Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 21

Froggy (brand)

So if so many stations use this brand across so many different companies, then why is there not a trademark violation in place? Let alone a copyright violation for the logo. This article isn't very clear. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming that these companies are using the logo without permission. You may be right, but it seems a bit unlikely in the litigious United States. I haven't found any evidence either way. --ColinFine (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The registered service mark is owned by Forever of PA, Inc., according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and our article says that the branding "is particularly common among country stations currently or formerly owned by Forever Broadcasting or Forever Communications and Keymarketradio LLC." I see no reason to suppose that any of these stations fail to have a proper license for the mark. John M Baker (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Canada

Recently, I read the Islam in America article and it was interesting to see the pie graph showing the demographics of Muslims in America. How much percentage of Muslims are South Asians in Canada? How much percentage of Muslims are Arabs in Canada? How much percentage of Muslims are Southeast Asian (meaning Malaysian and Indonesian)? How much percentage of Muslims are West Asians (meaning Turks and Iranians)? and how much percentage of Muslims are Black Canadians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.104.130 (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article entitled Islam in Canada, but it's a bit sketchy. According to this article [1], based on 2001 Census figures, "85.8% of the Muslim population (in Canada) consider themselves a visible minority. Unlike Muslim migration to European nations, the group is quite ethnically diverse. Of this population, 36.7% are South Asian, 21.1% are Arab, 14.0% are West Asian, and 14.2% are part of other minority groups (not including the small percentage Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Korean or Japanese Muslims). 14.2% of the Canadian Muslim population do not consider themselves visible minorities. This group could partially reflect the number of converts to the tradition." --Xuxl (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is religion not taxed in America

What is the rationale behind it? ScienceApe (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Religious non-profit organizations are treated the same as non-religious non-profit organizations. The article 501(c) organization covers the part of the tax code which deals with non-profits. While religuous organizations are specifically named, they are named alongside numerous other organizations which are non-religious. Religious organizations are not given unique or special treatment in this regard. --Jayron32 18:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^Basically that. I also find the titling of this section interesting, as if religion were a tangible object with monetary value of some sort, rather than the abstract concept that it is. But I digress... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 18:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only religion which gets extra-special tax treatment significantly beyond ordinary charitable exemptions at the federal level is Scientology (see Sklar v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, nothing too much about it on Wikipedia)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? No, Scientology doesn't get any special tax "treatment." The case you cited only draws reference to the IRS's policy on Scientology. That's hardly even the question presented. Shadowjams (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientologists can fully deduct (on their tax returns) payments to the church for services rendered as if they were pure charitable contributions, while those of all other religions can't. That sure sounds like "special tax treatment" to me... AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to me that the Court was saying that, if the Scientology practice were to come before them, they would strike it down. However it was not the issue they were deciding, so they didn't (possibly relevant is rule of real cases?). It's not clear to me who would have standing to bring such a case, though, which seems to imply that they found a problem (discriminatory treatment between religions not justified by a compelling government interest) for which they had no remedy. --Trovatore (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is related, but I don't agree on the last point. Rather, it seems the court was saying they would likely strike down the treatment but they needed a similar case where the preferential treatment was shown. The problem was in this case, it wasn't because the services for which the plaintiffs couldn't receive tax deductions weren't similar to the scientology ones were people can receive tax deductions (or to be blunt, it seems the court is saying in the scientology case people are paying for complete bullshit whereas the plaintiff were paying for something useful combined with a bit of bullshit). Nil Einne (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Churches that qualify as nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations (which would be most) are just as exempt. Where are you reading something to the contrary? Shadowjams (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that quid-pro-quo payments for services rendered etc. can always be deducted as charitable contributions, if the payment was made to a non-profit organization? I really don't think that's the case under U.S. federal law (you even have to subtract the value of your NPR tote bag from the pledge you made to your public radio station, if you want to list your pledge as a charitable contribution on your tax return)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fed up arguing with your with nonsequiter-shape-shifting arguments. Under what provision of the IRS code (IRC) do you think there was some unfair advantage? Name the decision or code. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, dude -- I've consistently pointed out that according to IRS policy interpretations, Scientologists are allowed to deduct on their tax returns quid-pro-quo payments (in return for services or value received) to the Scientology organization as if they were pure charitable contributions, whereas those of all other religions (and public radio pledge donors who receive an NPR tote bag) can't. The IRS-Scientology settlement agreement was revealed by the Wall Street Journal in late 1997, and is available in many places on-line (including here), but has never been acknowledged or explained by the IRS itself... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder which countries, if any, DO "tax religion"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are tithes and there is zakat. Where religion is compulsory these payments are compulsory. The questions whether they are taxes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The American tax exemption for religion grew out of the British common law tax exemption for religion. (All of this vastly predates the idea of NGOs.) This article contains a good overview if you want the real historical data. See also Walz v. Tax Commission. The basic issue is the separation of Church and state—if you can tax something, you can destroy it. It is less of an entanglement to not tax them than to tax them. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we've seen in American politics, religionists tend to argue that the separation of church and state should only be in one direction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. The record is a bit more mixed. Some of the key separation of church and state rulings have come from religious groups. It really just comes down to whether they happen to feel threatened by the state. Some of the key church/state rulings have come from when the Mormons were feeling more vulnerable. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some history might help... During the colonial era, most of the American colonies had an established religion... ie a specific denomination was "officially" supported by the government (for example: the Established Church in Virgina was the Anglican Church, while Connecticut established the Congregational Church). The government paid for this support by having a church tax.

