Well said, kevofrom... It's time for us to look closer at the church's tax exempt status. Under the terms of their 501(c)(3), no political involvement from them or any (c)(3). Of course they're in cahoots with the repub/tparty - big contributors. Besides, what other party pays as much attention to (sshh sex) reproductive rights. Both entities get a 'rise.'

Well, now maybe the GOTP can help them pay their tax bills.

I wonder if the tax exemption rules regarding electioneering in churches apply to a particular church or in the case of the Catholic church would apply to all catholic churches in the US? Basically the IRS rules are such that while a religious organization (or any non-profit) may support candidates for office, if it does so it can no longer claim tax exemption. At a minimum any individual church that follows this "bishop's" orders should lose their tax exemption, but it seems to me that it may be possible that since this is part of a larger organization, the catholic church, that the entire church organization may be subject to losing their tax exemption as a result of this.

Frankly I don't think that any church should be tax exempt, especially if they spend a large portion of their donations on mega churches and fancy lifestyles for their leaders. Why should we subsidize Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, or other people like that by allowing them to not pay taxes?

Very good questions, Craig. Maybe it's time that the IRS, which attacks the powerless with such zeal, devote a little more energy and attention to situations such as this.

Yeah Craig it would be a nice source of revenue to pay down the debt.

James Madison thought all churches should be taxed. otherwise, he argued, they would end up controlling all the best real estate and would amass huge fortunes. judging by the huge mega"churches" in my area, I would conclude that Madison had amazing foresight.

Tax those @!$%#ers and let they say whatever they wish.

Speaking of the rest of the flock, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops official voting guide, “Forming Consciousness for Faithful Citizenship”, has 6 points that everyone should consider.

Given the economic crisis we continue to deal with we must, “…respond in ways which protect those who are poor and vulnerable as well as future generations.” This is why the Conference of Catholic Bishops, also supported by The Leadership Conference of Women Religious which represents 80% of Catholic Nuns, wrote four letters to Congress in strong opposition to the Republican budget written by Paul Ryan, that Mitt Romney's budget is based on. They call for “a circle of protection … around essential programs…the proposed cuts to programs in the budget reconciliation bill fail this basic moral test.”

It is critical to, “…repair a broken immigration system with comprehensive measures that promote true respect for law, protect the human rights and dignity of immigrants and refugees, recognized their contributions to our nation, keep families together, and advance the common good.” The Catholic Church is in strong opposition to many of the immigration reform proposals and recent immigration laws, from Alabama to Arizona, written and supported by Republicans, including Mitt Romney.

“Wars, terror, and violence which raise serious moral questions on the use of force and its human and moral costs in a dangerous world…” demand leaders who demonstrate the ability to focus our blood and treasure in ways that secure peace while doing all they can to minimize the tragic costs of such actions.

I combined 4 and 5 into one. As this morning's, “This Week In God” points out everyone is familiar with Catholic leaders largely focusing their opposition on health care reforms that are ACTUALLY designed to significantly reduce unwanted pregnancies by ensuring that health insurance companies, not religious institutions, pays for contraception if you can’t afford it. Every legitimate study done has demonstrated the single most effective thing you can do to reduce abortion is increase access to contraception and comprehensive sex education. The same studies show that standing in the way of these efforts by making it harder for people to afford contraception or providing abstinence only sex education, increases unwanted pregnancies.

Of course the Bishops are also concerned about, “…efforts to redefine marriage.” One of our greatest expressions of freedom is love and no one else can determine for someone else how that love is experienced.

If you follow along with the core concerns of Catholic leaders regarding this election, it seems obvious who you should vote for.

Bishop Jerky must think it's 1012, not 2012.

Before you all climb up on your moral high horses, are you prepared to condemn the Reverend Al Sharpton for expressing his political views? How about Jeremiah Wright and Jessie Jackson?

