Archdiocese of Omaha in Violation of Tax Exempt Requirements

The Archdiocese of Omaha is conducting illegal business and proudly has it on display for every unfortunate person who has to drive past. I've recently seen banners outside two Churches in my area that say "Protect Religious Freedom" "Defend Marriage" "Protect the Unborn" etc. and give the website for the Archdiocese of Omaha.

Why are these Churches hanging supposedly ambiguous yet politically charged banners a week before elections instead of honoring the requirements to maintain their tax exempt status under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? The requirement states:

In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Sure, they can say that because these banners do not mention voting nor political parties that it's all okay. But it's not. It's precisely-timed, conniving, manipulative and an abuse of power and influence. And I've seen the papers they have handed out to the blindly faithful. I saw a four page document, reportedly one in a series, distributed in Omaha Churches from the Kansas archbishops that is meant to help 'guide' people on voting issues. Issues in that particular document were 'religious freedom', 'protecting the unborn' and 'defending traditional marriage'.

TAKE ACTION: If you would like to file a Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form for the Archdiocese of Omaha or any specific religious churches or organizations that are in violation of this requirement, you will need to fill out Form 13909 from Department of the Treasury — Internal Revenue Service. In case those links are faulty, that's http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pdf
To claim a reward for providing this information to the IRS, file Form 211, Application for Reward for Original Information.

If you need me to spout more of my disgust as to WHY these banners and documents are wrong/annoying/illegal, I shall proceed. But please, if you feel compelled, report these abuses to the IRS. We need to speak out AND take action in order to bring about change.

Ahem.

1) I don't go to Church because I don't like to be preached to, told what to think or how to behave. (Nor is there sound logic to much of what they say.) So I definitely don't want to see these eyesore banners that promote phrases and ideas that are reactionary and ill-founded, not to mention lacking in all sorts of ways. I can string words and phrases together too and put them on a banner with a website and stick it on a chainlink fence, but really? It's just advertising another money-making venture. Admit it. Or don't.

2) The very fact that you stick these banners on a fence at a busy intersection means that you HAVE religious freedom. And that you are obnoxiously abusing it. The Jewish and Hindu places of worship in the neighborhood are not the attention-seekers you are. They are MUCH more preferable than you judgmental loudmouths. I don't think I ever hear those religious groups whine and complain as much as the Christian right. The Islamic community should complain though because apparently it's okay to say "Obama is a Muslim" and expect that to be understood as a negative thing.

3) A law to provide health care is NOT an affront to your religion. I don't care if you don't like birth control. It's used for medical reasons MORE than contraception. And the government already made an allowance for those of you who don't care to understand and continue to see ONE use of a medicine. Still not satisfied? STFU. We are a SECULAR nation. And stop quoting the founding fathers. They created a nation to escape religious persecution and YOU changed the Pledge and the moneys in the 50s in your Red Scare fervor (or whatever other demented reason you decided to use to start persecuting everyone in the name of religion. Don't you judge me!)

4) Who are you defending marriage against? People who want to get married? They don't want to get married in your Churches, they want their CIVIL RIGHT to sign a contract with another consenting adult. So stop spouting your hateful, ignorant, ill-informed drivel at everyone. We don't care what you want other people to do, how you want them to live, if you approve of them. You aren't freaking saints and when you continue to judge the lifestyles of people you don't know, you get much farther from your pious ideals and your true underlying hatefulness shows. 

5) And protecting the unborn while demanding that women return to just being birth vessels. I'm glad you have ALL the answers on the specifics of how women should handle rape, incest or endangerment of life. But no one asked you. The decision is not yours and there are plenty of children in YOUR town that are already born and are in need of loving homes with food, clothing and education. Truthfully, I'd rather abort than know a child is going to grow up in a household that would condemn them for being gay, having safe sex or being of a non-Christian faith.



So, if I sound like a hateful liberal nutjob... too bad. The religious right makes no apologies, but I will at least say this. If what I've said sounds offensive or rude, why do you care what I think? I'm not taking your daughters to abortion clinics and telling them it's lots of fun and the number one choice. I'm not trying to get your Churches to have gay pride festivals. And I'm not polluting your commute with banners telling you what to think.

I respect my friends and family that are LOVING Christians. They know this doesn't apply to them. And maybe they are frustrated by some of these things too. I don't spout it off to be a prick, but I hate willful, hateful ignorance shrouded with the justification of religion, and I hate that these organizations are tax exempt and flaunting their ill-contrived messages in order to turn the tide.

This is not okay. It is NOT okay for the Archdiocese of Omaha to tell their faithful 'THIS is what you must think. THIS is how you must vote.' This religious indoctrination intertwined with politics is illegal and just morally and ethically wrong. Are you trying to inspire people of faith that live out the TRUE message of your Christ or do you aim to create armies of drones that get your political party of choice into office so you can turn this nation into what you want it to be?

Not Saying the Pledge of Allegiance in Nebraska Schools Should Not Be a Reason to Shut Down Schools

Here I sit on a Tuesday evening with several webpages open so I can write an intelligent entry; some of the webpages are: ACLU of Nebraska, Rule 10 for the Accreditation of Nebraska Schools, and a Wikipedia article on the Pledge of Allegiance.

Earlier this month, I had read an article that said Nebraska schools would be required to daily say the Pledge of Allegiance or the school would risk losing accreditation and be shut down.

The Pledge

Thanks to Wiki, I am able to see the development of a pledge first written by a "Christian socialist" in 1892.

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows:^[7]

I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Also of note:

The Pledge of Allegiance... [was] formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942.^[1] The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.

  For those of you who need a brush-up, the current accepted Pledge is as such:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Constitutional Rights

As a result of much legislation and many battles "the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that students cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge, or punished for not doing so." The ACLU has reminded administrators that this Constitutional Right to refrain without punishment also extends to teachers.

ACLU Call to Action

This morning I received an email from the ACLU (sent yesterday) that requested I sent a message to Dr. Roger Breed, the Education Commissioner and implore him to "Defend the religious & speech rights of teachers".

My message to Dr. Roger Breed

Note: The first paragraph is automatically included by the ACLU.

Roger Breed:

Teachers shouldn't have to fear their jobs are in jeopardy if they are true to their religious and political conscience. Students shouldn't fear harassment as part of their school day. The new Pledge regulations may not compel participation, but the new mandatory Pledge may put pressure on those who cannot participate.

The recitation of the Pledge is not necessary to the education of children and it should not be a key component in the retention of school funding.
One must consider the effects of requiring people, (students and teachers) who come from many backgrounds and religions, to either recite or stand by as a pledge is said to a flag and a specific God.

If funding should rely on anything, it should not be the inclusion of words recited daily, but on the basis of the quality of education.

I strongly urge you to focus in the future on passing regulations that improve educating our youth rather than indoctrinating them. If you want students and teachers to be proud of their country, well, it takes a lot more than reciting words that can be hollow to those who are forced to listen to it daily.

As a young person who has traveled to and spent time in six other countries, I find blind indoctrination and the 'love your country'
mentality detrimental to proper international relations. I would be much more proud of my state and my country if the emphasis for school funding was put, not on a pledge forced into classrooms, but on the improved quality of education. I urge you to withdraw the non-education based funding requirement so that the focus is, not on who did not recite the pledge every day, but on the subjects being taught in schools.

Response of Dr. Roger Breed (which includes the Proposed Requirement)

Thank you for your email concerning the proposed pledge recitation requirement in Rule 10.  Please know that the proposed requirement states:

003.12    Each public school district shall require each such district's schools
to establish a period of time during the school day, when a majority of pupils is scheduled to be present, during which pupils will be led in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the presence of the flag of the United States of America, in grades Kindergarten through twelve. 
Pupil participation in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance shall be voluntary.  Pupils not participating in the recitation of the Pledge shall be permitted to silently stand or remain seated but shall be required to respect the rights of those pupils electing to participate.

