A noxious anti-religious federal judge, appointed by Jimmy Carter, has misadjudicated that an Internal Revenue Service exemption that allows clergy to shield a portion of their salary from federal income taxes is unconstitutional.

The clergy housing exemption applies to an estimated 44,000 ministers, priests, rabbis, imams and others. If the ruling stands, some clergy members could experience a substantial cut in take-home pay.

The suit was filed by the Madison-Wisconsin-based "Freedom From Religion Foundation" on grounds that the housing allowance violates the separation of church and state and the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. The group's founders have said that if tax-exempt religious groups are allowed a housing subsidy, other tax-exempt groups, such as FFRF, should get one, too.

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb on Friday (Nov. 22) ruled in their favor, saying the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.

The case, decided in the District Court for the Western District Of Wisconsin, will likely be appealed to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana.

The housing allowances of pastors in Wisconsin remain unaffected after Crabb stayed the ruling until all appeals are exhausted. Crabb also ruled in 2010 that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional; that ruling was overturned the following year.

Churches routinely designate a portion of a pastor's salary as a housing allowance. So, for example, a minister who earns an average of $18,000 might (but does not always) receive up to another third of income, or $6,000, as a tax-free housing allowance, essentially earning $24,000. Having to pay taxes on the additional $6,000, would mean a substantial cut in salary.

Crabb ruled that the law provides that the gross income of a minister of the gospel does not include the rental allowance paid to him as part of his compensation, to the extent used by him to rent or provide a home and to the extent such allowance does not exceed the fair rental value of the home, including furnishings and appurtenances such as a garage, plus the cost of utilities.

Tobin Grant, a political science professor at Southern Illinois University, said the exemption dates from an era when churches paid clergy who lived in church-owned parsonages.

Over time, fewer churches owned parsonages and instead gave clergy housing allowances, which were also treated as tax-free. The difference, however, was that these were regular salaries that now had an exclusion. Part could be tax-free, part could not. So, why not give a pastor a huge housing allowance, which is tax free?

The ruling addresses the housing allowance, while parsonages are still tax-exempt properties, like the churches that own them.

Peter J. Reilly, a contributor to Forbes, wrote that the exclusion goes back to 1921.

The law's tax exemption has been contested since a decade-old dispute between the IRS and California megachurch pastor Rick Warren. In 2002, the IRS attempted to charge Warren back taxes after he claimed a housing allowance of more than $70,000. He eventually won the federal court case, and that led Congress to the rules for housing allowances. The allowance is limited to one house, and is restricted to either the fair market rental value of the house or the money actually spent on housing.

Annie Laurie Gaylor is co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, one of the few atheist/freethought organization staffed by a majority of women.

Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, co-presidents of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who brought the suit, hailed the decision, somewhat blasphemously uttering: "May we say hallelujah! This decision agrees with us that Congress may not reward ministers for fighting a godless and anti-religious movement by letting them pay less income tax," they said. "The rest of us should not pay more because clergy pay less."

Angelic-looking devil Gaylor added: "This ruling will probably upset ministers."

The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Southern Baptist-affiliated GuideStone Financial Resources plan to fight for the exemption.

The clergy housing allowance isn't a government establishment of religion, but just the reverse, said Russell Moore, president of the ERLC. The allowance is neutral to all religions. Without it, clergy in small congregations of all sorts would be penalized and harmed.

Separately, in a federal court case in Kentucky, atheists are challenging IRS regulations that exempt religious groups from the same financial disclosure requirements of other nonprofit groups.

What do the people think? Their comments below:

With the exception of the very few megachurch pastors in the nation, most of us pastors don't make enough money to really amount to much of anything. Churches are (again generally) funded by the donations, tithes, and good-will of members and guests, and those donations support every function of the church, including the pastor. Pastors also donate a portion of their salary back to the church. Most pastors put in 70 to 80 hours a week, and are on call 24-7 to deal with emergencies in the congregation (death, hospitalization, counseling, etc). Pastors don't just preach from the pulpit, but they tend to their people in many different ways.

What I'm trying to get across to you is that, with the exception of a few loud churches and pastors, the church is NOT at all what you describe! Most of us pastors are beat down, struggle like you wouldn't believe, hard-pressed, sometimes depressed; believe me, we're not in it for the glory because there isn't any in this life.