As for 401(c)(3)s you should also consider that organizations like Mother Jones, Think Progress, and CAP are 401(c)(3)s also. Do you want them shut down too?

Yeah, I didn't think so. As always, IOKIYAD.

Yeah, Because Rev. Al and Jessie Jackson have a church and a church congregation. NOT!

And Jeremiah Wright has demanded that all of his bishops campaign for Obama. Oh right! He doesn't have bishops, and hasn't demanded that the church campaign for Obama! Wow blanks, you sure are good at false equivalencies!

And 401(c)(3)s that would also be affected are right wing organizations like the heritage foundation and the center for american progress.

Yeah, STFU, @!$%#.

Shooter that's a false comparison and you know it. In the case of the people you mentioned they spoke to their congregants themselves and made no pretence about whose opinion they were expressing. This man is ordering others to do it.

All other aspects of this aside the single most disturbing thing here isn't political. It's that this man is using his rank and position in a place and manner usually reserved for matters of doctrine to compel his subordinates to present his personal opinion to their parishiners.

If you have an axe to grind or a soapbox you want to get on fine, but do it yourself. To use your professional authority to make others do it for you is an abuse of power.

I live in Peoria which is the NEOCON capital of Illinois, so the remarks by this religious fool are no surprise. He's just pissed because Illinois withdrew the Catholic Adoption Agencies funding because they wouldn't adopt to same sex parents. So he closed it. The pedophilia here for such a small town is a disgrace. If you think he's bad check out his predecessor Bishop John Myers that got relocated to New Jersey before all the @!$%# hit the fan. Of course, he and Myers were in bed with the elites here so to keep the goodies coming he smoozes.

I am appalled that there are religious authorities telling people for whom to vote. Their own rules say not to do that, the gov't rules have been ignored.

And I also thought I would post this for those that mailed ballots.

You can check the status by going to your state's Sec. of State website, locate your county, then input your info to validate your ballot's status was "good" or not. If not, I strongly advise you to go in person if there's any way possible.

Here is CA's http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status/

I checked on my household's ballots. They are both "good". I feel good too.

#2.7. What considerations that weren't mentioned were issues affecting human life - abortion and euthanasia - , and religious liberty.

The bishops' objection to the ACA is forcing the church , or its affiliates, to pay for contraception. HHR's resolution is insufficient. No one has yet answered the question of entities that self insure.

The arguement that most Catholics support contraception begs the question. The Church's teaching does not support it. Anyone who goes against churchy teaching must live with their own conscience. The Church is not a democracy where people are free to decide what to follow.

It will be interesting to see who President Obama chooses to give the invocation at the presidential inauguration.

The bishops' objection to the ACA is forcing the church , or its affiliates, to pay for contraception.

Exactly- in much the same way that by giving their employees a salary will then pay for their employees contraception. In either case they are indirectly handling funds (remember ALL an insurance company does is transfer the money from the payer (you the person who is insured) to the payee (the doctor/hospital giving you medical care)) and aren't directly seeing who those funds go to or on what those funds are being spent.

The Church is not a democracy where people are free to decide what to follow.

And our democracy is not a church where bishops get to dictate how public policy will be made

"And our democracy is not a church where bishops get to dictate how public policy will be made"

Well said Bravo!

#2.14 Religious Liberty -The entire argument surrounding religious liberty is based on health care reform providing contraceptive coverage and this reform comes with an exemption for religious institutions so from the institution's perspective there is no loss of religious liberty. Even bigger than this, on an individual level everyone is still free not to use contraceptives if it goes against their beliefs or their churches dictates. The whole purpose of providing preventative care such as contraception is because it reduces risks and costs. Preventing unwanted pregnancies and all of the procedures that come because of it saves individuals and the system money, so if an insurance company charges you a higher premium because of this coverage it's the insurance company you have a problem with because they're overcharging you for something that's going to save them money.

Abortion- I did mention abortion and if you're concerned about it why would you resist doing the single best thing you can do to reduce it. Before you say, eliminating abortion is the single best thing you can do, all of the major studies done on regions where abortion is illegal demonstrate it does not reduce the number of abortions, all it does is increase the number of unsafe abortions.

who in the hell votes for who their church tells them to? Only the simple minded people would do such a thing....religious zealots are both on the right and the left....

I heard somewhere that Mitt and Ann dressed up like John Kennedy and Marilyn Monroe for Halloween. They just had a lot of trouble pulling it off.

NO, NO, NO, we DON'T want priests thinking about sex - you know where THAT leads.....

Charles Pierce gets Jenky the Jackass right:

Bishop Daniel Jenky - The Worst Bishop of 2012 - Esquire

"I'd like to congratulate Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Diocese of Peoria for being just about the biggest jackass ever given Holy Orders....

Even granting that my patience with the Clan of the Red Beanie ran out about 25,000 unpunished felonies ago, Bishop Jenks nonetheless has managed to jump on my last nerve. He is no different from the Renaissance cardinals who used their spiritual mandate to get laid, or, more recently, the various bishops who used the vows of sacred obedience to swear their parish priests to secrecy regarding the crimes of sexual assault, and the crimes of the hierarchy in being accessories after the fact. ..."

but just look at him. no one would ever have sex with that fat whale

From its beginning, the church made sex a bad thing, for procreation only. Except they, the priests and hierarchy were secretly exempt. Interesting too is the history of cloaking the nuns - way back women were considered temptresses (at that time men were animals and unable to control their urges vs what they are today, unable to control their urges, but I digress). But, in order to have handmaidens to cook, clean, laundry and do the necessary elements for a healthy life, women were allowed to serve their masters (holy men) without pay, and to cover up. (And Americans make fun of Muslim women? Ha.) Of course that didn't stop any activity between them, or among them is more factual. And before too long, these well covered women were doing works of charity, and before too long, they developed their own saints and holy women and along came "virginity." And along came the holy men cajoling 'the chosen' women to obey, that it was God's will, as the repub/tparty fellow said a couple weeks ago. And now you have a full story, only parts of which have been edited.

No respectability in the church! or integrity. They fit the repub/tparty well.

Don't touch my junk!

Anyone else think he looks like a Fat William Shatner?

The Fat evil bearded William Shatner...

oncearepublican: Priest's not thinking about sex is a fantasy, it is time to take into account that men do think about sex and finally deal with that problem the Catholic church created with thinking all men will not be tempted by urges of sex, regardless of who they are. This idea of forced celibacy is outright foolishness and needs to reformed. Let's get down to the facts of life and real realities.

Oh, I agree with you Deb. Celibasy has always been a stupid idea for people who "claim" to be working for God. WHY would ANY church think that limiting control to males only and then denying those males intimate contact with women would somehow make them more capable to address the issues of their followers???

The Catholic Church did it ONLY as a way to control their priests and to make sure all the money the priests gathered went to the Vatican and not to their progeny - it had nothing AND STILL HAS NOTHING to do with "serving God" or "helping man".

However, you have to look at what type of individual is attracted to the priesthood and claims to be "willing" to give up sex for the "will of God". I dare say these people weren't getting any sex for whatever reasons BEFORE they joined the Church and so didn't think they had much to give up. I also think that many joined the priesthood because they thought the Church would help them "control" their "evil" impulses - but as we all know - the Church isn't GOD!

I don't think these priests understand what sex is or what it is supposed to be - a mutually pleasing activity performed by CONSENTING ADULTS.

Seems to me when these priests think about sex, they tend to look for victims that they think won't "expose" them - they DON'T see sex as an equal participation - so I'd just as soon they NOT think about sex (like THAT is possible)!!

Yea I agree with you oncearepublican. But I am sure that it is just as equally complicated, because with no doubt they will come up with one man that did have sex before he became a priest and enjoyed it mutually with someone else. It would be best to reform it and they face the consequences also for those misdeeds that occurred such as with child abuse.

I knid of get Michael Moore by looking at him. Maybe if Shatner and Moore procreated....wait...that is a disgusting though......will stop here

Oncearepublican, GO PUT ON YOUR DEPENDS....FAST! You are going to need them! I totally freakin agree with you! This whackadoodle poilicy has lead to the disgrace of the Catholic Church. Their numbers are falling year by year. There are Gays, Priests who knock up their parishioners, they jack off at night (hopefully alone) and...unfortunatley pedophiles. That is the one the gets me. i was a Catholic altar boy and although there were some really hottie Priests, I was NEVER even touched! I think I should be able to sue because they gave me low self esteem(jk).......Don't get me worng, I believe people need faith, but......hell. th thing is going to blow while you are sleeping or you touch it. The desire in us us innate.

as long as he doesn't reproduce i'll be happy

I believe the origins of Celibacy were monetary. They did not want the priest to have heirs so that all their wealth would revert to the church upon their death.

It isn't like we'd know, since they don't brand women with a Scarlet Letter any more...yet.

Jess--

Then you definitely don't want Romney. He gets to populate his own planet.

Encourage celibacy so there are no families to support; housing, food, medical insurance...

yes...their tax exempt status should be revoked.

YES! Thank you for saying what, Im sure, most of us are thinking.

they have stopped investigating these. the law requires that the "regional" commander (or similar) approve all religious-tax exempt investigations. the IRS has been re-organized (also by statute) in a way that eliminates this position w/o addressing who the new regional commander is.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/october-web-only/why-irs-has-stopped-auditing-churches-even-one-that-calls-p.html

completely agree. unless it is to help people in NEED including people of ALL RACES i feel they should be taxed just like EVERYONE else. they should be supporting their communities not their own pockets.

Revoke it.

Thanks for the new info. Andrew by the bay.

Thanks IRS, what else can we Americans do to help the religious right over throw us?

Don't forget to throw the tax dodging AFL CIO into the mix! How much benefit would taxing all the churches and the unions bring in? Hell, we could probably live here for free!

One would think that if an all powerful and omniscient God, who took out only the first born in Egypt, wanted to punish people for their "Sins" he could do it with a slightly more surgical tool than a hurricane...

Well, if hurricanes are the Holy Indication of God's political preferences, cranky white men win, after watching the diversion of that hurricane from Tampa and driving it into New Orleans.

If you believe in God, you also know and believe he has given us free will and therefore Sandy is at least in part (large part if you ask me) our creation and it’s up to us to do all we can to support those who are suffering because of the storm and do all we can to reverse our creation. Because Mitt Romney now says he will fully fund FEMA the question we should be asking is why doesn't he believe we should privatize FEMA anymore? If you really thought this was the best thing we could do to ensure we were supporting those dealing with disasters, why change? How come I haven't heard one single question to Romney supporters asking them whether they still think it's a joke to stop the rise of the oceans and heal the planet? Is it because you think it's too insensitive? It's insensitive to all those dealing with this disaster and all of us who will have to deal with future disasters, not to ask. How about getting specific and asking if he will continue to allow Republicans, who don't believe in science or climate change, to head science committees in Congress?

I agree with you there jst1voice. It is definitely time to do something about Global Warming which we caused by our own freewill.

