free speech and subsidized faith

In yet another example of someone who doesn't understand the difference between freedom of speech and freedom from repercussion, about one hundred pastors will endorse candidates from the pulpit this coming weekend in order to challenge the law saying non-profits and churches (both tax exempt) cannot directly endorse candidates.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a group of lawyers who argue on behalf of perceived persecution of Christians plan on defending the pastors when they, inevitably, go to court. One of the ADF spokesmen is quoted as saying,

We believe that a pastor has a right to speak whatever he believes without fearing the government will somehow censor what he says or threaten to take away his tax exemption.

The group of pastors will record their sermons and send them to the IRS in an attempt to bait a lawsuit believing they can challenge the law, and win, in Federal Court. The law has been on the books since 1954. My question is, if it is "unconstitutional" for the state to say tax-exempt status is dependent upon not engaging directly in politics, why is it not "unconstitutional" for churches to have tax exemption to begin with? They are some of the largest, most influential businesses and land-holders in America and we currently gain no tax revenue from them.

A group of monks in planning on building a rather large, gaudy monastery in Wyoming and neighboring ranchers are upset. They believe the monastery will adversely affect the environment, traffic and the area. One clear thinking woman said,

"The plans look like someone took an old cathedral and just dropped it onto our beautiful landscape. As their contribution to this community will be prayer rather than property taxes the town will take a large loss on the currently paid property taxes. As for prayer, I am sure we are all grateful for that but are capable of doing that ourselves."

Think about that. Every down-town church, mosque, and synagogue including Saint Patrick's in NYC and the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels in downtown Los Angeles occupies land which would otherwise be used to generate revenue for the city and state through taxes and commerce. Instead, we subsidize these organizations by saying they do not have to pay taxes. Maybe it's time we re-think this?

The articles I discuss are here and here.