Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Trump on Removing Tax exempt status

slo1
Posts: 5,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state. Just imagine, for example, the roles which churches played in the civil rights movement. Or look at the Quaker influence on things like abolition and prison reform.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? "
- W. B. Yeats -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Greyparrot
Posts: 18,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 2:39:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

I can't come up with any good reasons for churches to have tax exempt status in the first place.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 2:48:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It doesn't.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:21:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

The private observance of one's faith is almost universally perceived as sacred and unobjectionable (at least within the U.S.). The government can implement tax policies that encourage it, without eliciting strong objections from the public. Politics is perceived as temporal and contentious. A religious institution cannot become a political actor without sacrificing those harmless, and in fact, meritorious, qualities the government originally intended to promote.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? "
- W. B. Yeats -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Bob13
Posts: 791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

As long as religious institutions are non-profit organizations, they should be tax-exempt. Being involved in politics shouldn't remove that status as long as they don't donate to political campaigns.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:06:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.

Actually, they are. It's sort of a founding principle of the country, which is why churches have never been taxed on any real level. It's sort of enshrined in Supreme Court ruling.

"The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years-religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com...

At this point, a challenge could go either way at the Supreme Court. But if we're going to be discuss the principles involved, let's not pretend that the churches were all taxed before 1894 and that we all of the sudden made a blanket non-profit exemption and were nice enough to include churches. Churches were wrapped into non-profit tax law because they were already exempt from most taxes due to the Establishment Clause.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? "
- W. B. Yeats -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
dylancatlow
Posts: 13,537
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching'

" I have shown you not one but TWO instances in which he supported the ostensibly "incorrect" policy respecting the Iraq War, and you're here still trying to explain it away. This is your religion. This is literally your second religion."

c:
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:20:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2016 4:33:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching'

" I have shown you not one but TWO instances in which he supported the ostensibly "incorrect" policy respecting the Iraq War, and you're here still trying to explain it away. This is your religion. This is literally your second religion."

c:

lol maybe that's an exaggeration. there's no church of donald trump quite yet ... but they're getting there.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2016 4:06:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.

Actually, they are. It's sort of a founding principle of the country, which is why churches have never been taxed on any real level. It's sort of enshrined in Supreme Court ruling.

"The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years-religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com...

At this point, a challenge could go either way at the Supreme Court. But if we're going to be discuss the principles involved, let's not pretend that the churches were all taxed before 1894 and that we all of the sudden made a blanket non-profit exemption and were nice enough to include churches. Churches were wrapped into non-profit tax law because they were already exempt from most taxes due to the Establishment Clause.

And how do you defend the argument that partisan political activity constitutes 'free exercise' of religion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 8:02:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/11/2016 5:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 4:06:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.

Actually, they are. It's sort of a founding principle of the country, which is why churches have never been taxed on any real level. It's sort of enshrined in Supreme Court ruling.

"The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years-religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com...

At this point, a challenge could go either way at the Supreme Court. But if we're going to be discuss the principles involved, let's not pretend that the churches were all taxed before 1894 and that we all of the sudden made a blanket non-profit exemption and were nice enough to include churches. Churches were wrapped into non-profit tax law because they were already exempt from most taxes due to the Establishment Clause.

And how do you defend the argument that partisan political activity constitutes 'free exercise' of religion.

It does. There are religious teachings which explicitly demand it. For an example, my family has historically been Quaker, and a fundamental tenet of the Quaker faith is the 'Calling'. Essentially, during a meeting the Quaker can be called to address some injustice in the real world, and I gave examples of historical Calling previously (abolition and prison reform). These were pursued politically. For the government to use the threat of taxation to essentially control doctrine to the exclusion of political action is a blatant abrogation of the entire principle of separation of church and state.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? "
- W. B. Yeats -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
slo1
Posts: 5,199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2017 4:27:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Trump has indicated he will keep this promise.

I'm still conflicted. Many say there is a great opportunity to create a church that acts as a super pac that can hide where donations come from including foreign donations.

Here is
https://www.google.com...
YYW
Posts: 43,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2017 4:38:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/4/2017 4:27:00 PM, slo1 wrote:
Trump has indicated he will keep this promise.

I'm still conflicted. Many say there is a great opportunity to create a church that acts as a super pac that can hide where donations come from including foreign donations.


Here is
https://www.google.com...

The Johnson amendment does not violate the establishment or the free exercise clause. The lay speculation on how the supreme court would rule in this thread is kind of hilarious to read. Actually, it's really hilarious.

But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that Trump is looking to throw bloodthirsty evangelicals a bone. This is the bone he's going to throw them, because it's a low cost bone to throw. They'll use it to pump money into hate groups like the Family Research Council, from money that was laundered through church accounts.

Personally, I relish the idea of the Johnson amendment being revoked, because it will spell the imminent doom of the Evangelical Right. Right wing churches have already lost a lot of their legitimacy and they have been losing legitimacy since the 1990s. Their attendance rates are falling. They have fallen out of touch with America, and have been out of touch since the 80s.

When they re-orient their activities to "Jesus wants you to re-Elect Donald Trump!" that will be the end of it for a lot of people. The most vacuous idiots will eat it up, but it will drive people out of those kinds of churches, depreciating the money they have to work with in the first instance, and will reduce their influence in the long run.
YYW
Posts: 43,540
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2017 4:44:08 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
The problem here is that there are a lot of very stupid right wing people who, in their weekly ritual, go to church to hear about how all the gays are going to go to hell and how abortion is a mortal sin and blah blah blah....

That kind of "ministry" has been kept in check by the Johnson amendment, which has made it possible for a lot of people of different political beliefs within the same faith to go out and justify to themselves attending church alongside, for example, mouth breathing social conservatives.

But no more. In the short term and the long term, unleashing those hell-fire-and-damnation ministers in this way will drive people under the age of 35 and 40 out of the church; it will, with certainty, depreciate their membership rates now and in the future; and it will prevent new people from joining.

Repealing the Johnson amendment means that the ceiling of church attendance (and, by implication, donations) is what we see right now. Mainline America has left that sort of evangelical garbage behind a long time ago, and those few holdouts who have not left will go as soon as the changes come into effect.

That's the great irony of this "bone" which Trump is going to throw to evangelical white Christians.

The other irony is that with the Johnson amendment repealed, Muslims and Jews are going to have the same freedoms to get political. And they will. And that will cut against evangelical political influence as well.

These people are total idiots.
Stymie13
Posts: 3,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2017 4:47:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

Except for PRIVATELY FUNDED, no GOVERNMENT TIE ins including Medicaid, grants, appropriations, etc... I'm for removing ALL tax free enclaves for any organization except:

Food banks
Animal shelters
Homeless shelters
Rehab facilities

I may have missed a catogory but that eliminates most. Any organization that receives local, state, federal funds OR INCENTIVES should not be tax free.

Rewrite the 501c3 law specifically for those categories. HOWEVER, the offset:

Raise the charitable contribution deduction for individuals, non-corporate entities, and corporate entities including ANY RELIGIOUSLY AFFILATED organization. Double, triple, quadruple... I don't care how high the deduction goes.