You can marvel and wonder why we stay in it, and it's because we believe that there is something greater than this world, and we believe that sharing that good news with others is worth the garbage we get from folks like you who refuse to listen, but spend your days criticizing and slandering us instead. There is nothing new under the sun, and you are not new by any means.

Taking our housing allowance tax break away is just more thing that we'll have to struggle with, but we will not be beat, and this "Freedom from Religion" group will not make God's Church go away. That's a promise from God, by the way, that He has kept for over 2000 years, and He will continue to keep it well after you're dead and gone.

The housing allowances of pastors in Wisconsin remain currently unaffected as the ruling has been stayed by the judge until the appeals are exhausted. So implications won't be felt until higher courts decide whether or not to take it up. Looks like the 7th Circuit would strike it down, given that they struck down the contraceptive mandate. If the 7th Circuit lets the ruling stand, then it could become precedent for courts in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. If it went all the way to the Supreme Court and they let it stand, it would impact the law for all states, but I've gotten the sense that it likely won't get that far.

Why does this "constitutionality" issue even come up? Funny how these issues have been arising during THIS current administration.

There has always been a certain respect for clergy, of all faiths. The clergy are those men and women who offer their lives in service to others, in God's name. Most clergy have high degrees; yet their salaries are minimal. The $50,000 number mentioned in this article is inflated. I know that in my Church, clergy salaries are less.

Do not be deceived. This issue is just one weapon in a vast arsenal that is being used by our current administration, and their helping hand, the divisive media in their diabolical mission to render religion as a private hobby of sorts, making religion a non-issue in the life of our country.

Clergy and military personnel have the same system. They often live in housing provided for them; in fact, in many cases they are required to live on base to insure they are readily available. The question arose around figuring out how to tax that form of compensation and still be fair to those clergy and military who don't have housing provided. The solution (first a regulation then a law) was to have those in housing count its value for Social Security and Medicare tax, but not income tax. Those who live off base (or not in a parsonage) are taxed for Social Security and Medicare on the amount they spend for housing, but it is not considered income. Teachers, firemen, etc. are not generally provided with housing so the question of taxing its value is mute.

Public-school teachers, firemen, etc. often have pensions (government-backed from taxes collected from ministers and others) that ministers do not have. Also, someone made the comment above that many ministers make far less than $50,000 per year. In our denomination, it is not only less but MUCH less. Some as low as $20,000 to $30,000. It is shameful that most ministers who barely get by have to suffer because of a scant number of big-name big-bucks pseudo-ministers who have used these laws in nefarious ways for their own selfish aggrandizement in the name of the Lord.

In comparison to the education and responsibility of most clergy, their salary and benefits are low. Churches are not profit-making companies. My understanding is that most parishes are under 100 people. In addition to their religious activities, parishes do a great many social service activities, thus saving the State from having to do them.

Why fault a megachurch with financial deprivation if the pastor is preaching socially-beneficial doctrines from the Holy Bible, and it just so happens that he is fortunate enough to be endowed with the means and resources to shepherd a huge flock for the Lord?

Most of the groups you mention have powerful unions that protect their benefits, pensions and minimal salaries. Clergy do not. Clergy also make, on average, far less than the groups you mention. In addition, because clergy are considered "self-employed" by the IRS, they pay their full Social Security without benefit of employer payroll tax. Many of us have to pay health benefits out of our own pockets and do not have pensions.

Also, if your congregation is unable or unwilling to pay you a living wage, do they really want your services? The workman is worthy of his hire. That means you don't chisel your plumber or your priest.

I make 29k a year, gross and untaxed meaning I have to pay taxes on that myself. The housing allowance is what allows me and my family to make it on that salary. I work an average of 60 to 72 hours a week for a 40 hour a week because of hospital/nursing home visits, consultations, counseling session, marriages, funerals, late night phone calls and emergency visits, etc. I also have to pay for my own insurance, dental, and anything else health-wise because the church can't afford to pay anything toward my insurance, along with the insurance and hospital bills for my family.

