Not that it's really at all relevant to this case, but tax exempt status for religious organizations is not constitutionally compelled. In fact, religious organizations can lose tax exempt status if they don't follow certain rules. Seriously, consider doing at least a cursory Wikipedia search of a topic before you expound absurd legal arguments.
Your contributions are utterly irrelevant. The premise of the argument was that tax-exempt status could be revoked, if the churches refuse to cooperate with political action, which probably doesn't have the force of the law (depending upon appeal). Obviously, this is a violation of church and state.
Adherence to the regulations regarding tax-exempt status is an entirely different legal matter that has no relevance to the situation, unless the churches are found to be afoul of the tax-exempt regulations.
I don't have a J.D., but it's obvious you jokers wouldn't make it through the first week of law school. Watching you follow the evolution of an argument is like watching a summoner attempt to communicate with the dead. Maybe a Ouija board would help?
You're literally as belligerent as you are wrong. As soon as a religious organization attempts to enter the public sphere with regard to elections, and they do that
all the time, they violate the church / state separation clause. This is imbedded in the IRS' rules. If we actually went by a separation of religion and state, the vast majority of churches would be taxed now.
