For example, the lifting of the Johnson Amendment would be devastating to the idea of the First Amendment.

I believe that religious institutions should have no more rights than any other non-profit. By giving them the freedom of not paying some taxes, the US and the states are losing vast amounts of tax income. Thr should be no law providing tax-free housing for clergy unless there is a similar law concerning tax-free housing for a non-profit CEO or Executive Director. Churches use the same government provided safety protection as all other citizens. Why should I pay the fire department or police to protect a church if they are unwilling to pay the taxes that support these departments?

Despite what the Christians have told us the Emperor Constantine saw the damage religion was causing the Roman empire. He decreed all religions should be accepted "The Closing of the Western Mind" Charles Freeman.

The founders were Deists and believed a god did not interfere in Human endeavors. Religion being religion are and will always be about power. They are about distributing resources and when resources become in short supply then they become virulent. That is where we are in some parts of the world and increasingly so here. It is an overpopulation phenomena and becomes a vicious cycle.

In this country we still have some rights. One, supported by past Supreme Court rulings says one cannot be forced to say pledges. For me, I love to cross out the inane 'in god we trust' on the paper money which, by the way was not installed until the 50's under McCarthyism. It came on the coins earlier but not immediately after the country was started.

"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion" Treaty of Tripoli 1797

Amen, totally agree. Of course my issue is that i'm quite certain that nothing will make the US government listen to reason, it seems only concerned with the wealthy elite and not for anything else but money and guns will it turn an ear, i don't know how it will die, but i do not think it will be pleasant.

Not only should there be a definitive separation of the two, churches ought to be regulated and taxed like any other business entity.

Yes! The church never wanted a separation. They want the power to decide how people live and wht rights they do and don't have. Church officials want to be just as powerful as any dictator head of state is.

The only way the federal government could have a separation of church and state would be if they discriminated against hiring those who won't take an oath to serve their community against all gods. Our laws, our courthouses, our pledge and our anthem which are controlled by the federal government are littered with religious love.

It's kind of ironic that in order to take the oath you have to place your hand on a bible. Why not any one of Dr. Seuss's books?

The church doesn't receive tax exemption as some First Amendment exception regarding a government but because it's considered a charity and, "...like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions." And like other charities it can't then use that money as a de facto political group. The court wrote: "The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose." So provides the following exemption restrictions, "the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy." For example, "Partisan activity of churches; Overtly partisan actions by churches could threaten their 501(3) tax-exempt status due to the Johnson Amendment of the Internal Revenue Code. In one notable example, the former pastor of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, North Carolina "told the congregation that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic Sen. John Kerry should either leave the church or repent". The church later expelled nine members who had voted for Kerry and refused to repent, which led to criticism on the national level. The pastor resigned and the ousted church members were allowed to return." But charities are afforded other latitudes in political involvement, "...the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities." And then there's this freedom of speech clarification, "It's important to note that under either standard, most organizations are unlikely to run into the upper limit of the amount of permitted lobbying. It's also important to note that 'lobbying' is defined pretty narrowly in this context as working to secure passage—or defeat—of specific legislation. 'Advocacy' for general public policy outcomes (like lower taxes or better public education) is not lobbying and there is no limit on public charities' freedom to speak out on issues in that way."

The argument that if we tax churches then they will get to endorse or have a say in government is weak at best.
They already do.

Tax the f**kers! Ever since evangelicals openly declared their campaigns to try to steer the politics of this nation, they have forfeited any shred of claim of qualifying ethically for exemption status.