droomi,
I can respect your position.
I too don't particularly appreciate my donated sweat equity to a cause I believe worthy being diverted to the private gains of individuals who grow fat in their fine twined linens, and luxury cars, etc. MY option is to not support them, thereby putting into action my own responsibility.
However, the "free" exercise of religion puts that responsibility on the people who so exercise it, NOT the government, who's sole purpose is to "PROTECT" our rights, NOT "REGULATE' them. Is our freedom of the press any more important than our freedom to exercise our religious beliefs? I think not. Yet, newspapers, radio, and TV likewise "profit" from their exercise of their 1st Amendment rights also.
Where does one draw the line? To say that a religion cannot "profit" from voluntary donations opens the door to the government "regulating" our press, or preventing our right to meet on a cigar forum, on-line, sponsored by a profit-making business, for us to share our views of our government. I think it unwise to open the door to permisive regulation because government has no concience and knows not where to limit its own powers. If we support government regulating our rights in one area that appears on the surface to be a popular view, we subrogate all our rights and relegate them to privilege granted by the very creature of our own creation, ... government.
Purp