During pregnancy with my now 2 month old, my wife had major complications and had to quit her job. My income is the sole income for my family. My brother-in-law is a fire fighter so I have heard what they go through. However, he, by himself, makes nearly double what i do with health benefits and other financial options. My problem with people like the freedom from religion people is that if you are making it financially, why should you concern yourself with others? If someone is making more than me and doing it within the law, then I don't care, more power to them. Yet I'm barely making enough to provide for my family and these people that more than likely make enough that finding food to feed there family isn't an issue is attempting to make things harder on me and others like me. That is my issue, the selfishness and uncaring attitude of theirs is ridiculous!

As a PK (preachers kid), and as a pastor, I agree with you! I was asked to kept detailed records of my time. Indeed, clergy do work and study 60,70 and even 80 hours a week. It takes about 20 hours to research and write a sermon, choose the hymns that go with the sermon, and if it is a very small parish, the pastor may also do the bulletin. This is in addition to traveling from place to place visiting the sick and dying, meeting with couples and individuals for pastoral and spiritual and marriage counseling, meeting with committees and boards, community activities, etc., and then hope you have time to wash your cloths, mow the lawn, have a social and a private life. We lived modestly, and holidays were celebrated in between church activities, phone calls, and persons at the door of the parsonage needing help.

FFRF, please look at the bigger picture. Every church that I know helps the poor, keeps elderly people's heat on during winter, helps people pay for drug prescriptions they might not be able, food,etc. Start taxing churches and the burden on local, state and federal government agencies would be unbearable.

Please keep in mind at one time there was no "legal" federal income tax at all. The changes came in the 1940s. "Lawful" federal taxes are excise and tariffs - NOT sales or income taxes.

Courts have ruled that the government must have a compelling reason to limit freedom of religion, but guess who gets to decide what is compelling the same government (federal courts) who wants to infringe those rights. It is important to remember that the Declaration of Independence speaks of "inalienable rights" granted by our Creator, not by our government. Since they were not given by the government, neither does the government have the right to take them away.

You personally may be fine with them taking away the rights of religious people, but keep in mind that the same government that tramples our first amendment rights will gladly trample others rights (including those that you hold dear) as well.

Taxing religious institutions is a bad thing because it entangles government with religion to undermine both.

Just because the U.S. contained a few bonafide Christians doesn't make it a "Christian nation;" it is not and as long as the Constitution is the supreme law of the land it never will be. It doesn't matter one iota what religion or lack of religion the majority of the nation espouse. The Constitution cannot be any clearer on this point. If the founders, who were overwhelmingly Christian, wanted to make Christianity The State Religion they would have done so yet they expressly and clearly did not make whatever sects and varieties of Christianity mandatory denominationalism.

Perhaps some should understand that "Christian nation" is a deceptive descriptor, a supposition that a vast majority of the people who claim to be Christian hold beliefs and have a so-called "value" system that is often diametrically opposed to authentic Christianity. The term does not imply that the federal government grants special privileges only to Christian sects.

Except the term is not used in a fashion to denote merely the majority is of the various Christian sects. That is just the answer given to the non-denominationalist set. If you were merely talking about "majority rules," it would not be so important. Our system is designed to prevent tyranny of a disruptive and destabilizing majority. Such distinctions would be meaningless if that was its true meaning.

People who use the term "Christian Nation" grossly misrepresent a majority of worldly and non-church-going people across America. The beneficial influence of a Gideon-army-like few real Christians does not speak for the immoral majority, nor does the immoral majority on the broad and easy (not narrow and hard) road to Hell speak for genuine Christian saints.

What the definition of a "Christian Value System" is will vary wildly from sect to sect. Or worse, get descriptions which are either circular, self-referential or completely objectively meaningless.

Thank God that churches and synagogues and mosques can still discriminate when hiring people using federal taxpayer supplied funds. Churches and synagogues and mosques can still use the equivalent of Bonafide Occupational Qualifications to use federal funds for proselytizing. Judeo-Christian can Biblically advocate during elections from the pulpit without losing their tax-exempt status.

By forcing Christian organizations to go against their beliefs, to provide insurance that pays for abortion and contraception, I really see how the Obama administration is church-friendly. Not!

Challenges in court to religious exemptions go back at least to 1969 and the [ tax-exempt? ] Freedom from Religion Foundation has worked against this since 1996. The satanic Wisconsin district-court-judge Barb Crabb (an appropriate first-and-last name) was appointed to the court in 1979 when Obama was not yet 18 by non other than Jimmy Carter.

