The Florida State Law Review has published an interesting student comment, Property Tax Exemptions for the Nontraditional Church:  How Do We Grant Tax Exemptions to Places of Worship and Not Amusement Parks?, 33 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 1149 (2006), by Sarah A. Lindquist.  Here is the Conclusion:

Modern religion presents a slippery slope for tax-exemption issues. If the government exempts a house of worship based purely on the fact that it is a house of worship, it will open the doors for theme parks and other profit-making ventures that are "spreading the word of the gospel." This is clearly not what was originally intended when the courts and Congress began allowing tax exemptions for religious institutions. The only way to prevent abuse is to enforce-fully and completely-a public benefit approach. Only those portions of church property that are providing a public service to the community, beyond the religion itself and beyond any economic effect to the community, should be tax-exempt. To prevent future litigation over amusement parks and other profit-making ventures, states like Florida must amend their constitutions and statutes to reflect the public benefit standard. While the statistics suggest that very few modern churches would satisfy this test, and this may be disturbing in light of the long history of religious tax exemptions, it is the correct result under the Lemon test for the Establishment Clause. Affording traditional houses of worship tax exemptions solely because they are houses of religious worship would advance a nonsecular purpose, have a nonsecular effect, and foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion.