Churches fall under tax code Section 501(c)(3). They are classified as charitable organizations.
Seems to me that the concept of 'charitable' gets abused so frequently that it may do more harm than good. Maybe the concept needs to be dropped?
Isn't the Falwells' (highly political and very profitable) university classed as 'charitable'?
I'm not of the Dawkins/Hitchens school of full-on anti-theism. Religion exists for a reason, it meets a human need, and it's never going away entirely, though it can take more-or-less damaging forms. But I don't like religion getting special state privileges - one thing I think the US does better than the UK is that whole 'separation of church and state' thing. Britain doesn't do that at all, quite the reverse, the state is immersed in religion and vice-versa.
This story seems to suggest a shift in the US attitude that I find surprising.
Yet the paradox seems to be that the British state almost neuters belief, by holding it so close. While in the US, having the state so separate from religion goes hand-in-hand with religion being very politically-aggressive. Half-inclined to wonder if you are going to start down this route, you should just go the whole 9 yards and nationalise the churches. (I _think_ I'm joking....but I do wonder if having the state support religion might have downsides that the religious haven't anticipated).