Austria passes new law legitimizing Islam

[Thanas]

I still find the idea of the state recognizing a "legitimate priest" vs an "illegitimate" one to be somewhat counter to the idea of freedom of religion. But I can certainly see there could be benefits from such control to the state, and possibly to society as a whole.

Maybe "financially state-supported" and "non-financially-state supported" would be a better term. After all, other religions are not illegal per se. Jehovah Witnesses for example do get special protection based on their religion (medicine, no conscription) despite not being an official religion.

But wouldn't teaching outside the "legal cannon" as established by the state result in loss of government funding?

The state doesn't set canon or establish it besides some broad outlines (no doing things outside criminal law). The theologians do.

Or is it "once you're in you're in" and as long as you don't do anything blatantly illegal they can't stop funding you? What if an Imam/priest suddenly converted to an unsanctioned religion and acted a religious leader for that organization?

Well, there have been cases where people converted to Protestantism while being Catholic state-paid people. (Both are "official" religions but without knowing other cases I would speculate that the same principle would apply). They would continue to receive state salaries. OTOH, they would no longer receive financial support for their work (so no staff etc.).

While it's not a "punishment" in terms of you won't go to jail, it still creates a "haves and have nots" amongst religious groups.

That is true. I don't know how to change it without scrapping the whole system.

If anyone could apply for and receive payment as a religious leader (perhaps make the pay scale dependent upon the number of persons in a priests "flock") then it becomes a more equitable solution. But such a system might simply be unrealistic.

Yeah. I mean, I might start a "beer religion" and get paid hundreds of thousands of Euros for being the "beer leader" in this case (this already happens with political parties).

[Simon_Jester]

I apologize for skimming the past few salvoes of posts between TheHammer and Thanas/Broomstick, but time presses and I wanted to directly reply to Thanas' direct response to me, and to one of Broomstick's earlier posts:

If separation of church and state does not exist, religious freedom is an endangered species.

This is false. See for example Britain.

There is a difference between 'endangered' and 'extinct.'

I did not say that if there is no separation of church and state, then there can never be religious freedom.

By using the word 'endangered,' I said that if there is no separation of church and state, then religious freedom is in a position where it could be destroyed more readily.

Britain's established church succeeded in oppressing other Christian sects within Britain for centuries. Even today, the antidisestablishmentarians in Britain have a well-entrenched position. Now, the Anglican Church has nonetheless withdrawn from a lot of its oppressive conduct over the past century and a half. But the fact that Britain has an official national church entwined with the state does not provide additional security for members of other religions who are trying to avoid persecution.

Likewise, if the basic paradigms of religious freedom in central Europe haven't been seriously re-examined since the 16th century (Augsburg) or 17th century (Westphalia), one would expect that there would be some significant defects in the system.

They have been, the formation of the new constitutions since 1945 took them into extent, there is also plenty of debate about it in judicial circles.

Then it would seem appropriate to cite the post-1945 constitution, not the Westphalian policy consensus, as the root of current Austrian policy on the matter.

If you wish to defend entwinement of church and state on the grounds that it is traditional and part of a longstanding, evolving process, fine... but in that case the past remains open to criticism.

1) While it does not guarantee state abuse of its power to influence religious institutions, it makes such abuse easier to accomplish.

No, it doesn't. See below for why.

2) Having all clergy on the state payroll may ensure that they do not preach sedition or urge their followers to commit felonies... but it also discourages them from speaking out on perceived social injustices at all. The power to sign a man's paycheck can very easily be used to silence him, even when no abuse of power is intended.

No it does not, for the state has no power to touch the salaries. It can touch the salaries even less than it can touch market economy salaries.

3) This institution creates a major obstacle to any new religions that begin to spread in the nation. Essentially, the one or few 'established' faiths of the nation get a major advantage over any new arrivals, because there are official legal advantages to being one of the established faiths. This is over and above any unofficial advantage the established religions enjoy because they have a larger number of supporters in the general public.

This is true but please note that Austria has always made the attempt to make faiths feel welcome...

