Seems to me that the distinction that churches are exempt from taxes partly hinges on their non-profit, or not-for-profit status. Now it's nice for those who can get tax breaks, as we surely all could do with a few tax breaks after the double and triple taxation effects which Tim describes. But really it does seem kind of artificial -- what is a church, who gets to decide, and as TruthMonger said who gets to decide on which church status gets revoked because of statements which annoy the rule maker. Can I be a church and not pay taxes too? (eg. Can I claim to be a member of `The Cult of the Dead Cow' or whatever and not pay taxes?) Scientologists are a fine example of a "church" which is largely profit motivated. Even if you drew the line at non-profit organisations that is easily manipulated -- non-profits can pay good wages, and siphon money out in other creative ways. (Like those TV evangelical Bible bashers with their fleets of Rolls Royces who get found out and disgraced now and then.) The whole thing is a mess, loop holes everywhere, complicated rules will get written, etc. Now it is an interesting question as to whether it is a good idea to encourage governments to tax churches or not. Taxation is a weapon. Are the churches doing anything useful to our cause? I think not on average... religious right helped fuel the CDA, and is busting for another one (cf far right censorship woman cross posting from fight-censorship). Not taxing them is subsidising their activities. Can we start a `church of crypto anarchy' and have people make tax exempt donations to fund over throwing the state by undermining governments ability to collect taxes? Yeah, right. Adam -- Now officially an EAR violation... Have *you* exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`