Religion
First let me say I am in favor of freedom of religion, all religions. However, this does not equate in my eyes to - the freedom to choose between Christianity and other. Christianity is not the only religion in the world. Religion is fundamentally good. It allows a person to grasp or explain that which they cannot fully understand. For some people this is a requirement for their well-being. But when a religion begins to hide that which can be explained from their parishioners, can that religion really continue to be categorized as a religion? or is it a cult? I do not see cults as a form of religion and as such they should not be given the protected status of a religion. In my mind there is a clear division between the two. If a group approaches their followers and says "This is what we believe, this is what others believe, it is up to you to choose to become a member of our group", that is a religion. If a group uses deception, coercion, takes advantage of a members lack of education or hides their agenda from the potential member, that group is a cult.
I am also very much in favor of the separation of church and state, which in my eyes means a religion should have no say in government affairs. Members of a church can have both a religion and a vote in how the government is run. But as soon as the church begins to rally its flock to a political goal it stops being a religion and becomes a political action committee. Political Action Committees need to pay taxes just like every other organization that is in business to advance their own agenda.

As long as the religion in question focuses on their local congregations and their local community (in providing services to the needy) then there is no problem, I would see this as a legitimate religious practice and it should have all of its tax free benefits. However, once an organization working under the guise of a religion performs an act that identifies it as a political action organization, it should no longer have any of the benefits associated with religious organizations. Some of these acts would include: Backing or endorsing a candidate for political office at any level of government, The leader of the organization becoming a political candidate, Publicly disapproving or approving of a political issue (right to choose to have a child, the rights of a minority like LGBT community), Engaging in a capitalistic venture (purchasing real estate beyond that of the place of worship, building a theme park, going on the road to milk patrons in other communities, having a TV show that asks for donations). As you can see this would separate quite a few so called religions organizations with their tax- free status and other benefits reserved for real religious organizations. In fact if it could be proven that a organization functioned as a Political Action Committee but was disguised as a Religion for a number of years before coming out and saying (or committing an act which classified them as) “we are a Political Action Organization” then the rescission of tax free benefits should be retroactive to the date of inception of the organization.

Understand, I think anyone should be able to do all the things I mentioned in the paragraph above. But they need to choose are they a religion or are they a political action committee. It is truly disgusting to hear about a “Religious leader” who roams the countryside in a limo taking donations from people who can’t afford running water. As president I would work hard to eliminate this sort of abuse.

After reading this you may think that I am against religion. I assure you this is not the case. What I am against is the way religion has been used as a means to an end for a number of so called religious leaders. I do not believe these people have any religious convictions whatsoever. I believe they are using the power of religion for their own personal gain, and this despises me. I also do not want to group all religious organizations in the same bucket, which is why I have gone out of my way to delineate the difference. Some religious organizations are good assets to the community, others are not.

Just to give an example of what I mean about some organizations. Where I now live there is a church that posted the message “Nuke 'Em till they glow and shoot them in the dark” on their main 20 foot neon sign along a main highway. While I can see many people having this feeling about some Middle Eastern organizations, it is not a message a church should be displaying. It is promoting genocide, not something I would think most religions would promote. And since this particular church is Baptist, I know enough about the faith to know support of genocide is not in their holy book. But you have to wonder what message is being sent to their congregation. I know what message is being sent to others passing this sign: “Home of some Psycho Cult”.