I acknowledge this freely. And I sincerely hope that Austria continues to go out of its way to do so. But that is a policy choice on the Austrian government's part, so long as it is a matter of policy whether to treat new religions generously.

Whereas when a new religion's right to open houses of worship, organize itself into parishes or their equivalent, pay clergy, and so on are automatic and unquestioned, it is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of certainty.

...So I don't see that much of a concern and it is not as if the state moves to suppress other religions. There is no inquisition. And like this law shows, if there are enough adherents to a faith, Austria will move to it.

In my view, the reason we have rights at all, as opposed to simply having state policies, is to ensure that the rights continue to have a legal existence even when the state feels they have become troublesome.

If the right is protected only by the good judgment of the state, then it is not a right- it is the state exercising good judgment. The Austrian government will hopefully exercise good judgment in the future.

But, being an American, I have learned not to rely on the good judgment of my government. I have watched governance in my nominally democratic nation decay from competence to idiocy to deadlock. There are certain things that I am very glad my congressional 'representatives' have no power to screw up... and so I am a believer in the merits of absolute rights that are secure from state meddling.

Now, in the US system, preaching murder is covered separately; churches can lose their tax-exempt status for engaging directly in politics, though that law is sometimes not enforced properly. Inciting people to commit crimes is illegal whether you do it in a religious institution or not.

As it is in Europe no matter the state. But in Europe being a priest of the supported Churches means one has to pass state examinations, that is where the control part comes in. (And before you go on about a faceless commission checking the qualities of priests, please don't. You just would look hilarious.)

Since I do not know who is customarily appointed to the examination boards, I cannot say. I have no doubt they are appointed in a fair and proper way.

Hopefully, this will continue to be true.

I really really wish I still had the ability to trust that a democratic government which exercises good judgment today, and acts fairly today, will continue to do so indefinitely. Unfortunately, I was disillusioned of that around the age of sixteen, and have never gotten my naivete back on that issue.

The US system is obviously not the only system that would work... but it does work. While the US has innumerable political problems, including religious fundamentalist voters, it does not actually have major ongoing problems with religious leaders stirring up waves of terrorism. Despite having a fair number of religious extremists, mostly evangelical Protestants.

It doesn't? Waco, YFZ, Jonestown (not in the US but still perpetrated by US citizens) and the radical far right all look to be far more radical and far more dangerous than anything produced under this Austrian system.

Waco was not an act of terrorism by the religious fanatics in question. Nor were the events of the YFZ ranch, nor was the mass suicide at Jonestown.

I did not say the American system prevents weird cults from emerging, and damaging their own members. I we don't really have a problem with domestic religious terrorism.

Now, it seems that separately from this, you argue that the Austrian system of vetting clergy prevents such weird cults from existing. As I said, that is a separate argument, and you might well be able to counter my point with it successfully. That merits more thought on my part than I have time for at the moment, and I hope you will forgive me for taking a little more time before trying to research the (lack of) the history of strange cults in Austria.

My position is simply that there is no reason to make it a state decision whether to have or not have imams in a given area. If the imam's followers are willing to support them, let them do so; otherwise, there is no need for the state to become involved.

Nobody is stopping them from paying for their own religious leaders to come and preach - like say, in a hall that they rent and transform into a temple. All this does is say who can claim state funds for support.

So what are the advantages of being a state-approved religious organization, then?

My first post in this thread has them.

So, these advantages are enjoyed only by religious groups led by those clergy approved by the state to preach, at the locations approved by the state for funding out of the general tax funds, in a manner consistent with the state's guidelines on liturgical language and political content.

Just to make sure I understand you...

This does not strike you as an obstacle to the free expression of religion, correct?

The first of my allegedly 'hair-on-fire' posts is simply an attempt to sum up and reply to what you yourself said- that the state has the right to decide not to pay clergy to operate in a given area.

No, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Immans have a right to be paid. If they meet the provisions of the law, it is automatic with the state not being allowed to say no. If they don't meet the provisions, then they don't qualify in the first place. The state cannot just pick and chose who to pay and who not to pay.