Some people keep saying Romney would be better for the economy but is that really true. No, it is not. Since even though Romney may know business in his way, he really does fail to take into consideration of what people really need or how it will affect people’s lives. Romney is greed driven and as with all business people they get down to the bottom line profits without any consideration on how it will affect people’s lives. If Romney had really wanted to help, he would of handed over his income tax returns and pointed out how he was able to make so much money without paying any taxes that really left people who were not rich even more poor or in abuse, misery, despair, and death. Romney doesn’t want to tell people what he wants to do, since it will in the end only contribute to the wealthy. Romney wants to keep his closed door back room deals and messing with people’s heads with lies and deception, after all that is how the wealthy do maintain power and control of people. These foolish games have gone on for way too long even as it can be seen in these churches ruled by narrow-minded men that insist they are never wrong. It is plainly a head game and feeding people falsehoods, deceptions, and lies. Even Romney claims to be clergyman and he is the absolute worst type of religious leader around, which totally lacks understanding, or empathy of what people go through in their daily lives. Just as Jesus said about rich people and religious clergy to be watchful of them, these people really do need to prove that they really do have any form of humanity in them, except being Dictators that crave power, corruption, arrogance, greed, hypocrisy, and deceiving. These people indeed really do lack any form of religious faith which is suppose to be about love, compassion, caring, sharing, truth, understanding and all the other good things about love and are really absolute failures in life. It really is like all these hypocrites did get all grouped together in the Republican Party so we all can take a good look at what they really are and that is a real sad state affairs. Actually, you can even look throughout our history and even in biblical terms and see that so many really bad things apply to these people.

What is really insane is more than one female member of my family is voting for Romney, after instances of rape and abortion.

That, I do not understand, except that the patriarch of the family is an adamant Republican. How many other women are complicit in their own backward slide.

Needmorecoffee: This is what you call playing with people's heads and emotions to get an end result of something that is not right or good for anybody. There is no clear decisions or rationalization in this, except to follow blindly without knowing all the facts and truth. And it is very much fear based politics with no truth in it at all. Now where there is something like Global Warming that is factual and we are seeing the results of our ignorance to it, some people will continue to ignore the real dangers that we will be encountering. This is a very bad situation where people from big oil, coal, Republicans, extreme wealthy, and religious groups join together in doing some awfully wrong things. It is like these people got all grouped together and we are forced to look at the real problems we have been having to deal with for too long. People wanted to see the real crap that occurs in the world, well there it is. You got it lock stock and barrel, it is loaded with power craving, corruption, hypocrites, arrogance, greed, and deceiving.

Needmorecoffee: What you are witnessing in your female family members is a result of years of patriarchy and the resulting female deference to these patriarchs. They are unable to make an independent decision without male approval. They really, truly do not trust themselves to make cogent decisions. The Thomas Frank 'What's the Matter with Kansas?' phenomena applies to them as well. There are tons of women who have been raised since birth to defer to their fathers, brothers, husbands and then their sons in their old age, to 'tell them' what to think, do and be. It is ever so slowly evolving over the generations but we're not there yet! Perhaps in our grand children's lives? We can only hope because in the matriarchy lies true peace and true equality.

I agree with you there CT Woman and all of it created by foolish narrow-minded men thinking they have all the answers which is false. Just ask some of these so-called Bishops, they may pretend they don't know all the answers, but at the same time can't wait to dictate how you should live your life and in the meantime put money in their plates so they can keep messing with your head without any real rational thought or truth to it. And in the meantime, they molest your children, masterbate or slip out back to get laid. How messed up can that get, when it is so screwed up already.

But than we have a real screwed up mindset with the mentality of people thinking these narrow-minded men are never wrong. People are taught since they were kids that you must believe these falsehoods and these narrow-minded men of what is really power, control, and greed.

Thanks for the link! What a view....

that's just it...they don't care about the babees once they are born...99.9% of pro lifers are anti welfare, anti food stamps, anti medicaid and anti anything to help families raise their children....even pregnancy crisis centers give very little to the women they talk out of abortions....the stance by the religions and religious zealots is forcing a woman to gestate the pregnancy as punishment for her having sex ....along with a life of hardship and turmoil....and they call themselves people of god....disgraceful...

I'm with ya. How they justify that in there heads and hearts I'll never understand.

