more sep. of church and state
 

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

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

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. :lol:

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

SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

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

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:lol: :p

its nicer to agree, wouldnt you say?:wavey:

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?

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.

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....:eek:

********

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....

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....:nod:

hmmmmmm - "and to the republic for which it stands . . . ." nice try though :rolleyes: 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.

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

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.

I wasnt baiting anyone you silly SILLY man! if you felt baited, thats YOUR problem! Actually Markolas was the one who put down his southern schooling and I was only being tongue in cheek about a reason why! Im not sure why you want to see the glass as half empty where I am concerned, but I assure you I was only teasing, and Im guessing he knew it even if you didnt....

Actually, he said Lousiana and you extrapolated that to the whole South. Get your facts straight :wavey:

and - I knew you were joking silly rabbit :woohoo:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No, it is a republic.

Again - "and to the republic for which it stands" - why would that sanctioned line be that way if it were untrue?

But, if you want to call it a representative democracy - knock yourself out :laugh:

First, I am an elitist full of hot air. Now I am arrogant. Will the name calling ever cease :rolleyes: Oh well, when you can't argue anything factually based, I suppose that is your method :wavey:

Again - "and to the republic for which it stands" :shrug:

Last time I checked it was part of the South? and Im glad you knew I was teasing! :xoxo:

A google search revealed this:

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.

The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.


SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.


COMMENTS

Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/...s/repvsdem.htm

and another:

Is the United States a democracy?

The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10).

By popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense the United States might accurately be called a democracy. However, there are examples of "pure democracy" at work in the United States today that would probably trouble the Framers of the Constitution if they were still alive to see them. Many states allow for policy questions to be decided directly by the people by voting on ballot initiatives or referendums. (Initiatives originate with, or are initiated by, the people while referendums originate with, or are referred to the people by, a state's legislative body.) That the Constitution does not provide for national ballot initiatives or referendums is indicative of the Framers' opposition to such mechanisms. They were not confident that the people had the time, wisdom or level-headedness to make complex decisions, such as those that are often presented on ballots on election day.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).
Later, Madison elaborated on the importance of "refining and enlarging the public views" through a scheme of representation:

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).
In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy.

To the extent that the United States of America has moved away from its republican roots and become more "democratic," it has strayed from the intentions of the Constitution's authors. Whether or not the trend toward more direct democracy would be smiled upon by the Framers depends on the answer to another question. Are the American people today sufficiently better informed and otherwise equipped to be wise and prudent democratic citizens than were American citizens in the late 1700s? By all accounts, the answer to this second question is an emphatic "no."


http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/...s/repvsdem.htm

actually the word "republic" was mentioned in the definition for "democracy"
apparently the two are commonly used interchangeably. As for not being factual, Im not sure why you would say that when I used a dictionary definition? You never give anything I say any credence anyway, no matter how many sources I cite. Its too bad, because Ive posted some good material that I thought explained my viewpoint very well :shrug:

Yes, but it is not the entire South. Thus, you attributed Louisiana's public school qualities to the entire South in an effort to demean the entire South even if in jest :wavey: So, don't sugar coat it :wavey:

Ummm - that was not the intent of the Framers of the Const. See supra (""The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4).")

As for you and your dic. - lighten up - I was joking :wavey:

Im sure Louisiana reflects the region as a whole. show me where it does not.

Were you taught evolution? do you not have to deal with parochial attitudes regarding the primacy of Christianity? It is not such a reach to make such a link when you remember which block of states are trying to outlaw abortion/womens' rights/gay marriage etc...

your own quote actually backs up what I said, which was that the US was a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, not a Pure Democracy. I am not aware of any place in any time that actually operated under a Pure Democracy; And I never said we were a direct Democracy either. Go back to my original post, I said REPRESENTATIVE Democracy.

btw: my understanding of "republic" is that it refers to a citizen body, the citizen population, whereas "democracy" is a political construct, and is completely different altogether.

Now your an expert on Southern schooling - your acumen knows no bounds :laugh:

Yes, I was taught evolution and I went to a Catholic (parochial) school in a very conservative town. What's that I hear - oh its just the wind coming out of your theory :laugh:

Finally, the most recent evolution case came out of Kansas, which FYI is not the South :wavey:

Here's a link for ya http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_school.htm

You mean your edited post :rolleyes: where you initially called it a representative democracy but then later - in an attempt at wit - said "Bush thinks we live in a Republic, the rest of us (except Jason LOL!) think we live in a Democracy...." - the latter has no qualifer dear.

Again, the Const. guarantees a republican form of govt. Why is that so hard to grasp? But and again, if you want to think we live in a representative democracy - go right on ahead.

I never edited out my statement that we lived in a representative democracy?? and I was basing my final comment on the definitions I posted re: REPUBLIC and DEMOCRACY.

Ive seen nothing in your lengthy previous post to indicate that we are even really disagreeing because your "definitions" from Blacks dont define "Republic" but rather they mention "Republican Government" which I submit is another term for "Representative Democracy"

^^^^

try reading for once - to wit:

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4).

Thus, we are a Republic.

A REPUBLIC is different from REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. DONT YOU SEE THAT?





Republic

Modern republics
A republic is a form of government (and a state so governed) where a monarch is not the head of state. The word is derived from the Latin res publica, or "public affair", and suggests an ownership and control of the state by the population at large. The concept of democracy, however, is not implicit to that of a republic. The republican form of government may involve a limited democracy, where such rights are available only to a limited group of people. In some cases, a republic may be a dictatorial or totalitarian state. The term is also broad enough to include representative democracies.


Federal republics
Republics governed by representative democracy, in which the states play a crucial role:

Austria
Brazil
Ethiopia
Germany (since 1918)
Nigeria
USA (since 1789)
India (since January 26, 1950)

^^^^
YAWN :rolleyes:

Again, we are a Republic.

Finally, I no longer give a shiitte :wavey:

NO, we have a Republican form of government AKA a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

try reading YOURSELF.

one wonders how you can practice law when you are so busy always arguing with ME...........:eek:

Because you are easily dismissed with rote arguments :lol: :lol:

which you have yet to have done................
AGAIN: PLEASE SEE POSTS 33 AND 35. GEEZ.

So, let's see...50.7% of the PEOPLE voted for Al Gore in 2000. So, tell me who's President?

Who KNOWS how people REALLY voted in 2004, the machines were rigged.

So, who really knows how "the people" REALLY feel on ANY subject. More politician's spew.

I really think that anarchy is close.

We may witness a revolution.