And, based on what you say later, the state does not reserve the right to disqualify clergy.

This is the key issue. If the salaries of the clergy come out of general tax money, that gives them leverage over the clergy.

No, because as I wrote later (which you missed or ignored) the state cannot just declare not to pay them. The salaries are fixed and cannot be changed. Not even by general budget cuts. Once you get the license and fulfil the requirements of the law (also fixed) to get a post, you will then draw a salary. Your license can only be revoked by:
- the church
- you being convicted of a serious crime

I believe I did miss some of this.

Although in that case, this undermines the idea that paying the clergy out of state coffers ensures their loyalty and willingness to help integrate their parishioners. The clergy can't be independent and dependent at the same time; if their compliance is not assured, then their compliance cannot be assured.

The Roman Catholic Church has the resources to get such an agreement. The Islamic sects, which are as a rule less centralized, may not be able to do that.

The law takes the two most prominent of such organizations and gives them equal status to the RCC. Which again, was pointed out several times in this thread.

And the third-most prominent such organization? The fourth? What about, say, Sufi mystics?

I genuinely do not know what overarching organizations exist among Austrian Muslims, or for that matter among minority Christian sects, or for that matter among Hindus, Buddhists, and so on.

One of the reasons I am not a fan of the Austrian model is that it seems to be based around the idea that the number of meaningful religions is a relatively small number, and that any religions or sects not included on that list don't deserve the same kind of infrastructural support as the 'big boys.'

While this can exclude dangerous or violent cults, it can also exclude harmless ones, or even ones that are persecuted in other lands.

If the state's power to fund or not fund the salaries of clergy does not give them power to influence those clergy... why does the state bother to do so?

Because priests are seeing having a net positive role in the communities and us being godless Eurocommies mean we actually pay people to do good in the communities. Oh and we want our priests to be able to resist commands from wealthy donors.

I have never been a fan of the "Europeans are communists" stereotype; the phrase "years of lead" means too much to me.

I understand the logic; my main concern is not so much with the public funding of churches as such, as with the fact that the power to decide who deserves funding translates very well into the power to decide which religions deserve to have a meaningful existence in Austria, if the state sees fit to exercise that power.

Are you saying the Austrian government enacted this policy even though there was no advantage for them?

There are several advantages pointed out to you several times in this thread. Yet you don't even post them. Why is that?
Integration.
Mutual respect.
Independence from fundamentalist organizations.
Making muslims feel welcome.
Etc. pp.

I really don't see how you can deny these obvious advantages.

I don't. My point is, one cannot say "this lets us stop bad Muslim sects from gaining influence in the country" and "this doesn't act to prohibit sects the state disapproves of" at the same time. Those are mutually exclusive positions.

Besides, if there were no advantages at all (but there are) then shouldn't Austria be praised for doing a good thing anyways?

If the act is an unambiguous good, then the Austrian model is an excellent model.

I do not feel the issue of whether it is an unambiguous good, a mixed good, or a risky thing that's worked out so far, is settled.

---

This is analogous to to "minority religions" in the US. Anyone can open a store front and call it a church, but getting tax-empt status, marriage officiation privileges for the clergy, and some other perks requires quite a bit more than simply "I declare myself a minister". Sometimes a surprising amount of work based on my experience in NeoPaganism in the 1980's-90's

If an American doesn't think the state and church are linked in the US, or that the state and church don't interfere with each other, you aren't paying attention. Laws that prohibit selling alcohol (or other things) on Sundays are a direct influence of the church(es) on the legal system. The state deciding who does and doesn't have tax exempt status. And so forth. Those raised Christian or still Christian are particularly blind to this linkage in the US but those of us outside the "Christian norm" do see it, and often feel it.

At no point have I argued that the separation of church and state is absolute in the US, or anywhere else. It is purely a matter of degree. That degree varies from nation to nation.

My argument is that the Austrian model is probably taking it too far.

