It is because of biases such as these, that our liberties have been eroded and are so blatantly and brazenly violated by our elected representatives and police without fear of retribution by their fellow citizens.
Phrases such as "public interest" and "tax privileges" are the main lyrics to the socialist and communist anthem.
The Bill of Rights, is not the Bill of Privlileges.
Amendment I states clearly, precisely, and unambiguously, "Congress shall make no law..."
If an interpretation is needed to determine its meaning, which in this case "no" means "no," what is there to interpretate, why would you not advocate erring on the side of liberty instead on the side of socialism/communism?
You have been "trained" well as an unabashed socialist/communist, most probably inadvertently, because female school teachers constantly drummed into your head that it is important to "share" and "get along."
So when your government wishes to violate your liberties in the name of "public interest" you are already biased to support that irreprehensible suggestion and behavior without question.
Live the liberty paradigm.
Do me a favor, would you? Review the last posting I made again and explain where I advocated any such thing, or anything at all?
Your posting accuses me twice of being biased, of advocating a particular viewpoint, and of having been being trained as a communist and socialist. Strong words, but unfortunately the thought process behind them is quite sloppy.
What I did do is report on the information I have learned from the process of being involved in multiple not-for-profit organizations, and by going through the process of incorporating one under the laws of Illinois and gaining 501(c)(3) status for it under the Federal Tax Code. I reported what the law is, and the rationale that's been given for why it was written as it is and how it's being interpreted. I don't recall giving my opinion on the fitness of any of that, or it's conformance to the Constitution.
You clearly are of the opinion that such law violates the First Amendment. Fine. This is certainly the proper forum for offering and defending such an opinion. But don't put words into my mouth, just because you don't like the information I've presented.
In fact, the first posting I made to this thread was that my opinion was that taxing churches, etc., should not be interpreted as interfering with the free exercise of religion. That would seem to support your contention, not oppose it.