It is quite often the case that in America especially, there is a high margin of those who claim no religious affiliation that do not see the same provisions in place as those who are outwardly believers in a specific religious tradition. Through the years there have been increasing efforts to put pressure on religious institution to abide by the same rules and regulations that those who identify as atheists or agnostics have to endure to no avail. While there is usually a confusion between separation of church and state and religious freedom in general, there are often instances where these lines should be defined much better than they traditionally are. The separation of church and state is a measure put in place so that government cannot endorse any one particular religion as a way to actually preserve religious freedom and ensure there is no participation in the particular religions by any branch of government.
You may ask then, and rightfully so, how can you tax the churches and preserve religious freedom since this would cause and intervening from government agency? This is not an equivocation in any way. Taxing the churches is not appealing to some because this means there is a blatant trust in government officials above individual pastors, but there is no good reason to think either is more trustworthy. If tax dollars are not to be trusted in the hands of politicians from religious institution, then it can be universally applied to religious organizations and their expenditures, thereby making all tax suspect. If not, then it begs the question why is the money entrusted with pastors for their situations, but not the average tax payer? There seems to be an imbalance when it comes to the privilege that one gets by simply claiming a religious affiliation and providing nothing further. Simple claims of belief should not provide any benefit from federal money.
When constructing buildings or purchasing products to compliment the establishments of religious doctrine, there should be no grey area or fuzzy lines between products and a simple gathering of people for a specific purpose. The religious belief itself may be shared by many people, and there is no reason to have to have an excuse to meet and enjoy each other's company. However, the acquisition of prime real estate, large and cavernous buildings, and the adornments that are purchased to furnish these buildings are excessive and rarely contribute to the purpose proposed by the initial planning of the establishment. There is no reason to purchase several expensive buses, marble flooring nor polished cherry wood for pews. There are not restricted to the growing epidemic of mega churches by the likes of shady televangelists, but also to the small town, local pastors who cannot seem to function without an immaculate presentation.
It is for this reason I believe that it is long overdue to tax religious organizations. This tax alone would well facilitate a major change in the funding of say, healthcare which is by far more of a universal necessity than religious belief endorsed by the government. Many different sectors could better use this money rather than excusing the unregulated purchasing power of greedy and self serving channels of purported divine information. Taxing and regulation of these institutions would enforce a standard that would make abuse less likely, and not exclude atheists and agnostics from potential beneficial services that are denied to them simply for the lack of professed belief they hold. If there are government services in place that are given to the public, they should be for the public at large and not funneled into specific interest groups that do not contribute to the health and betterment of the country in general.
