Yearly cost of religious tax exemptions

[Angrboda]

So, late addendum, as far as non-profits and whether or not that should deflect criticism. I run a non-profit, and I turn a greater (personal) profit from this than the large majority of US citizens can cobble together in "for-profit" wages.

Not-for-profit definitely doesn't mean that no profit is being made, not by a longshot.

Yes, I believe the specific criterion is that the profits of the enterprise not go to the financial inurement of a private individual or small group of such.

(IRS.GOV) Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

Oh, and the IRS and the government do go after some, e.g. Ken Ham and Scientology, to mixed results. The unfortunate fact, perhaps, is that these are difficult and expensive court cases, fighting organizations that have the money to spend, and plenty of support (and often run by clever and savvy criminals). However, an entire class of organizations shouldn't be disallowed for the abuses of the few. (And the American Atheists, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the Green Party don't serve 'everyone' either. [Political parties are 501(c)(6) if I recall rightly.] I don't know offhand whether PACs are section 501 organizations, but it wouldn't surprise me.)

(ETA: PACs are tax exempt, but under section 527 of the tax code. I recall political parties being 501(c)(6), but without doing further research, I'd have to say it's not entirely clear at this point.)

[CBA222]

I don't get you guys. First I said most churches don't use it for personal gain, which you said was irrelevant, but now you say it is relevant to whether they are non-profits or not. Churches are organized to provide a free service, not for personal gain, so what are you guys complaining about? They're perfectly eligible.

[Minimalist]

All though you might thinking their teachings are a waste of time, they do "benefit" the people.

I don't give a flying fuck about their teachings....no matter how stupid they are. As soon as they cross into the public arena by espousing political causes they assume will benefit their particular iron-age agenda they are breaking the law. Period.

If they want to teach that fucking jesus came back from the dead to absolve mankind's sins let them keep it in their fucking churches and stop trying to close Women's Health Clinics.

[Angrboda]

I don't get you guys. First I said most churches don't use it for personal gain, which you said was irrelevant, but now you say it is relevant to whether they are non-profits or not. Churches are organized to provide a free service, not for personal gain, so what are you guys complaining about? They're perfectly eligible.

Well, first of all, we're not all one monolithic block of "guys" that speak with one voice. (Some of us aren't even guys. )

Beyond that, you'll find a mixture of experience and knowledge of the subject, along with a mix of approaches. If I were to suggest the three main approaches in play, they are normative/ethical (what should be), common sense interpretive (using "common sense" definitions to reconstruct the question), historical/legalistic (exploring the legal history and its reasons).

There are a couple that are left out, I think. One is philosophical; what is the theory behind having these organizations classed separately. And comparative: how do nations around the world differ in their handling of these issues (or different periods in history, again comparative).