Many of our Founding Fathers wanted as few taxes as possible because the power to tax is the power to destroy. Here in Massachusetts a few years ago there was a movement to tax churches more. The ultimate targets for the politicians pushing for more taxes were Catholic churches and big mainstream Protestant Churches.

One problem though. A survey showed the big churches could handle the new taxes . But hundreds and hundreds of small and storefront Evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant churches would be driven out of existence as surely as if our state had become the New Police State.

We must remember that the Founding Fathers addressed the issue of the obligations and the limits of the federal government. The Constitution leaves it to the sovereign states to handle most matters, although you wouldn't know that from current practice of many decades.

A better argument would be to invoke a more modern SCOTUS ruling, Lemon v Kurtzman. Removing the tax breaks entangles the government with religion in a way which violates the establishment clause.

Taxing denominational sectarian religious organizations gives them a say in the government in a way which they must not have. Plus it gives government a say in religion which they must not have.

Anti-religious hate-crime extremists favor the expansion of the federal government's powers and funding. When they hold office they seek or accept exemptions from these same powers for themselves, as is happening with the exemption of Congress from the Obamascare law that was passed by subversives alone.

It's interesting that people are so aware of the tax benefit clergy gets (tax-free housing allowance) but are rarely aware of the tax burden that clergy are saddled with (mistreated as self-employed for FICA, even when they are employed as staff of a church or denomination). So we pay 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare instead of 7.65%.

Yet another proof of the war against faith. Aside from the foolishness of it I wonder if the people pushing this have thought it through. If churches ultimately pay taxes then there are no restrictions in political involvement. Its one big step towards a functional theocracy. Be careful what you wish for.

Either way this has absolutely no hope of standing but they keep wasting your time and money.

Back in the beginnings of federal income taxation, for reasons of consideration for the military and clergy giving up the right to determine where and how they would like to live in order to fulfill their duties to which they were called by God and or their country, the portion of their remuneration required for housing for themselves and their families was exempted from taxable income. Now we come to an upside-down anti-Christian immoral majority in which anything done by Christian Churches is liable to bring a suit against them while it is demonically tolerated to add Islamic holy days to school and municipal calendars, incorrect for a child to pray or speak of God out loud in school while Muslims without a permit can block public thoroughfare to kneel and pray.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of religion. Now it is only applied to force Christian Churches to abandon their calling to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ publicly and to minister well being in His Name to the sick and needy.

God's Church will continue to fulfill God's calling no matter what the government protects or hinders. The people of America will suffer great harm when illogical, misguided lawyers, politicians, and jurists sever the roots of our ethical system and then wonder why there are not enough jails, why few pay their taxes, why few will serve in the military, why few care about feeding the poor, why the dollar has lost its place as the world's currency, why medical care has become unaffordable and ceases to exist, why people are forced to barricade themselves behind walls to protect themselves, why all the people who can afford to have fled the country, and why they did not listen to the wisdom of our American Founders like our Father, George who left us with this thought: This government will only work if it is exercised by God-fearing citizens who know that they are endowed by their Creator with rights and responsibilities to seek the welfare of all as His Word declares.

I'm thinking that after the devastation has run its course through the earth, there will be some small Christian communities that arise and somehow manage to gently instill hope in mankind that they are children of a loving Father, rescued from themselves by the dying and rising of His Son, our Brother, Jesus Christ, and encouraged to trust, heal, help, forgive, and govern as led by the Holy Spirit as we pay attention to the Gospel and the whole counsel of God in His Word.

While the picture of the "parsonage" of the "church" attached to the pro-FFRF article is a beautiful building, the church is actually now an arts center and the parsonage is now a music studio.

Seems a bit misleading.

Three things I would like to say as priest who welcomes dialogue with those of different faiths, whether theistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic:

First, I would be glad for everyone to get the housing tax break we do, as long as they share in the jacked up self-employment taxes and fees we pay. Clergy are employees, but having to pay taxes, SS, and Medicaid as if self employed.

Second, I'm fine giving atheist clergy a tax exemption as long as they admit that their religion is a religion based on a superstitious stance about the nature of ultimate reality. If you can't prove or disprove the reality of God in the same decisive way you can prove that equilateral triangles have the same interior angles, then it is a superstition stance, not an empirical proposition. Organized atheism is the organized religion or irreligion, but I would vote against giving them all the same benefits I enjoy both as a Christian and a community citizen.

