrl]

Jason, you didnt say: do you agree with the ruling or not?

[strandinthewind]

I agree with the Court's ruling as anyone with a brain cell should.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree with the Court's ruling as anyone with a brain cell should.

This made me laugh out loud and snort in the office.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Rep. Jeff Lewis (R-White),

(R-White)? Is this from The Onion?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

This made me laugh out loud and snort in the office.

SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

also - Goldie - it is from the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I agree with the Court's ruling as anyone with a brain cell should.

WHEW! I was going to say I agreed with it but I wanted to see what you said first! because I wanted to see if we were going to argue again

its nicer to agree, wouldnt you say?

[markolas]

Sadie Fields, state chairman of the Christian Coalition of Georgia, denounced the decision.

"It does not reflect the will of the people in Georgia," she said. "I think it's an outrage."

Neither did banning slavery, or repealing anti-miscegenation laws. What makes people think that "the will of the people" is the basis for the law in this country?

She also said she would oppose expanding the sales tax exemption to other spiritual philosophies. "I don't see any comparison between Scripture and some metaphysical nonsense," she said.

See, this is proof that these people aren't just trying to protect their poor "persecuted" selves, but are actually trying to set their religion up above others under the law.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

Neither did banning slavery, or repealing anti-miscegenation laws. What makes people think that "the will of the people" is the basis for the law in this country? . . . .

I know. Moreover, that is why we live in a Republic and not a democracy. Also, if 50% of the people someday choose to kill all red headed women, should we do that. Of course not.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I know. Moreover, that is why we live in a Republic and not a democracy. Also, if 50% of the people someday choose to kill all red headed women, should we do that. Of course not.

a republic and not a democracy? And all this time I thought we lived in a representative democracy...now I have to go look up definitions....

********

2. republic -- (a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president")

1. democracy -- (the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives)
3. majority rule, democracy -- (the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group)

I guess the answer to whether we live in a Republic or a Democracy depends upon who you ask:
Bush thinks we live in a Republic, the rest of us (except Jason LOL!) think we live in a Democracy....

[markolas]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

a republic and not a democracy? And all this time I thought we lived in a representative democracy...now I have to go look up definitions....

I was taught it was a republic, but I've learned to not trust my Louisiana public school education. My high school biology teacher decided to skip the chapter on evolution because, in her words, "it's such a touchy subject." That I'm able to so much as chew my own food amazes me.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by markolas

I was taught it was a republic, but I've learned to not trust my Louisiana public school education. My high school biology teacher decided to skip the chapter on evolution because, in her words, "it's such a touchy subject." That I'm able to so much as chew my own food amazes me.

well you did grow up in the South, and maybe in their minds they DID break away....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

a republic and not a democracy? And all this time I thought we lived in a representative democracy...now I have to go look up definitions....

********

2. republic -- (a form of government whose head of state is not a monarch; "the head of state in a republic is usually a president")

1. democracy -- (the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives)
3. majority rule, democracy -- (the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group)

I guess the answer to whether we live in a Republic or a Democracy depends upon who you ask:
Bush thinks we live in a Republic, the rest of us (except Jason LOL!) think we live in a Democracy....

hmmmmmm - "and to the republic for which it stands . . . ." nice try though Again, if we were a true democracy then the majority opinion would rule. Instead we elect people and the minority in theory has an equal voice in the Senate. Thus, we are not a true democracy.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

well you did grow up in the South, and maybe in their minds they DID break away....

Poor Mary - bless your heart, trying to bait people by blanketly insulting the South

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

hmmmmmm - "and to the republic for which it stands . . . ." nice try though Again, if we were a true democracy then the majority opinion would rule. Instead we elect people and the minority in theory has an equal voice in the Senate. Thus, we are not a true democracy.

we are actually a representative democracy, we elect representatives (presumably) to represent us.

btw: the "nice try" comment is odd, considering I copy/pasted a definition, not my own words. Your arrogance is astonishing that you now think you can argue with a dictionary.