I do not think it would be doing neopagans a favor, for instance, if Episcopalian pastors could get their salaries paid by the IRS's revenues, but pagan priestesses could not.

Right - because suppression of non-Christian religions has never happened in the US.... oh wait...

Seriously, you wouldn't want a little more oversight of the FLDS? Some mechanism where they can't just waive their placard saying "FIRST AMENDMENT" and get away with old men raping young girls and calling it "marriage"?

Personally, I do not think that the First Amendment should cover that anyway.

Also, the issue of whether religions should be allowed to flout laws because of their religious belief isn't quite the same as the issue of whether their clergy should be state-paid and required to pass state-mandated examinations.

The US certainly does favor some religions over others, and those favored religions to wield power to affect laws and other secular parts of life. Then the US turns around and declares it has some sort of "pure" separation of the two institutions. No, it doesn't. That might be the theory but the practice doesn't reflect it at all well.

I have not claimed that the US's separation is "pure." It is closer to the theoretical extreme of "pure" separation than Austria is, if only because the US government doesn't directly pay the salaries of the ministers of its favored churches. But that is a difference of degree.

In my mind, true religious freedom would mean that while there are laws that everyone must adhere to. You shouldn't need to legitimize a religion in order to afford it protections because with properly formed laws, it would already be protected.

Then I would argue the US should abolish the tax-exempt status of all religions as it confers and unfair advantage for those religions able to secure that privilege.

As long as religions are allowed to register as nonprofits (if they act like nonprofits) or charities (if they act like charities), I for one am amenable to this.

[Thanas]

I apologize for skimming the past few salvoes of posts between TheHammer and Thanas/Broomstick, but time presses and I wanted to directly reply to Thanas' direct response to me,

You really should read them because I don't really feel to repeat myself.

There is a difference between 'endangered' and 'extinct.'

I did not say that if there is no separation of church and state, then there can never be religious freedom.

By using the word 'endangered,' I said that if there is no separation of church and state, then religious freedom is in a position where it could be destroyed more readily.

And yet it does not need so, nor do I agree it automatically increases the risk of that happening or that it puts religious freedom in a more precarious position. See my earlier responses to Hammer for that. The Austrian state is not going to ban religions.

Then it would seem appropriate to cite the post-1945 constitution, not the Westphalian policy consensus, as the root of current Austrian policy on the matter.

The constitutional movements of 1945+ are another step in the evolution. It would be amiss for me to leave out the context in which they evolved and why and some concepts still remain largely the same. Remember that you compared this evolution to the US evolution, hence me pointing out the different roots.

If you wish to defend entwinement of church and state on the grounds that it is traditional and part of a longstanding, evolving process, fine... but in that case the past remains open to criticism.

Sure, but what you are doing is the equivalent of criticizing current nuclear physics by attacking Aristotle. (exaggeration but I hope you get the point).

I acknowledge this freely. And I sincerely hope that Austria continues to go out of its way to do so. But that is a policy choice on the Austrian government's part, so long as it is a matter of policy whether to treat new religions generously.

It is not a policy choice. It is a fundamental constitutional freedom Austria cannot just chose to ignore. I realize that this might sound hollow - especially considering how constitutional freedoms are under attack or ignored by the head of state in another western nation - but Austria doesn't have the tradition of the constitution being negotiable.

Whereas when a new religion's right to open houses of worship, organize itself into parishes or their equivalent, pay clergy, and so on are automatic and unquestioned, it is not a matter of choice; it is a matter of certainty.

Austria does not deny any religion this right and I am honestly puzzled why people do not get this:
THE FREEDOM OF ANOTHER FAITH TO ORGANIZE AND WORSHIP IS NOT IMPACTED BY THIS LAW.
Sorry for shouting, but this is like the tenth time I have explained this and you still don't get it.

Waco was not an act of terrorism by the religious fanatics in question. Nor were the events of the YFZ ranch, nor was the mass suicide at Jonestown.