Third, I am actually fine with extending clergy tax benefits and responsibilities to all non-profit ministers who do community work: social workers, teachers, counselors, community organizers, etc. We should all be assisting in different ways, from different angles, with different skills to increase the health and well being of individuals and communities in body, mind, and spirit. So I welcome all the help I can get, and would advocate for all the benefits possible for all who work in the helping professions.

You live in a big city, I can tell.

Welcome to small town South Dakota. My wife is a church leader and we live in a frigging house trailer.

I can tell you for a fact that the majority do not get paid more than $30,000, but do have to pay 15.3% social security and medicare tax, do not receive anything towards their retirement, have to also be a secretary, bookkeeper, janitor and lawn care person for the Church.

The larger geographic entity, in my case the ELCA (Lutheran), is a synod. Lay people on the synod council, with support and input from the bishop's office, draw up salary guidelines. The pension is significantly less than 18%, though I don't remember the exact number. Housing allowance when there is no parsonage depends on the local market and is agreed upon by the pastor and church council.

In more densely populated regions, I'm sure pay is better because congregations can afford more.

Some people are conflating the issue of clergy housing allowance for income tax exemption and real estate tax for properties owned by churches. The issue being discussed here is the first. The second is something that any 501(c)(3) organization benefits from, whether they are religious or not.

Since all pastors who file with a housing allowance file as self-employed individuals, the overall level of tax they pay is higher than most other employees. Some times their churches or denominations make some sort of adjustment to help with the self-employment tax, but this is not always the case.

It is hard to make statements on clergy salaries since the variety of contexts creates wide disparities in salaries (e.g., rural vs. urban, solo pastor vs. multi-pastor staff, small congregation vs. large congregation). The National Association of Church Business Administrators has some resources for understanding these things well, but simplistic pronouncements are not any easier to make about clergy than other professions.

This ruling has a very small chance at succeeding. With respect to the judiciary, I disagree with district-court judge Crabb. I abhor her biased anti-ministers opinion, but believe she is in the minority of even liberal judges.

The Ninth-District US Court of Appeals (based out of San Francisco) has heard similar cases and voted overwhelmingly in favor of housing allowance cases. I understand her satanic shrewdness to stay the decision until a high court visits it, if, the until, the virulent anger dies down and she and her demonic ilk can sneak it in sometime in the future when no one is looking.

As a retired pastor, I depend upon the housing allowance exemption to help pay my bills. If I were required to pay taxes, I would be in deep trouble. I, as many pastors today, earned a very low salary. I am trying to live on much less than the average U.S. salary and even need to work part time to provide necessities. There are very few of us, rare indeed, who are earning the alleged thousands of those rare and very-exceptional high-profile ministers. Rather than spending time on a trying to eliminate a minister's exemption, I suggest that the U.S. look at the exemptions giving to its corporations, many of which boast of high profits, but pay no or very little taxes!

Did you know that nursing homes, even for profit ones, and social service agencies, and churches are exempt from property taxes? They only have to apply for the exemption in some states, and also get a refund if they did pay. The concept is these organizations benefit the community and provide charitable services. I think the reasoning is that the benefit to the community is far greater than any tax that could be collected. Now if the church owned shopping malls and car washes and their interest was commercial profit, that should be taxed. This housing allowance is being viewed as part of a minister's compensation, but should be viewed as a charitable act provided by the church so their minister has a place to live while serving the congregation.

This is one of the best explanations I've seen. However, for many who cry foul over the allowance, it is not about fairness, it is about personal hatred against not merely the concept of religion but mainly against those persons who espouse the Christian religion. Most would self-identify as liberal and would scream if tax breaks for nonprofits was removed entirely.

The two occupational groups that have the benefit of tax free housing allowance are Clergy and Military. If the law takes away the exemption from Clergy, shouldn't it also do the same with the Military? Or does the argument made in the US District Court go away when allowing the Military to keep their exemption? If so, isn't that selective discrimination?

