The separation of church and state is a fundamental concept in the United States of America. However, these establishments are exempt from paying taxes, a duty that every American must comply with or else prove sufficiently that they give to charity. Richard Dawkins made it clear that the tax exempt status of religious establishments "is a disgrace," and he is absolutely correct.
Everyone should pay their fair share in the U.S., and that should most definitely include churches. Yes, many are charitable organizations, but to be honest, it's a subjective system of charity in many cases. Richard Dawkins believes that churches should be made to prove that they're adequately providing charitable services in order to achieve that sought-after tax exempt status.
Considering the separation prohibits the mingling of religion with governmental affairs, it seems rather preposterous that these establishments are granted exemption from paying taxes in the first place. It seemingly defeats the whole purpose of having that barrier between religion and government. Nonetheless, the IRS does seem to reward those who are charitable whether they be an individual or an organization.
Do you think religious establishments should have to prove their charitable associations? If they were taxed, there might end up being less of a decline in money in the United States, and considering that many of these facilities operates like business ventures more than houses of worship, it's really not that bad of an idea, is it?
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.