I see a very small divide between the acts of religious terrorists and religious extremists. Those two can cross over easily and as Jamestown and Waco proved extremism can be just as destructive as terrorism.

So, these advantages are enjoyed only by religious groups led by those clergy approved by the state to preach, at the locations approved by the state for funding out of the general tax funds, in a manner consistent with the state's guidelines on liturgical language and political content.

Just to make sure I understand you...

This does not strike you as an obstacle to the free expression of religion, correct?

Your interpretation is incorrect, please reread what I wrote to Hammer and you will find out that the general statement made by you cannot stand without several modifications.

No, that is a misunderstanding on your part. Immans have a right to be paid. If they meet the provisions of the law, it is automatic with the state not being allowed to say no. If they don't meet the provisions, then they don't qualify in the first place. The state cannot just pick and chose who to pay and who not to pay.

And, based on what you say later, the state does not reserve the right to disqualify clergy.

Except in some serious cases where the action would be punishable by criminal law as well.
In theological disputes the religious authorities are iirc the only ones who have disqualifying rights. So the Pope can defrock priests. The state however cannot unilaterally defrock one. Best they can do is send a letter to somebody asking for their defrocking. Unless the priest gets convicted of a serious felony which is automatic grounds for dismissal from the salaried position (but not from the church per se). Said limits are all set in law.

No, because as I wrote later (which you missed or ignored) the state cannot just declare not to pay them. The salaries are fixed and cannot be changed. Not even by general budget cuts. Once you get the license and fulfil the requirements of the law (also fixed) to get a post, you will then draw a salary. Your license can only be revoked by:
- the church
- you being convicted of a serious crime

I believe I did miss some of this.

Although in that case, this undermines the idea that paying the clergy out of state coffers ensures their loyalty and willingness to help integrate their parishioners. The clergy can't be independent and dependent at the same time; if their compliance is not assured, then their compliance cannot be assured.

Well, you can never be sure of anybody and their compliance, no matter if they are licensed or not. For example, school teachers having a license and being liable to punishment is not a guarantee that they do their job in the correct manner.

What is hoped is that the context of
a) being independent from outside financiers
b) a university environment steeped in western traditions
c) a more active community where everybody understands the language
will shift the preachings of religion to the values of the societies in which it lives. You know, kinda like how Catholicism in Germany does not have every Sunday Sermon start with a denouncement of contraceptives anymore or where unmarried women are not called sluts by the priests anymore (in general, you always will have fanatics).

The Roman Catholic Church has the resources to get such an agreement. The Islamic sects, which are as a rule less centralized, may not be able to do that. The law takes the two most prominent of such organizations and gives them equal status to the RCC. Which again, was pointed out several times in this thread.

And the third-most prominent such organization? The fourth? What about, say, Sufi mystics?

As it is, they are out of luck. But the three biggest (by far) Islamic sects are represented.

I genuinely do not know what overarching organizations exist among Austrian Muslims, or for that matter among minority Christian sects, or for that matter among Hindus, Buddhists, and so on.

It is very complex, let me put wikipedia on here:

. Under the 1874 law, religious societies have "public corporation" status. This status permits religious societies to engage in a number of public or quasi-public activities that are denied to confessional communities and associations. The Government provides financial support for religious teachers at both public and private schools to religious societies but not to other religious organizations. The Government provides financial support to private schools run by any of the 13 officially recognized religious societies: the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant churches (Lutheran and Presbyterian, called "Augsburger" and "Helvetic" confessions), Old Catholic Church, Islamic community, Jewish community, Eastern Orthodox Church (Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, and Bulgarian), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), New Apostolic Church, Syrian Orthodox Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, Methodist Church of Austria, Buddhist community, and Coptic Orthodox Church.

This is the first and oldest tier. However, in 1998 the laws were tightened:

The 1998 Law on the Status of Religious Confessional Communities imposed new criteria on religious groups to achieve religious society status, although it allowed previously recognized societies to retain their status. New criteria included a 20-year period of existence (at least 10 of which must be as a group organized as a confessional community under the 1998 law) and membership equaling at least two one-thousandths of the country's population (approximately 16,000 persons).

Then there is a second tier, sorta of a middle point between offiicially recognized and unrecognized:

The 1998 law allows nonrecognized religious groups to seek official status as "confessional communities" without the fiscal and educational privileges available to recognized religions. To apply, groups must have at least 300 members and submit to the Government their written statutes describing the goals, rights, and obligations of members, as well as membership regulations, officials, and financing. Groups also must submit a written version of their religious doctrine, which must differ from that of any religious society recognized under the 1874 law or any confessional community established under the 1998 law. The Ministry of Education then examines the doctrine for a determination that the group's basic beliefs do not violate public security, public order, health and morals, or the rights and freedoms of citizens.
[...]
Once the Government recognizes them, religious confessional communities have juridical standing, which permits them to engage in such activities as purchasing real estate in their own names and contracting for goods and services. [...]According to the Ministry, as of June 2007, 14 groups had applied for the status of religious confessional community, and 11 were granted the new status. The Church of Scientology and the Hindu Mandir Association withdrew their applications. The Hindu Mandir Association reapplied under the name Hindu Religious Community and was granted the new status. The Ministry rejected the application of the Sahaja Yoga group in 1998. Since then, its decision has been upheld in the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. Following a May 2006 decree by the Ministry of Education, the ELAIA Christian Community (ELAIA Christengemeinde) also received status as confessional community after applying on October 13, 2005.

The 11 religious groups that constitute confessional communities according to the law are the Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'i Faith, the Baptists, Evangelical Alliance, the Movement for Religious Renewal, Free Christian Community (Pentecostalists), Pentecostal Community of God, ELAIA Christian Community, Seventh-day Adventists, Hindu Religious Community, and Mennonites.

And for the unrecognized, they can still exist as corporations - this is Tier 3:

Religious groups that do not qualify for either religious society or confessional community status may apply to become associations under the Law of Associations. Associations are corporations under law and have many of the same rights as confessional communities, including the right to own real estate. Some groups have organized as associations, even while applying for recognition as religious societies.

There are no restrictions on missionary activities.

So what happened here is that Islam was already supposed to be in TIER 1 but the law governing that fell short of this and their status as such was not recognized. One might quibble over what happened now being either Islam lifted from Tier 2 into Tier 1 or merely fixing problems with their Tier 1 membership but IMO this would be fruitless as the end result remains the same.

One of the reasons I am not a fan of the Austrian model is that it seems to be based around the idea that the number of meaningful religions is a relatively small number, and that any religions or sects not included on that list don't deserve the same kind of infrastructural support as the 'big boys.'

13 (>20 if we count all the sects supported) isn't really that small a number IMO.

While this can exclude dangerous or violent cults, it can also exclude harmless ones, or even ones that are persecuted in other lands.

True, but look at the list and tell me which such cult is missing from there that has a significant number of adherents in Austria?

I understand the logic; my main concern is not so much with the public funding of churches as such, as with the fact that the power to decide who deserves funding translates very well into the power to decide which religions deserve to have a meaningful existence in Austria, if the state sees fit to exercise that power.

No, it doesn't. If Austria would cut off church funding, the church would still get by just fine. I don't think you know how rich most of the German/Austrian dioceses are. For example, the Bishopric of Cologne (just one - albeit important - bishopric in Germany) has a net worth well over 3 billion.

Would state funding cause at least short-term financial problems? Sure, but it won't cause them to disappear. For one, the state taxes only 1-2% of income of church followers. You can't tell me the church wouldn't be able to extract that money, not when in the USA tithes are common practice. My personal belief is that the churches get too much state funding (google Tebartz van Elst to see why).

I don't. My point is, one cannot say "this lets us stop bad Muslim sects from gaining influence in the country" and "this doesn't act to prohibit sects the state disapproves of" at the same time. Those are mutually exclusive positions.

It doesn't prohibit them but it helps the others to gain more acceptance. Rather than rot them out with fire and sword, we hope to eventually have them die on their own as fundamentalist values are marginalized. This is the same thing that happened with the Christian churches btw and I have yet to meet anybody but a reactionary who thinks this was a bad evolution.

[LaCroix]

Just a small list of recognized religions in Austria, with members according to census, if known.

Catholic Church: (5918629)

• Roman Catholic rite (5,917,274)
  Greek-Catholic rite (1,089)
  Armenian Catholic rite (266)

Evangelical Church in Austria (376,150)

• Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession (ev.AB, Lutheran, 354559)
  Evangelical Church of the Helvetic Confession (ev.HB, Reformed, 19.463)

Old Catholic Church in Austria (recognized since 1874, 14,621)
Oriental Orthodox Churches

• Armenian Apostolic Church in Austria (recognized since 1972, 1.824)
  Coptic Orthodox Church in Austria (recognized since 2003, 1.623)
  Syrian Orthodox Church in Austria (1589)

Greek Oriental (= Orthodox) Churches: (174385)

• The Greek Orthodox Church Community of the Holy. Holy Trinity
  The Greek Orthodox Church Community of St.. George
  Serbian-Greek-Orthodox Church Community of St. Sava (74198)
  Romanian-Greek Oriental Church Community of the Holy. Resurrection (2819)
  Russian Orthodox Church Community of St.. Nicholas (3340)
  Bulgarian Orthodox Community of St.. Ivan Rilski (1135)

United Methodist Church in Austria (recognized in 1951 as a Methodist church in Austria, 1236)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in Austria (since 1955, (A6) 2.236)
New Apostolic Church in Austria (recognized since 1975, 4.217)
Jewish Religious Association in Austria (recognized since 1890, 8.140)
Islamic Religious Community in Austria (IGGIÖ, since 1912, 338,988 )
Alevi Islamic Religious Community in Austria (IAGÖ / Alevi, recognized since 2013)
Austrian Buddhist Religious Association (ÖBR, recognized since 1983, 10,402)
Jehovah's Witnesses in Austria (recognized since 2009, BGBl. II Nr. 139/2009 23.206)
Free Churches in Austria (recognized since 2013)

Keep in mind that we do have ~8.5 million inhabitants, so every denomination with less than 17000 shouldn't be recognized by the wording of the law. We still recognized them, and once they are recognized, it cannot be undone. There is no way to un-recognize a religion.

[Broomstick]

I have helped two "churches" (NeoPagan groups) and one cultural organization obtain the 501(c)(3) status with the IRS. This is not really a simple or straightforward process.

Now, your linked article states you don't need a 501(c)(3) letter to have that status as a religious organization but good fucking luck with putting that into practice. If you're ever challenged in court you'll essentially have to do the same legwork as for getting that 501(c)(3) but in a much shorter time frame. People making donations to your group will either have to forgo tax exemption or be ready/able to prove you're actually a "religious organization" if they're ever audited. Every business you do business with will continue to charge your sales tax if you don't have that 501(c)(3) letter (again, based on 30+ years of doing business in the US plus aforementioned experience with tax-exempt organizations). That means your landlord if you rent, local governments if you own/have a mortgage, utility companies, and so on and so forth.

The Federal IRS doesn't require that 501(c)(3) but just about everyone else does! It's a de facto government recognition of a religion.

Difficulties aside, you WERE able to get tax exempt status for your Neo-Pagan churches were you not?

No, we weren't. One of the groups finally went through the Unitarian church, which has been providing umbrella coverage to various groups for quite awhile, but that meant the priestess had to go through their seminary program and get certified as a UU minister.

The other group, eventually, after about 15 years got their 501(c)(3).

The process is definitely slanted in favor of Abrahamic groups, the "traditional" religions of the western world for the past 1,000 years. Which isn't entirely surprising, there is a certain weight of tradition but there is no guarantee a religion is going to get 501(c)(3) recognition.

I think you're getting off topic here...