Seems to me the good priests should focus their efforts on getting their congregations to pray for the good people who are in dire straits due to Sandy. But maybe that would be too "christian" for them to do.

too bad i don't live in the peoria diocese (altho cardinal george in chicago is no prize, either!). i'd haul my recovering catholic bod out of bed tomorrow just so i could walk out while the letter is being read.

mellowjohn, a huge heartfelt hug for your courage. I hope you don't walk alone, but even if you do... admiration from here.

Just like the Republican Party, the divisive and overzealous nature of the church's most recent actions will have the effect of turning away more followers or forcing the voices of change within their own church to get louder and actually make change.

That is a bed they've never climbed out of, I'm afraid.

My mom had to quit going to catholic church this election season , they started this crap over a month ago , she is an obama voter and they are just flat out offensive in her opinion , we have a young progressive priest , and you can tell he is forced to read from a script

She manages an elderly apartment complex , the one romney flake sent post cards out to everyone there , including the office , with a bloody fetus on it , the post man was distressed beyond words , then romney ryan go on tv and claim the are ALL FOR women's health care rights , and do not get called on it by the msm , it is disgusting

We had ads here in iowa trashing romney ryan on women's HC rights the last 2 months , RR finally had to push back with a small ad , that to me , was abysmal when compared to the dems ads , one bright spot at least

I'm an ex-Catholic for good reasons, some of which Lorr elaborated on. (Sorry, bad grammar.)

However, there are a few good organizations of nice Catholics, more 'Christ-like' ones than that overfed but still power-hungry Bishop. Try www.catholicsunited.org, they seem to be good and decent people.

It's a theocratic version of "Our Reich will last 1000 years!"

If romney happens to scam his way into office , after 1 year , the few moderate gop there are left , along with people who refuse to vote , will be screaming and asking why the gop allowed an extremist religious freak to lie his way into office , the public have no idea how close they are coming to a massive freak out failure for america

Jesus will have medicare vouchers for 935 years. I'll bet that chaps Mitt's ass.

posse comitatus

The National Guard DID go in..

......the US Coast Guard, the Air National Guard, and the Army National Guard are first responders to emergencies. The US Coast Guard can and does respond to situations without direct orders from above as part of their mission duties (so, in other words, the president doesn't have to order them to respond for them to respond). In the case of the Air National Guard and the Army National Guard they must be ordered to respond by the state governor or by the US president.

All 3 were out in force preparing for landfall of the storm and have been out in force since. The Army is currently helping by providing protection duty (which the Army usually does) and air support. The Air Force has provided air support and other aid. The US Coast Guard has been rescuing survivors on a straight shot since the storm hit. If you have YouTube look up the USCGImagery channel- they post videos of the USCG's actions all the time and they've been posting video after video of the USCG rescuing people.

Remember that ship that had capsized and that was the first real national media coverage of the fatalities of this storm? All but the captain were rescued (captain was later found, unfortunately deceased) and that was done by the US Coast Guard.

Am not sure why you think they aren't out in force?

The CG's two missions: drug interdiction and saving lives.

I wasn't thinking about National Guard I was thinking about Federal troops. National Guard are by default under the Direct command of State Governors and therefor it is at the Governors discretion when and how to use them.

Federal military units are bound by posse comitatus and can't be sent in without the permission of state and local officials and even then are not allowed to act in certain capacities, like law enforcement, outside the supervision of local authorities.

The system is basically set up as a check to prevent the Federal Government from "Crossing the Rubicon".

The CG's two missions: drug interdiction and saving lives.

Semper Paratus

Although I would like to add they also participate in counter-terrorism, enforcement of maritime safety and security (enforcement of maritime laws), and anti-piracy actions. They deploy all around the world to keep ports, waterways, and all other water based US assets safe. The USCG is, at this very moment deployed to both the Gulf of Aiden and the Strait of Hormuz to help enforce our sanctions on those areas in addition to that of the US Navy and amphibious marine detachments.