When, after the revolution, the US Constitution was amended to do away with established churches - the government could no longer choose which denomination to support. Instead of the government collecting a church tax, and then spending that money to pay for one specific denomination... the citizen could now (effectively) pay their church tax directly to the denomination of their choice. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, taxing religion is generally taken to be prohibited by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've understood "no law respecting an establishment of religion" to be there only to prohibit an "official US church" of some denomination being "established," not to protect all churches from government interference such as taxes on receipts or property tax. Edison (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the "establishment" part doesn't protect churches from anything. However, the sentence continues ...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..., which certainly does protect churches to some extent. It's imaginable that the Supreme Court could hold that this clause protects churches from all taxation ("the power to tax is the power to destroy") but I don't know that it has held this. In any case we have an article on the Free Exercise Clause. --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hearsay/OR but someone in the c.1990s once told me that in Colombia, there's a system whereby a portion of your taxes (or a per capita allowance maybe) goes to the religious body of your choice. Not so much a tax on religion, but a direct funding by the state of religion from taxes. An interesting system. I have no reason to doubt that they were telling the truth, but my memory may be flawed and/or the system may have changed. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden has a system identical to the one you describe. If you're listed as a member of one of ten recognised religious organisations, the Swedish Tax Agency collects a percentage of your income and gives to them. It appears as a special box on your income tax return. Gabbe (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article Church tax (the German version has been the most famous). AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coenraad "van" Bos

I searched Wikipedia for the pianist Coenraad V. Bos. There seems to be no such page here. This pianist's full name is Coenraad Valentyn Bos (so-spelled). He was usually listed on album covers and record labels as "Coenraad V. Bos" (note the capital V). EMI acknowledged such an error in a little insert in their LP reissue of the recordings of the Hugo Wolf Society (RLS 759, seven LPs): "The name of the pianist on sides ... is COENRAAD VALENTYN BOS." There are many links that included the spurious particle "van" because that's how the name was referenced at the linked site. Perhaps a new Wiki page should contain the actual or customarily used name "Coenraad V. Bos" and note that many references (in print and online!) often cite the name incorrectly in one way or other. Hope this helps. Oldgermanprof (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My usual source for musical biographies, Grove's Dictionary, lists him as "BOS, Coenraad van", but I have a superseded edition. He gets called "Coenraad Bos", with or without the "Valentyn", here and elsewhere, so the "van" seems to be known to be spurious now. There's a redlink for Coenraad V. Bos at List of classical pianists (recorded), and he's mentioned in at least 6 other articles but unlinked, so there's definitely no article on him yet. He may be on various editors' to-do lists. I might just get in first. Watch this space. Thanks. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the error originated very early on, as even a journal from 1903 uses 'Coenraad van Bos': link (see 4th line of last paragraph). -Lindert (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article now started. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And redirect now created; such a systematic error means that it's a likely search target. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]