Which drives costs up, often quite radically.

When you build something for your own company, the goal is to get as good quality as feasible within time and budget constraints. Next year's salary depends on it.

When you build something as a bidding contractor for the government, the goal is to reduce your costs by as much as you can get away with and exceeding the budget with as much as you can get away with.
It doesn't matter if what you deliver is utter crud as long as you can get away with it. Politicians ensure that next year, you will be able to bid again, and if your bid is the lowest, get the contract. At which point you hire the cheapest unskilled labor and subcontractors that can do the job and no more. Quality, shmality.

Rather the opposite. WIth the "libtards" truly in charge, there would be no outsourcing and subcontracting, and NASA would hire people to build things themselves.

The republicans are the ones that demand outsourcing and paperwork that often equals half the total costs. Because heavens forbid if a government agency did something that private companies could do. That is considered anticompetitive theft by the right. Which is why NASA can't do much themselves anymore, and get less bang for the buck.

Tendrils, not tentacles.
Enceladus, not enchilada.

No, it doesn't. Only that we have evolved into a species that has increased the survival rates by co-existing. Those who don't do what's detrimental to society get rewarded by a higher rate of surviving offspring. No divinity needed.

"Thou shalt not bring crocodiles to a pool party" is a self-evident law.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" is not.

It also means that what's self-evident changes over time, and that supposedly "eternal" laws are doomed or detrimental in the long run.
This might be a win for civil law, where laws are re-interpreted based on the context and circumstances, and a bane for common law, where rulings encase the law interpretation.
Perhaps one day, tame crocodiles provide swimming support for children, and the self-evident law is no longer self-evident.
The "thou shalt not commit adultery" needs revision as we progress into an age where sex has no higher risk of propagating diseases and producing children than we want it to have.

Those are not religious rules. They are what TJ described as "self-evident laws", and precede the religions who have adopted them.

And besides, we don't even have absolute laws against theft and murder - only theft and murder that's not ordered by the government.

Why is that the question?
Can't we just drop tax heaven for religious reasons across the board?
If religious organizations do charity work, they'd still be eligible for those branches being exempt under current laws.

I'm just waiting for a church to re-launch the old religious custom of temple prostitution. Can't be taxed, because it's religious... Right?

No. Your inability to think doesn't warrant a citation.

You are mistaken. To quote IRS:

"The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.
The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

They most certainly do define it from a tax perspective - you have to fit criteria set by our government.
See what IRS says about it.

No, that would be like saying '"two plus two equals five" is more correct than "two plus two equals three"'. I certainly don't want them to utter such stupidity either.

Not all belief organizations have a cash flow. There are a few - admittedly very few - that do not accept money from its members, do not pay, house or feed its clergy, and congregate in privately owned facilities.
Of course, the members may still be victims of a scam, but not a financial one. And they aren't scamming the government by paying their leaders tax-free dollars.

Indeed. If they had god-coin without the picture of (and support of) the emperor on it, it would be different.
But as long as someone wants to use coin backed by a government, they should have the same obligations to the government as anyone else using that coin.

I think a good solution would be to end all tax exemptions, including churches and charities, and instead increase the spending on causes that reduces the need for churches and charities.

Yes, and that is the problem. It is a religious rule. Religious rules becoming law is unconstitutional.

The question, I believe, is whether the CoS really is a belief organization, or a financial scam. Whether the followers have a belief or not is not something we can or should question, but we can certainly question the CoS.

Anyhow, I am all for all religious organizations losing their tax free status. It's built on a religious statement from the bible, that one should give god what belongs to god and the emperor what belongs to the emperor. Being that the law is religious based, it breaches the separation of state and church, and should be found unconstitutional.

Godwin in the first post. I'm proud, /.

That does not correlate with my observations.
I would say that most authors get better for a few years, and then they decline. Much like musicians and other creative people.