No it isn't, as long as churches don't have to pay any more than anyone else.

Yes it is.

And I suppose that if churchgoers have to pay gas taxes while driving to church, that is also charging them to exercise religious freedom? And if they pay sales tax for their church clothes?

Not even close.

HM, you're doing a good job explaining this issue to people who want special treatment because...well....they want to feel special.

Exactly. When churches pay the same as everybody else, they aren't being charged to exercise their religious freedom.

Thanks. I didn't see the link the first time around. My list is too huge to post. There are so many organizations and ones I didn't even imagine.

The publication you linked to applies directly to churches. Generally, 501(c)(3) organizations may elect to spend a certain amount of income towards influencing legislation, unless they are churches. (See "General Instructions" at the bottom of the form.)

Before I posted, I originally didn't have the word "essentially" in there. There would be differences, but as I read them they wouldn't be very significant.

The publication I posted has a section on how that works. That election is an alternate method of calculating the maximum amount spent. The standard method seems to be allowable for churches, if I am reading it correctly.

Yes they are. Saying "everybody else" is putting a church on the same footing with an individual. A Church is made up of individuals that have already been taxed, so you want to double tax them in order to exercise their religion. Fortunately, the founding fathers foresaw your desire to repress the churches and wrote that protection into the Constitution. That's why the churches aren't taxed and can't participate in politics.

Time to stop churches having political rallies & hosting candidates then.

And a corporation is made up of individuals that have already been taxed...:right:

Is that a fact, or are you presenting your opinion as fact, again?:headshake

It looks like taxation after a religion has been "established" isn't protected, at least not by the founders. Those same, wonderful founders who didn't have the balls to make slavery unconstitutional.

Why would the congregation (again made up of individuals) not be allowed to give support to the candidate that best represents their values and interests?

Because as individuals, they can express their desires, but as a congregation, majority rules and can be a misrepresentation of the individual's preferences.

Because that is the definition of a political party or a political organization.