Since I wrote this a couple of days ago, several groups have sued the IRS for not following the tax code related to church electioneering. Here is one from the secular group - Freedome From Religion http://www.examiner.com/article/secularists-sue-irs-for-failure-to-enforce-church-election-restrictions

As a recovering Catholic, I made a rare Mass visit in June. They showed a video from some conservative organization and it featured Bishop Carlson railing against Obamacare. I couldn't believe it. Apparently the diocese sent this to all parishes and many showed it, some did not. Outrageous and I agree completely with your point. Thanks for saying what needs to be said.

Karl: Education comes in many forms.
That is what the RC church "teaches". Note the emphasis on Teaching.
Teacher unions are also Tax-Exempt (501(c)(?) of the tax codes. Dues are tax deductible. Unions are very clear in who they politically support.
Members of a church are equal to member of a union , aren't they.
RC Church has forever been in bed with the Compassionate messages of the Democratic party. Our Catholic Universities and Catholic Hospitals are Pioneers in medical field. ALL BECAUSE OF MAJOR Tax-deductible CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SOCIETIES RICHEST and "POOREST" AMERICANS.
Just how much do you voluntarily give back to Society's needy?

Politically ,Your comments are meant to offend, not discuss. Like all atheists, all you have done here, is reveal your ignorance of "FAITH-FAMILY-MORAL's".
You have ZERO knowlege of the history of RC church's political views.
You have ZERO personal knowledge of the Political contributions that flow through our Catholic Universities and Catholic Hospitals.
Politics IS a major concern for ALL AMERICANS. It is not faith-based. But, our leaders, (Union or Ministers) have a duty to convey.
Freedom comes in many ways. Taxation limits freedom. Your whole comment ignores the "freedom of speech" in ALL forms of Society.
Your Taxation example proves that Liberals will use Taxation as a form of "limiting freedom" and "silencing". Even the freedom to congregate and choose.
Unions and Churches are congregations.

Karl . . . I've told you several times that the taxation of churches runs counter to my notions of the meaning of the 1st Amendment to the constitution (as much as I am sympathetic to taxing religious groups that clearly have the look and feel of for-profit organizations). I was hugely entertained by PaulRevere's line about, "knowlege of the history of RC church's political views." I don't think that is a can of worms he wants to open. It is, to say the least, an ugly history. Do we want to talk about the Inquisition? Or the Pope chumming-up with Mussolini or Hitler? How about putting Galileo in prison? The Crusades? Anti-semitism through much of history? Support of genocide in Croatia? And dare I talk about protecting sexual predators — that a great political view.

Well said Rod. Do you agree that the first amendment has limits (well, I know you do, like with yelling fire in a crowded theater,) like with John Stuart Mills 'Harm Principle,' "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Knowing what we know today, and certainly given the summary of political history of the Roman Catholic church, large and powerful organizations like the RC church using their platforms and networks to influence voting on candidates and laws given their archaic and many provably false aspects of their belief system harms others in the process.

It's one thing for a group of Catholics to have a political opinion (like Catholics for Obama,) but it's another for the actual Catholic Church as an organization to advocate for candidates, propositions, ballot initiatives, etc., and to use their tax free money to do so.

Obviously I am talking about Catholics here because I happen to live in a community largely influenced by Roman Catholicism, and the signs in the picture come from the Catholic Church, but it applies to all of the religious communities.

Karl... I don't completely agree with your viewpoint; but I was looking for clarification on some of the ideas that you expressed.

1. "I agree with much of what my friend said here, but in this statement he forgets a very important element - the tax deductible contributions of the parishioners to the church."

Would you characterize a church contribution to be any different than someone giving to the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, or the United Way? Keep in mind that churches don't only serve themselves. Furthermore, all salaried staff at churches pay all of the same taxes that you and I do; except for pastors. They are permitted to opt-out of paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, if they wish. But remember, if they choose to do so, they will not be eligible to receive any of these benefits when the time arises. Frankly, the only "tax break" allowed to them is a housing allowance. This allowance is excluded from their income tax; but it is still subject to self-employment tax. (Even though pastors can be considered church employees, they are treated as self-employed for Social Security and Medicare tax purposes.)

2. "It is no secret what candidate(s) and party they support in government these days. ... If I were Christian I would say that it's very un-Christian of them, but since I'm not, I will just say that it's typical."

It's clear that you aren't truly in touch with religion. There are churches that have Liberal tendencies; and there are churches that have more Conservative tendencies. Perhaps there are more that lean to the Conservative side; but, by using a wide brush, you diminish the validity of your viewpoint. It's apparent that you just don't support/respect people that attend church services. Perhaps it's the same way that I don't support dog fights and spousal abuse. Do you support those?

I will SOMEWHAT agree with you on the second statement. If churches preach on Scripture, and it speaks to ethics or the way you should model your life, I have no problem with that. But, when candidates, political policies, or legislation is SPECIFICALLY mentioned; that's where I draw the line. Telling a congregation HOW to vote is unethical and WRONG. If an individual CHOOSES to model their political affiliation and voting preferences based on their ethics and religious beliefs, that's one thing. The ability for them to choose, on their own, is the key. Handing them a flier or telling them that these are the "preferred" ways to vote is wrong and, I believe, justification for the loss of their tax exempt status.

3. "The churches on Telegraph are using up very valuable property that could be benefiting our community, especially economically. Instead they are a drain on community resources, and serve as housing for dishonest political action committees."

I agree that church property doesn't generate any revenue. On the other hand, do we really need more retail? Look at Telegraph, or anywhere else, and show me that there's not already a glut of empty retail. Maybe we need more parks for our communities to pay to maintain? How about more housing? There's definitely not enough of that on the market! Let's build more subdivisions!

I am curious as to how any church is a drain on community resources? I don't remember the County stopping by to plow and salt our lot, repave it, mow our grass, change the bulbs in our lot lights, or maintain our structures. Perhaps you could clarify this for me?

And, as far as "housing for dishonest political action committees", I'd be more than happy to see your research. I'd go as far as to say that I'd help you in alleviating that issue, with some hard facts.

In summation, you don't like or respect religion, as a whole. Nothing that I say will sway your opinion. But, please don't apply your perception of one or two churches to churches as a whole. Besides, you don't darken the doors of any church. How do you REALLY know what you BELIEVE to be true?

IRS rules are rules for everyone including churches. I work with a not for profit and we have to be VERY careful how we phrase messages to keep in compliance and not endanger our tax status. Its very simple, all churches and other tax exempt organizations need to follow the rules or suffer the consequences. If they dont like the rules, they can work to get them changed or opt out of being tax exempt. During this election, MANY other churches and organizations were pushing their members to vote for both candidates. As far as I'm concerned, botom line is that no one is above the law and the laws need to be enforced until they are changed.

I found my way back to church (RC CHURCH) about a year ago. I was shocked at an event one Sunday when they rolled out the video and TV and proceeded to show a video of the Bishop in Jeff City so enraged and disrespectful of President Obama I thought WOW so much for living the Christian way. I am still troubled by that show of so called unity against the President and its total lack of civility, They definately crossed the line again I felt, no matter what your views are. Fo our story I was with you all the way until you stated these Churchs are a drain on the community. That is a reach you can not make. They still help the community in many ways and all members and people of the order can not be painted with the same brush. They just need to stay out of politics especially in the middle of a mass.

I think Karl Frank, Jr. should lighten up before he ends up with heart trouble. Maybe he should stop at McDonald's and get a "Happy Meal."

PaulRevere . . . I would love to respond, but unfortunately what you wrote is completely incomprehensible. One thing is certain . . . the behavior of Catholic individuals and the political and ethical positions taken by Catholic leadership, over the years, is two different things — thankfully. For example, I don't believe a majority of Catholic individuals support spending millions and millions of dollars protecting pedophiles, advocating against birth control, opposing stem cell research or opposing needed health care reform.

