Religion
In reply to the discussion: A Note on Tax Exemptions for Churches [View all]qazplm135
(7,654 posts)the first is used in the military quite frequently...no mention of Jesus or Christian-specific themes, just a general prayer for good fortune or luck or what have you.
The second is more focused on Christianity sure, but plenty of folks are just fine with it. I'm agnostic, and I'm just fine with it. There's substantial and then there is de minimis.
See, the difference here is we are talking about and have been talking about whether something provides a benefit to the community, not whether it would provide MORE of a benefit if it were x. You think it would be "better" if they were all not religious. That's fine, but that's different from your overarching claim (barring this post where you come across much more reasonable IMO) that because it's religious there is no overall benefit.
Cherry Coke is better than regular Coke. I'm being facetious obviously, although I'll fight anyone who proclaims otherwise. But that doesn't mean regular Coke has no value.
At the end of the day, it's about actions/acts. Net positive, utilitarianism to some degree. A community center brings value, religious or not. Now, the more that religious community center makes it about religion, and the less they make it about community, then the narrower that value becomes (including up to valuable just to the members of said religion). But even then, it has value to at least part of the community.
The vast majority of those thing I am just fine with providing a tax free approach. Because they aren't operating like a for-profit business. Not for-profit entity X wants you care about this thing they think is valuable to society, not for-profit entity Y wants you to care about another thing they think is valuable to society (and they can even be in conflict with each other). I'm fine with encouraging such organizations through tax policy.
I'm also fine with doing that for religious entities (and also recognizing the need to balance BOTH clauses of Article I).