Sorry, but I do not see how that food custom would create an issue to be discussed on a humanitarian crisis.
So, yes, a red herring.
Imagine that the AFA announced that icons are idols and should be destroyed in accord with the commandment against graven images.
Is that belief something that would threaten their 501©(3) status?
How about if they announced that icons are NOT idols and having venerating them does not break the commandment against graven images?
What if they said that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid? Or what if they said that original sin did taint human nature and that mortal will is not capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid? Would either of those positions be fatal to a 501©(3) status?
Only if they are demanding that the law of the land be changed.
Only if they demand a change of the law of the land.
Only if they demand a change of the law of the land.
Or to simplify: lets talk about those when the issue hits the congressional fan, not distractions. Secularly speaking, they are currently demanding that the law be changed for spurious reasons too.
Stop trying to participate.
Seriously.
What possible relevance to the 501(c)(3) status can be found in whether or not the opinion held by the group has to do with a humanitarian crisis?
Where in the tax code do you find this rule?
Can an organization lose its 501(c)(3) by acting in a manner contrary to its religious faith? And what is the mechanism for deciding what counts as “contrary to its religious faith?”
How is “humanitarian crisis” part of that question? Do you think that the IRS has two rules for conferring 501(c)(3), and applies one during a humanitarian crisis and one at other times?
What law are they demanding be changed, exactly?
Your attempts at ignoring the big picture compels many to ignore your complaint here.
It is not the IRS rules what I’m discussing, I complain against the very idea of distracting all about what is going on, the AFA is lying about the reasons to make the complaint in the first place.
Bricker, they’re a political advocacy group. Calling for our secular government to enact laws is the reason for their existence.
OK. But you know that the following post appears in this thread, right?
Do you see how that post raises the IRS rules, by calling for the IRS tax-exempt status to be removed?
The post you dubbed a “red herring” was in reply to that proposal. Do you agree that, with respect to that proposal, it’s not a red herring?
Well, on the 2012 IRS 990 form, the purpose / mission of the non-profit is stated. In this case, the mission is “To promote the Biblical ethic of decency in America.”
Edit: I looked back and saw that their form had already been posted.
Yes. But nothing compels them to advocate for the enactment of Christian laws.
I’m Catholic, and I believe in the truths taught by the Catholic Church. But I don’t suggest that the government should repeal the First Amendment and enact a Catholic-framework government.
And I’m supposed to be the one that should not participate? 
The bill that was supposed to eventually become a law was stopped and then changed (IIUC another bill was voted to “supplement” the reactionary language) to be more reactionary thanks to the efforts of NumbersUSA, (also a nativist group) and The American Family Association, they issued alerts calling on the American people to rise up against their members of Congress if they vote for Boehner’s bill. AFA and other groups sent their alerts that they later claimed that they succeeded in forcing Bohener to withdraw the vote for the bill(s) until it had even more anti-immigrant features.
Again, show me where an issue like a food item rule made outside congress that would make congress react.
OK, great. So with that in mind, imagine that the AFA announced that icons are idols and should be destroyed in accord with the commandment against graven images. Is that belief something that would threaten their 501(c)(3) status? How about if they announced that icons are NOT idols and having venerating them does not break the commandment against graven images?
What if they said that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid? Or what if they said that original sin did taint human nature and that mortal will is not capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid? Would either of those positions be fatal to a 501(c)(3) status?
In other words, which of those positions, if any, are fatal to the claim that they wish to promote the Biblical ethic of decency in America?
Can you read the English language at all?
Can someone else translate this into liberalese for poor GIGObuster?
Well, there’s decency and then there’s Biblical decency. Like slaughtering a neighboring tribe and keeping their virgin daughters for sex toys. Decency lite, I guess.
And for my two bits, what Abraham should have said is “Fuck You, God, he’s my son and if you want him dead so bad, you do it!”
And an all-knowing Deity who already sees that the soul He creates will end up burning in Hell, but does it anyway? Fuck that shit, which way to the Satanists?
Of course, the issue of how prejudiced these organizations are is the last thing it should be discussed about.
Can your reading comprension be helped?
What Velocity mentioned was if that organization “promoted the eating of pork”. That was it, no mention whatsoever of calling congress to make a FDA bill related to pork.
BTW the link in the OP is not going to the article in question, it is here:
Where one can see that NumbersUSA was also involved, that was the same group of nativists that funded the ICE lawsuit and fooled many conservatives (interesting to notice here that when the ICE lawsuit was going only the tea partiers were involved, back then the Republican leadership was not helping or looking to be involved as they knew who NumbersUSA was) on how effective the ICE lawsuit was going to be.
Now them and the AFA are involved in an active campaign to pressure Republicans to do their bidding.
For those arguing in favor of stripping the AFA of tax-exempt status because it’s acting “contrary to Christian beliefs”, you have 3 points you need to win:
-
That it is un-Christian to support deportations of illegals;
-
That a religious organization should be stripped of tax-exempt status for promoting views contrary to its religious tenets;
-
That the government has the business to determine if a religious organization is truly adhering to its tenets or not.
All 3 of these points are highly, highly questionable.
You never wonder about the team you are using to win?
In any case, I’m not so invested on stripping anything, maybe a warning or a fine will do, but this is a good issue to take into account and file to the court of public opinion.
I pointed already why they are not doing the right thing, both in a religious setting and in a secular one. Lying about what was going on regarding the security of the border and using that lie to pressure congress and succeeding does deserve disapproval, and a note also to our congress critters that humanitarian crisis should not had been manipulated by hate groups.