Karl — you raise a very difficult and complex issue for me. Certainly it should be illegal for groups and organization to fraudulently use "religion" to avoid paying taxes. If I'm not mistaken, that's been an issue with the so called Church of Scientology. One the one hand, if a church or religion is clearly a religion — and it wishes to use its money to influence voters — I don't see anything wrong with that. Yet on the other hand, if Karl Frank wants to make a tax-deductible donation to a church and earmark that money to be used for political purposes, something about that seems wrong to me. That's using a church, in essence, to launder money. My guess is that abusing common sense will eventually lead to steps taken to regulate churches and their political involvement and their tax exempt status, and there will exist a rich and complex history of case law on this subject.

Karl:"it is quite Clear what party the RC church supports". (Obviously, the Republican party IS the party (NOW) more aligned with "Moral Teachings of the RC church.
The old Democratic party always included "GOD" & prayer in our public schools.
Democrats always shunned same-sex marriages.
That is not true today.
Your solution? the highest level of retribution--TAXATION!.
And what would you do with the TAXATION money of churches?
My solution: Why don't you organize a Freeloader Atheist community, build your own communities and schools with your own money and promote your un-godly teachings. I'll not complain.
Every member of that RC church also built that public school You attend "FREE".
TAXATION is the Food of Survival for any "atheist". Pure and simple.
Your value of public school property? (free non-taxed atheist meeting facility) that you use to conduct your beliefs. I think a $100mil annual Mehlville political Waste.

Possible Atheist signage "BORN TO LIVE FREE". (Literally!).
It is not the sign that bothers you. Christianity bothers you.

Perhaps The RC church TAXATION is needed to continue providing "FREE EDUCATION".
You are In "awe of the universe-Addicted to Life".
I say you are Addicted to "TAXATION of LIFE".
The sign is NOT political. It is a teaching. Guidance.
Your mind does not live in that message.

Karl,
As a life-long Catholic, I can tell you that Church politics are very complex. Two of my relatives are Catholic Priests (in Wisconsin) and another is a Catholic Nun (in urban New Orleans). All of them vote democratic. When I look at it - most Catholics should be liberal and vote that way. Some aren't though due to the abortion issue and there are a lot of single issue voters like that in my Church. You will find that the people who remain silent in the Church on such issues disagree with the Church hierarchy, but don't want to raise the issue. It would be a losing battle for them. It also wouldn't surprise me if the folks at St. Francis had to put some kind of political message up to satisfy the STL Archdiocese. I know of many Catholics don't believe that.
To your original point - I think if the Government threatened to end their tax exempt status, people in the Catholic Church would accuse them of discrimination. It's a good point to make, but would cause even the most moderate of Catholics to run to politicians who are very conservative. Many members of the republican party run under the banner of "Protecting Religious Freedom," but do they really mean that ... and the last time I looked, we have pretty good religious freedom in our country.

Bob,

I hear you, I have many people in my life who were taken to DC or Jeff City on tour buses to protest political issues as teenagers. Most of them (women) tell me now that they didn't even realize what they were doing and that it just felt good to be a part of something and to feel like they were making a difference.

Of course, the church (all churches) should realize by now that Roe vs. Wade isn't going anywhere. There is so much more to life than abortion.

They cry religious freedom by they do it at the expense of personal freedom. A clear violation of Stuart Mill's libertarian 'Harm Principle.' :)

How churches are exploiting tax loopholes to push religious politics:http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/11/21/-how-us-churches-exploit-tax-exemption-to-promote-faith-based-politics

Like I said, intellectually dishonest. Lying

http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/11/21/-how-us-churches-exploit-tax-exemption-to-promote-faith-based-politics

How tragic for you to blissfully to say" there is so much more to life than abortion". You are missing the truth of what abortion is. Not just some menu "choice". For that aborted baby there is no life. Our society doesn't value life today, and they wonder why? A society that doesn't value the beginning of life and protect the most defenseless had lost the most important value we should have.

There is no bliss about it, and birth is not the pinnacle of life or existence. Especially from a religious perspective...if the baby has a soul then it has nothing to worry about.

Life is just a glimpse of tine between two eternities.

http://mehlville-oakville.patch.com/blog_posts/todd-akins-rape-comment-was-pseudoscience-but-what-about-the-morality-of-abortion-part-1