Random issue I was contemplating tonight.
I am an atheist, but that being said I actually get quite annoyed when people attack religion via politics using the 1st amendment. The amendment simply states that congress shall make no law ESTABLISHING a religion, which was an obvious strike against the state run churches the people of America had come from under. Many states had official religions, but of course the nation as a whole had no official religion.
My question is this, does the US government, by way of tax exempt status actually establish a religion? I realize that there is no religion actually established by this status, but the government can choose what religions meet the requirements for this status and what don't, and in a way that could be seen as establishing religions. I realize that's not establishing a single religion, but I still feel that in a way it goes against the spirit of the amendment. I have to admit I'm partially irked by the large sums of money many churches collect without ever having to take taxes into consideration. In my area various religions own large chunks of land which due to consolidation and downsizing have become unused. While most businesses would have to sell off something like this for whatever they can get and lead the way to future development the churches seem content to sit on the property, partially because they are not paying any taxes on the land, thus taking away incentive to do anything with land or property in any timely manner.
On a more ideological note I feel that churches should compete like businesses in a community and pay their fair share. As money flows around a town or city if a church is seen as an important enough place then it will have no issue raising the money necessary to pay taxes. Part of the reason I've always been very kind to religion is that I think in most cases religion is very kind to communities, and while I think churches should perhaps be taxed, it's because of the services they provide for a community that they would be in a good position to take advantage of deductions and such anyways and pay very little. I just feel that there should be a solid record of what they would owe, what they've done and what they've contributed in the form of taxes or services.
I realize many of the services churches typically provide can be paralleled to non-religious non-profit organizations, but once again I think accounts can easily be separated. In normal accounting procedures many different parts manufactured in the same plant have to be tied as best as possible to the overall costs and overhead of the plant, and in the same way I think you could separate a church soup kitchen from the regular religious ceremonies and associated costs.
I'd like to hear some thoughts on the issue.