As a pastor's wife, and I don't think their example of what a pastor makes is accurate. Most full time pastors in the state of Indiana make roughly $30,000. The housing allowance is set by the pastor. Ours for example is only $3500. In order to get that nontaxable portion of the income, we have to prove that we in fact spent the $3500+. This $3500 includes anything we buy for our parsonage (including repairs, upgrades etc) that is not either food nor clothing. What you don't also see being brought up is the fact that we spend out of pocket, roughly $4000 a year for medical insurance just for my husband with a ridiculous deductible because as a full time pastor is is required by the conference and church. While it may look fine on paper, this consideration and ruling by this judge will do more harm than good. Its just myself and my husband and I work full time and most months, we barely break even with the church paying for his cell phone, home phone, internet and TV with minimal debt and only one car with a $150 a month payment.

I am a full time associate pastor at a medium conservative Baptist church. I do take advantage of the housing allowance and it does help me make ends meet. Excluding my housing allowance, I make less than minimum wage. It is my understanding that the tax break originated to encourage clergy to remain in the clergy because they were considered a stabilizing influence in their communities.

It might be good for those that don't understand to know how clergy are employed; in accordance with the IRS and Social Security Administration, clergy are considered "self-employed;" therefore they pay a much higher percentage, as they have no employer to pay 7.5% of FICA (as employers are mandated to do) they must pay the whole 15% in SECA. Even pastors in very structured denominations, are considered are (for taxes purposes) considered self-employed. That is not the case for most other professions.

Ok, I can understand the argument that housing allowances for Obama and his senators and reps like Reid and Schumer and Durbin, van Hollen and Waxman and Pelosi violate equal protection under the law. But then so do tax benefits for all nonprofits. Why should an anti-religious nonprofit get a break? Many of them generate millions in politically-partisan-agenda or pro-homosexual-agenda or pro-abortionist-agenda or pro-evolutionist-agenda or pro-antisemitic agenda or pro-feminist-sexist agenda or pro-pornography-agenda revenue without paying the same taxes as a corporation. Why do home owners get a break over renters who are not landlords - being that home owners have to pay their own utilities repair and upkeep?

The problem is that our ridiculous, politically corrupted tax code is anything but fair. There is no way to achieve equal protection under the law.

A flat tax on every citizen and organization would end the fairness issue. Most of the liberals who cry about ministers getting unfair benefits oppose such logical and FAIR treatment for all persons.

What I don't understand is why pastors need a house to live in. Why can't they live in a cardboard box, living the same life as Jesus would have. I am an atheist and I think we should reward people. To those who say they are, while making a profit, I make about $35,000 a year and can live fine. Dishwashers earn very little money, as do harassive beggars holding signs on street corners, so should they get a housing allowance? Being a member of the clergy is a choice to live a what we atheists arrogantly and baselessly misconstrue as a lie. Why should taxpayers subsidize anyone's abusive choices, including their own and especially my own, on how to connive a living to the far-reaching detriment against others?

Barbee Crabb misstated that the housing-allowance exemption provides a "benefit" to "religious persons" and "no one else," even though exempting is [purportedly to her] "not necessary" to "alleviate a special burden on religious exercise."

First of all, she did not qualify "benefit" as to whether or not it was merely financial or sociological/spiritual to "religious persons" [but] "no one else."

Second, she did not qualify what was meant by "religious persons" - as to whether such was religious clergy and/or religious parishioners and/or outsiders having a religion of crusading against typical majority religions.

Third, she did not elaborate on whether the "special burden" (which she admitted was a burden) involved money or more than money - such as mental anguish and other consequences not directly related to money.

Fourth, and typical of heretics who embrace non-scientific evolutionist mythology and who misuse an environment not their own but instead belongs to a human-behaviors-and-misbehaviors-recording Creator, she impersonalized the "burdening" (against whatever?) by failing to associate persons with what is involved but instead substituting an abstraction called "religious" "exercise" (whatever is meant by "religious" and whatever is meant by "exercise") for actual people involved with and participating in religious allegiance and worship. Such relegation-to-conceptual-abstraction absurdity is also characteristic of those who de-personalize problems of firearms misuse and alcohol misuse by blaming guns for deciding on "their" own (non-existent!) free wills (which firearms do not intrinsically have free wills whatsoever) to murder people, and/or faulting alcohol for deciding on its own (obviously ludicrous!) free choice (which benign-by-itself-substance alcohol does not intrinsically have any free choice whatsoever) to abuse by itself choosing to get persons dangerously drunk whether or not the free-willed persons themselves want to do that.