Given a limitted amount of public space, it may not be possible to accommodate all those churches in need. Some functionary of the government must then decide which churches may hold their services on public property.

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for objections at this point. First of all, if a church couldn't afford any land whatsoever to conduct services - an extremely unrealistic scenario at the best of times - then services could simply be held in any member's house. (Which is what most religions have been doing for millennia, including Christianity.) This is a point that was already discussed in my post. Second, in the even more ludicrously unrealistic scenario where we have dozens of churches with absolutely nowhere to meet clamoring for scarce public space that is so overused they can't even fit onto it all at once, then they'll just have to take turns just like everyone else. If some government functionary tries to block a specific church from holding their services on public land, then they can sue to assert their rights, just like they can do and regularly do already.

Which leads us back to the same argument, why must taxpayers be burdened so that a religious group may be free to worship?

Taxpayers are already burdened so that religious groups are free to worship. Because of the church tax exemption, taxpayers of other religions, or who have no religion at all, are forced to pay higher taxes to subsidize churches and make up for the money they are not paying. What I am proposing would decrease this burden, not increase it, by more fairly spreading it out among the various groups and individuals that make up our society.

However, this right has been turned into a privilege. A privilege one must pay for.

We pay for the privilege of every right we have. That's what taxes are for: to maintain and protect the society that gives us so many wonderful freedoms so that we and others can continue to enjoy those freedoms. Or did you think freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and all the rest came for free and required no effort or price?

Why single out religious organizations? There is a fitting question. Of all the non-commercial organizations which qualify as being tax exempt, why single out religious organizations for the removal of exempt status? Why not revoke all tax exemptions?

Raphael, you obviously didn't pay very close attention to my original post, where I answered this exact question in detail:

Churches are fundamentally unlike the other kinds of groups that usually declare not-for-profit status. Charities and educational institutions, for example, serve all people equally. However, churches do not. They are free to discriminate, and do discriminate, against people who do not share their beliefs (this is called the "ministerial exemption"). They can and do discriminate against people for being gay, for being women, for being unmarried, for their age, for having health problems, or for virtually any other reason... At the very least, these groups should pay taxes if they intend to treat their employees in this way.

In addition, unlike other tax-exempt entities, churches can and very often do make a substantial profit. A great number of church leaders enjoy wildly expensive and lavish lifestyles. What is so objectionable about asking these incredibly wealthy groups to pay taxes on the money they take in?

Since this thread is now just rehashing objections that I've already dealt with, I'm closing comments.

Of all the taxes, porperty tax is the one I am least able to support a right that is held by churches. However, our founding fathers did recognize that the ownership of property is an unalienable right. However, this right has been turned into a privilege. A privilege one must pay for. No one should have to pay the government rent for land which is not owned by the government. But then, what right does a church have to own property? Why not strip all churches of their lands, and have them find some other means to exercise their religion?

Why single out religious organizations? There is a fitting question. Of all the non-commercial organizations which qualify as being tax exempt, why single out religious organizations for the removal of exempt status? Why not revoke all tax exemptions?

The taxing of churches is a tax on religious liberty.

Why am I not vocal about taxation of speech or the press? I am, but this topic was not about those. I am opposed to taxation which is not voluntary on a personal basis. While a great deal of revenue is produced by the taxation of businesses, that revenue ultimately comes out of the pocket of the individual. Sale tax would be voluntary, as it is possible for a person adopt a lifestyle in which he does not purchase anything. I do not have a problem with a church having to pay sales tax. Worship does not require the purchase of goods. Worship, with a group, does require a place to worship. And while that place need not be owned by the church, it will inevitably place a burden on the taxpayer.

And you still have not explained how A) taxing people in order to pay for the government services they benefit from is a violation of individual rights (do you also regard it as a violation of your "inalienable rights" that you have to put money into a vending machine in order to get a soda out of it?), and B) what makes churches special in this regard. The first amendment makes other guarantees than freedom of religion, yet you apparently do not have the same concerns about taxing organizations whose principal concern is speech or the press, or petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. Why single out religious organizations?

I also think you totally missed the point of what I was trying to say. The value of the building wasn't really important (though I'm sure that religious buildings across the country collectively hold property several times that value), though I was admittedly trying to highlight the absurd extravagance of some religious buildings. Replace "one billion" with "ten thousand," read it again, and please answer the question at the end.

Alex,
I also believe the Governments have failed in their duty to secure unalienable rights of its citizens. Paying rent to the state to continue to live on owned property is an infringement of an unalienable right to own property. The Governements should spend less time figuring out what they can do, and more time figuring out what they should do. There are methods of taxation in which a person chooses to be taxed. For example, the "fair tax" (www.fairtax.org), if implimented by the federal governement and states, would go farther than any other tax system to limit the impact on individual rights.

But, what makes churches different? Other than 2000 years of precedence dating back to the Roman Empire's tax exemption of religious property, there are the first two clauses of the first amendment. They are rights which the government is reminded to secure. That the government has failed to secure those unalienable rights which were not expressly defined in the Bill of Rights, should be an affront to everyone.

It doesn't matter that no particular religion is targetted for destruction. All churches would exist only by the grace of the government. In a time of governemental need, taxes could be substantially increased. The increased tax burden on the people would cause a decrease in donations. People simply do not donate as much when they are suffering hardships. Churches, now taxable, would not only be liable for the higher taxes, they must pay with a decreased revenue. It is possible to increase the tax burden to eliminate all churches who rely solely on contributions of the less then well off.

The power to tax is the power to control or destroy.

I disagree: the church tax exemption is what constitutes the "power to control". The arcane and often unclear restrictions that churches must adhere to in order to retain their tax-exempt status - endorsing issues but not candidates? - coercively limit their speech and prevent them from voicing their opinions on a wide variety of issues. Removing this exemption would permit all churches to speak freely without fear that they will be disadvantaged for it, and would thus lessen government control over churches.

As far as "the power to destroy", you'll notice that no one is advocating churches be taxed differently based on what they say. They should pay taxes based only on how much property and assets they hold, just like everyone else. As I stressed in my original article, taxing a church's assets would in no way impair their ability to practice their religion, any more than the income taxes levied on individual congregants prevent them from doing so. If your religion is "don't pay taxes" (like some people I could name), then maybe you have a problem, but we've already established that religious groups do not and should not have a special exemption from otherwise generally applicable laws.

Concerning Television stations: short answer is yes. Long answer is no. Short explanation of the long answer: "congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech" has never been interpretted as reading what it says.