642, 569 P2d 596 (1977), the Supreme Court construed ORS 307.140 and held that, to qualify for an exemption under that statute, “the primary use of the property must advance charitable purposes or goals of the religious organization.” Charitable purposes include the advancement of religion and any other “generally recognized charitable function.” Id.; see also House of Good Shepherd v. Dept. of Rev., 300 Or 340, 345-47, 710 P2d 778 (1985) (discussing how the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose). In conducting the proper analysis, however, courts must bear in mind that “decisions interpreting ORS 307.130 are of value in discerning the contours of ORS 307.140.” German Apost. Christ. Church, 279 Or at 641; see also Archdiocese v. Dept. of Rev., 266 Or 419, 513 P2d 1137 (1973) (<HOLDING>). For organizations seeking tax exemption for
holding that limitations placed upon the religious activities of two prison groups found to be religious organizations were reasonable under the circumstances holding that the defendant countys two denials of variance permits under the circumstances had to a significantly great extent lessened the prospect of the religious institution being able to construct a temple in the future thus imposing a substantial burden on the religious institutions religious exercise holding exempt under ors 307130 which relates to other charitable institutions a building that was used as an office for a religious official and religious court and a printing press for a religious publication recognizing a religious institutions right to free exercise of religion holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise