Rufus – Your question was framed in a manner that would induce an air of negativity towards churches. Your anecdote to the question, “organized religion regularly oversteps the boundaries provided by their not-for-profit, tax-exempt status” isn’t exactly initiating the question without a predisposed judgment.
Perhaps your initial question should have been a part of your latest response, “Why should the American people continue to shoulder the cost of allowing not just organized religion, but any not-for-profit organization. . . etc.”
About the only funding religious organizations ever receive from Government is not to cultivate religion, but to feed the destitute or care for the needy. This is mandated by the Supreme court with the provision that, “they do not proselytize or engage in sectarian instruction; serve all persons without regard to religion; follow applicable federal anti-discrimination laws; and use public monies only to serve grant-specified secular purposes.”
If you compare federal funding of religious initiatives to that of the environmental movement there is a significant discrepancy. Yet while the latest PEW research indicates that only 36% of Americans believe in anthropogenic global warming, the government funds the movement with billions of dollars and allows for its faithful to be 501c non-profit. The reverence of Gaia (Mother Earth) can certainly be construed as a religion.
The fact here is that you desire non-profit organizations to contribute to taxation to diminish a national debt and assist in funding healthcare – whereas the indiscriminate and irresponsible spending of congress, on both sides of the aisle, would be a much better rallying position. Also, it is a genuine corruption of government when the people’s representatives allow themselves to be influenced by the contributions of any non-profit or for profit organization. That’s really where the buck ought to stop. The guilt of the disingenuous politician cannot be excused by simply accusing the source of the bribes.
Lyndon Johnson’s motives for introducing 501c into religion was in fact induced by the opposition he received from some churches in his congressional district during his election bids. You can imagine the publicized aggression of a non-profit progressive group against a conservative candidate and while they can create PACs the churches, as mandated, cannot.
Had you addressed the question employing all non-profit organizations without exclusivity of religion the results and commentary may be more pervasive and certainly more generic.