[GT40FIED]

Well Will, I'm not going to quote your post because it'd be like *BAM*...half a page. Needless to say most of that is your business and yours alone. I don't really know that I can comment on your beliefs because...well...they're yours. No one's coming after you for them, certainly not me. Everyone has a reason for believing whatever it is they believe and that's cool. But creating a tax free environment for religious purposes is dangerous (to me) for a few reasons.

First of all, many churches have practices that discriminate against people/things. The catholic church won't allow women to become priests. Just about any church condemns gays no matter how devout their faith is. Many churches still preach against things like interracial dating. I'm not sure the government should condone let alone help support things like that. There's a laundry list of things that many churches rail against that are perfectly legal and indeed part of our freedom (of course not all churches rock it so hardcore, but you get the idea). I'm not saying that people shouldn't believe whatever they want, I'm saying that maybe it's not a good idea for the government to support it by giving them a free ride (unless the government wants to take a stance against these things as well...but fat chance).

Secondly, who gets to decide who is and who isn't a church? Contrary to popular belief, not all churches are christian and not all churches do good works, but they still retain the benefits allowed by the government. Take Scientology for example. It's recognized as a religious institution which thereby gives it tax exempt status regardless of the fact that it threatens violence against those who leave it (through the "fair game doctorine") and publicly humiliates anyone who tries to help others leave the cult. Oops...did I say cult? Anyway, the point is that scientology rakes in huge amounts of cash as people try to become a "clear" or an "OT" and none of it has any clear benefit to anyone...regardless of what Tom Cruise says. For fuck's sake, they locked a girl in a closet for 17 days until she starved to death just to keep her quiet. Yes, this is an extreme case, but I don't think that the churches who don't provide community services should reap the same rewards as those that do. I mean any crazy asshole can make their own religion.

As for other NPOs...don't even get me started. The Red Cross is probably the biggest...and it's pathetically mismanaged. The amount of money they take in versus the money they give out is phenominally unbalanced. They've even been the subject of federal inquiries and public scrutiny but no one will ever speak against them because...well...they're The Red Cross. I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the tax exempt status for EVERYONE. I do, however, think it's very important to take a closer look at what exactly the organization gives back for what it takes in. Ideally a NPO would break even...taking in enough money to employ it's people and do whatever it is that it does (with maybe a little left over for possible expansion or some kind of emergency). But that's often not the case. Many NPOs take in large sums of money and just hang onto it even if there's work to be done.

I can only speak of churches in respect to catholic churches since that's where I got my theological education. I realize other churches are structured MUCH differently, but I take particular exception with the catholic church. In my opinion it doesn't qualify as a NPO. They do profit since, much like The Red Cross, they often take in much more money than they give back. That's known as profit. A lot of that money goes into the arch diocese and god only knows what they do with it.