A new organization in Texas called the Former Majority ...

[viki]

A new organization in Texas called the Former Majority Association for Equality (FMAFE) is
  offering 500 college scholarships limited to white males only. The groups web site insists that
  it is not a white supremacist group, nor does it support any group or individual which promotes
  racial bigotry or segregation. Rather, it seeks to assist persons who are unable to obtain other
  scholarship help, due to their race or gender. The group, founded in 2010, has obtained
  501(3) tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service, so donations to its scholarship
  fund are tax-deductible.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

The Federal and state governments, as well as most European nations, typically do not tax
  churches, even though they use such public services as fire and police protection. This practice
  presents challenging conflicts, especially in balancing freedom of religion with the prohibition on
  establishing a state religion.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

[pikon]

Answer to Question 1

1. Is it ethical for private groups such as the FMAFE to restrict scholarship help by race,
gender, or national origin, as they wish? Develop philosophical arguments in support of
your answer.
2. Is it ethical for the IRS to grant this tax-favored status to a group that restricts its benefits
to white males? If the Ku Klux Klan established a scholarship program with the same
eligibility rules, should it also receive this tax-favored status? How would you
differentiate between the FMAFE and the KKK in evaluating the ethics of their
scholarship programs?

Answer to Question 2

1. On the one hand, by granting this preferential tax status, does the government actually
seem to be promoting religion? Develop arguments that it is and then develop a critique
of those arguments.
2. On the other hand, if the government taxed religion, would it seem to be infringing on
the freedom of expression of religion? Develop arguments that it is and then develop a
critique of those arguments.
3. The Internal Revenue Service has never officially defined religion, although it has
indicated some criteria. The IRS has been reluctant to impose a government-mandated
definition of religion, as that might violate the separation of church and state. Yet, it
needs to make clear that these tax exemptions are only available to certain
organizations. How would you define religion for these purposes?