The following is a random stream of replies. Sincere apologies to the uninterested.
1) Regarding tax exempt status It is true many churches and clergy misuse this status, but then again as we've seen even at the highest levels, so do NGOs and Non-profits. Regardless of your political point of view, the burgeoning Oil for Food scandal shows that even the world's largest NGO is riddled with corruption. People always will misuse benefits as long as there is a corrupt human nature at work. Additionally, businessmen frequently cheat on their expenses, and file false tax deductions. Is abuse an argument for ending the practice of tax deductions unilaterally? Take away tax-exemptions and our church would go under within a year, it would also force us to end all diaconal (charitable) assistance. Also, please keep in mind that the tax exemption only applies to the institution, I still pay income tax, soc. security, etc. and that on a salary that is much smaller than when I was a Systems Administrator in the corporate world. Most of the guys I know in the ministry have made huge sacrifices in time, money, and family, and generally we are the lowest paid workers with graduate degrees in America. The answer lies in greater accountability, and not donating to NGOs and NPs that aren't members of voluntary externally audited accountabilty organizations like ECFA. I myself am independently audited, and would be subject to church discipline and quite possibly permanent removal from office if I cooked my meagre books.
2) The presupposition seems to be that what we are fighting for is the introduction of Christianity into places where it historically didn't exist. The explicitly Christian prayer from the first congress at the beginning of the thread and countless other examples one could cite from the 18th-19th century show that opposite is true, that generic Christianity has been systematically removed from the public square.
This has reached the point where students are forbidden to pray prior to a football game, prior to eating in a school cafeteria, or at their graduation.
In Sweden pastors have already been successfully prosecuted simply for preaching on subjects like homosexuality. In Canada, a man who ran newspaper ads against same sex marriage was successfully prosecuted and heavily fined, while in Australia 2 ex-muslim pastors (both refugees from Muslim countries) were successfully prosecuted for "hate crimes" for teaching a seminar on Islam and quoting from the Koran. Generally speaking, America albeit slowly follows the cultural lead of the Western world, and there the signs for freedom of religion for Christians are not encouraging.
Also, please remember that there is no such thing as a truly neutral worldview, if we remove any mention of what the bible teaches about human sexuality from a forum, and instead invite homosexual advocates come in to teach their worldview (which is for instance the case in Bay Area and NYC Public Schools), we have made a positive decision to remove one philosophy and endorse another.
Most of us are simply advocating freedom of religion in the midst of growing campaign to create "freedom from Christian religion."
3) What makes these discussions generally impossible is that as a culture we have largely abandoned any notion of absolute truth. We have gone from endorsing Christ's "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me." (John 14:6) to being far happier with Pilate's cynical "What is truth?" (John 18:38)
But if there is no final truth, no absolutes, and no final arbiter, then discussions of morals are ultimately meaningless. One cannot describe a point without another fixed and unchanging point of reference. It is as impossible as plotting your position on the sea from driftwood. Therefore, if all we have is "preferences" then as the existentialists pointed out "everything is ultimately meaningless" and who cares who rides the back of the bus?
Without an absolute standard, the actions of a Pol Pot or a Stalin are no better or worse than those of the greatest philanthropists. We may personally "prefer" the actions of the philanthropist, but we cannot call them "better," and then ultimately it devolves into a will-to-power to determine whose preferences win the day.
4) This may seem surprising, but I too was once militantly opposed to the Christian faith, I hated it and opposed its tennets and adherents as much as I could. I selfishly lived my life doing what seemed right in my own eyes and was grateful to no one and nothing. Had I continued on that line, I have no doubt that today I would be divorced, my children would be completely rudderless, and my life would be nothing but a nihilistic and selfish quest to get all I could before "winking out of existence." So yes Midnight, while I do have a calling to be always "prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" (1 Pet. 3:15) I'm not preaching anything I haven't personally experienced the power of myself.
Anyway... Sorry for being so dang longwinded. I've always held that for every complex question there is short answer, and its wrong.
- Seagoon
