Here's what happens when you remind churches not to make political endorsements

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is one reason why we shouldn't be granting organizations tax-exempt status.  And by that I mean all non-profits, not just religious ones.  They should be free to say what they want politically and we should be free to not support then thru a tax subsidy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People can create a tax-exempt political organizations (AU is one of them), but tax-exempt churches cannot make political endorsements?

The people at AU are despicable hypocrites.

AU is a house of worship now?

Joe, I presume the late hour interfered with your reading skills as AD clearly wasn't calling AU a house of worship.

AD, for them to accurately be called hypocrites, you'd need to point out some races where AU endorsed candidates.  While it's a fine line between advocating political positions and advocating political candidates, the law governing 501(c)3's makes it a fairly clear line.  So long as they don't endorse particular candidates, 501(c)3's can engage in political activity.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

People can create a tax-exempt political organizations (AU is one of them), but tax-exempt churches cannot make political endorsements?

The people at AU are despicable hypocrites.

AU is a house of worship now?

Joe, I presume the late hour interfered with your reading skills as AD clearly wasn't calling AU a house of worship.

No issues with reading skills here; perhaps with your deduction skills, though.  This may come as a quaint piece of trivia for you and the other Southerner, but in Normal America we have a rather important concept called 'the separation of church and state'.  The IRS helps enforce this by allowing churches to remain outside of the political sphere via tax subsidies, provided that they themselves do not stray inside the political sphere with partisan endorsements from the pulpit and whatnot.  Pretty neat system, all told.

My earlier question was to ask if AU are now considered a house of worship.  If so, then yes there's a pretty awful case of hypocrisy indeed.  If not, then you guys are both misunderstanding a pretty basic foundation of our nation's government.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of why freedom of religion exists if you think that freedom of religion means that religious groups should stay out of politics.  The principal behind the limitations on the political activities of tax-exempt churches has nothing to do with freedom of religion but that government shouldn't fund political electioneering, either directly or indirectly via tax subsidies.  Frankly, even without the politicking aspect, I'd prefer if non-profits were not granted tax loopholes but treated the same as any other organization as there a quite a few 'non-profits' that in reality are run mainly for the financial benefit of their management, but given the reality, I'll settle for as strict a limit on non-profit political activity as is achievable.

Or perhaps you have the misunderstanding that "freedom of religion" is the same as "freedom from religion".