They do a lot and no one ever says thank you =P I suppose that's why I was a little confused why someone would be saying why doesn't the military help with natural disasters

If luz meant this the same way dragoon had responded then yeah that is true. US soldiers can't deploy into US cities unless very strict requirements are met. That's also in part upheld by the Bill of Rights. You don't have to quarter soldiers and they cannot detain you or kill you unless very special circumstances are met.

And to make my point from my post somewhere above, our Statement of What Old Catholics believe includes:

44. We believe that the church cannot compel anyone to believe anything and that it is not the role of the church to impose “faith” on anyone, in and out of the church.

45. We believe the role of the clergy is to guide morality and faith by being examples, not by being authoritarians–the clergy serves the church, they do not impose their will on it.

Read the rest at: http://www.kogcc.net/index.php?p=1_105_WHAT-DO-OLD-CATHOLICS-BELIEVE

Thanks, right to lifers voting for Mitt after he's profited off Stericycle just shows how shallow the right's sanctimoniousness really is.

while i see your point, in fairness to steve the article he linked to, from the religion news service, uses the term repeatedly..it also uses the term indian-american separately....

Would that make me a "Nonthiest-American"?

I am not trying to be snarky but it seems odd to me that in the land of "freedom of Religion" that we would refer to anyone by differentiating on their faith.

When you say "African-American" or "Italian-American" (for the record I have never liked those terms either) you are making a distinction or a self declaration, based on a specific ethnic/cultural subset of broader "American" culture.

Good lord

I asked my black friend years ago How I should address black people , he laughed and said that was the number one question whitey had for him all the time , this was early 90's , he said offensive language is offensive , other wise ,never worry about that crap

No one is walking up to this lady and addressing her as a hindu american , she runs for office , it is part of the subject , this is the LANGUAGE of the subject , why would I ever be offend if someone addressed me as irish american? etc

I'm sure people call her by her name, Tulsi Gabbard, not "Hey, Hindu American!"

Thank you for the link, I appreciated the following and think all Religious Entities need to be reminded of:

From the ACLJ's "Political Speech & Non Profit Tax Issues":Speech & Non Profit Tax Issues":

"In exchange for the receipt of tax-exempt status, I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) absolutely prohibits churches and other tax-exempt organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate for public office. If a church participates or interferes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign for or against any candidate for public office by publishing and distributing certain written material or making oral statements regarding the candidate, then a church can lose its tax-exempt status for violating the campaigning ban. I.R.C. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii). Quite simply courts have interpreted 501(c)(3) to ban any degree of participation or intervention in a campaign for public office. Ass’n of the Bar
of N.Y. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 858 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1988)."

This petition asking IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman to Investigate the Catholic Church and Cardinal Dolan for violations of 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status violations already has over 4,000 signatures. Please sign the petition, and then re-post it:
http://www.change.org/petitions/irs-commissioner-douglas-h-shulman-investigate-catholic-church-cardinal-dolan-for-tax-exempt-violations#

Thanx Lorr , signed it

Lorr signed and explained!

Amen. There is a backlash and your part of it.

vote.

if that does not break the tax code law , what does?

Pretty much the letter I got in the mail from my public Union telling me to vote for obama.

A church has tax exemption, public (or private) unions are not tax exempt.

Unions are non-profit organizations. They file IRS Form 990 on which there is no tax due.

I've seen states that do not give exemptions on property taxes to unions if the property's not used for training.

Unless one considers a union as the authority over their soul, they would not be compelled to vote as advised in the same way as one's church hierarchy dictates. As I can guess you will not follow advice of your union (I must question why someone so opposed to a union would work for one), just as many Catholics will follow their own consciences.

Nobody is forcing anyone to work at a union job.

I worked at a union job for 31 + years, they are not perfect, but they negotiated on my behalf. It's a very large company (not public)

I was not forced to work there, but the company did not just give employees who complied with rules with terms of employment agreed between employer and employee.