No, I'm not - that's why the phrase de facto exists, after all. It's the differece between theory and practice. In theory there is a strict separation of church and state in the US, in practice not so much.

[TheHammer]

I have helped two "churches" (NeoPagan groups) and one cultural organization obtain the 501(c)(3) status with the IRS. This is not really a simple or straightforward process.

Now, your linked article states you don't need a 501(c)(3) letter to have that status as a religious organization but good fucking luck with putting that into practice. If you're ever challenged in court you'll essentially have to do the same legwork as for getting that 501(c)(3) but in a much shorter time frame. People making donations to your group will either have to forgo tax exemption or be ready/able to prove you're actually a "religious organization" if they're ever audited. Every business you do business with will continue to charge your sales tax if you don't have that 501(c)(3) letter (again, based on 30+ years of doing business in the US plus aforementioned experience with tax-exempt organizations). That means your landlord if you rent, local governments if you own/have a mortgage, utility companies, and so on and so forth.

The Federal IRS doesn't require that 501(c)(3) but just about everyone else does! It's a de facto government recognition of a religion.

Difficulties aside, you WERE able to get tax exempt status for your Neo-Pagan churches were you not?

No, we weren't. One of the groups finally went through the Unitarian church, which has been providing umbrella coverage to various groups for quite awhile, but that meant the priestess had to go through their seminary program and get certified as a UU minister.

The other group, eventually, after about 15 years got their 501(c)(3).

The process is definitely slanted in favor of Abrahamic groups, the "traditional" religions of the western world for the past 1,000 years. Which isn't entirely surprising, there is a certain weight of tradition but there is no guarantee a religion is going to get 501(c)(3) recognition.

I think you're getting off topic here...

No, I'm not - that's why the phrase de facto exists, after all. It's the differece between theory and practice. In theory there is a strict separation of church and state in the US, in practice not so much.

Your rant about the tax code and social security numbers was what was getting off topic. And of course its going to be easier for a previously established religion because they've already gone through the process to achieve their status. Your anecdotal examples of it being difficult to achieve 501c3 status are meaningless without details. Unless you can show me some evidence to believe those organizations were discriminated against because they weren't an "Abrahamic religion", then to me that's simply typical IRS bureaucracy at work.

In any event, there is a huge difference between government "recognition" of a church and government endorsement of a religion. Further, I don't think "strict separation" between church and state was ever even the theory. It's simply unrealistic because the populations themselves religious, and as Thanas alluded to earlier, there are many instances you've got significant secular, traditional, and religious overlap. Best we can hope for is effective separation of church and state. Where laws are passed based on reasons other than (or at least in addition to) "because God said so". Is it perfect 100% of the time? No, but at least the system has a mechanism for self correction via court challenges.

[Broomstick]

Your anecdotal examples of it being difficult to achieve 501c3 status are meaningless without details.

So, you seriously want me to produce "details" on something I did 25 or more years ago? Either take my anecdote at face value or don't, but don't ask for something as dumbshit stupid as "produce details" from a project I worked on a quarter century ago. Or do you think I save every scrap of paper from the past just to cough it up at your command?

[TheHammer]

Your anecdotal examples of it being difficult to achieve 501c3 status are meaningless without details.

So, you seriously want me to produce "details" on something I did 25 or more years ago? Either take my anecdote at face value or don't, but don't ask for something as dumbshit stupid as "produce details" from a project I worked on a quarter century ago. Or do you think I save every scrap of paper from the past just to cough it up at your command?

You introduced your anecdotes as evidence to back up your claim. I don't expect you to remember every detail, but some sort of detail would be helpful to show that you were either discriminated against, or that you were treated like everybody else. But I really don't care, its clear this conversation is going nowhere at this point and I just assume let it die.

[Broomstick]

Simple - for the cultural group 501(c)(3) application it took one person working part time on it all of three months to get it.

For the religious groups a couple YEARS of several people working on it for the successful one, similar effort for the unsuccessful one. Repeated demands for the same documentation over and over again.

So... go ahead, claim there's nothing hinky going on there.