The proposed requirement has been approved by the State Board of Education and sent to the Attorney General.  If the Attorney General approves the proposed rule and if the Governor signs the proposed rule, then the recitation requirement will become effective for Nebraska's accredited public schools.

We will forward your comments to State Board of Education.  Again, thank you for your comments.

Roger Breed
Commissioner of Education

 Proposed Requirement in Correlation to Rule 10 Accreditation

If you will notice, the proposed requirement is listed as 3.12. The most recent Rule 10 pdf (of 177 pages in length) has yet to include this rule, as it needs to be signed into law by the Nebraska Attorney General. Requirement 003.12 would be subject to Clause 003:

"Mandatory Requirements for Legal Operation. To be eligible for accreditation or to continue as an accredited school system, the following requirements shall be met when applicable. Failure to comply with Sections 003.01 through 003.11 shall be just cause for the Commissioner to initiate proceedings before the Board to terminate accreditation and end legal operation during the school year.

The clauses 003.01-003.11 seem legitimate to the facilitation of schools, as they regulate subject matter, teacher and administer certification, class credits, length of school year, reports etc.

Why is the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance so Important that it's worth shutting down schools?

That's kind of a rhetorical question. NOT saying the pledge does not mean the students are lacking in a well-rounded education. What does the requirement hope to accomplish? Patriotism? I know that when people tell me I am required to do something, I do it likely out of obligation, not choice. Wouldn't it be more of a learning opportunity if it was built into lesson planning?

I know I have a different outlook at patriotism than many other people and of course I object to the inclusion of 'under God' as part of a Government Pledge. Wiki says: "Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, and meetings held by many private organizations." Maybe 58 years of saying 'Under God' has misled our politicians into believing Religion and State ARE intertwined, which would shed light as to why Republicans are the Religious Party, creating platforms based on a Christian teaching of abortion, instead of seeing reality (see my previous rant).

But the most important thing to this requirement is not about my belief about an added clause, nor the educational inspiration of patriotism among students: I do not believe that the daily recitation of the pledge is of enough importance to education that failure to do so is cause to terminate school accreditation and operation. 

Call to Action

If you take issue with this proposed requirement:
1) fill out this ACLU plea that goes to Commissioner of Education, Dr. Roger Breed, who will send your comments along.
2) Most Importantly: Contact Jon Bruning, the Nebraska Attorney General, since he is the last step in turning down a frivolous requirement for school accreditation.
3) Share this post.

ADDITION: MY COMMENT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL JON BRUNING:

Greetings,

I'm aware that the Attorney General will be asked to approve a proposal that requires public schools to provide daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or lose accreditation and be forced to end school operation. I implore you to turn down this proposed requirement.

The other requirements in Section 3 of Rule 10 regarding accreditation are things such as the regulation of subject matter, teacher and administer certification, class credits, length of school year, reports etc. Those things are legitimate to proper operation of schools and I can see how failure to meet those requirements could be detrimental to standards of promoting education.

However, I do not believe that the daily recitation of the pledge is of enough importance to education that failure to do so is cause to terminate school accreditation and operation.

I understand there is a desire to promote patriotism and pride in one's country, but I think to install a requirement that endangers school operations is not the proper method to inspire our youth.

As I'm sure you are aware, the ACLU insists that teachers, as well as the students, are allowed the Constitutional right to abstain from participation in the Pledge of Allegiance without punishment. However, because this requirement would only be in effect in public schools, the number of students and teachers that may refrain from recitation due to any number of reasons, be it religion or national heritage, is worth considering.

Is this short recitation of a Pledge worth the daily awareness that some people are refraining from participation? Is not providing this opportunity worth shutting down educational institutions? I think not.

I would very much like to see the requirement turned down mostly because it should not carry enough weight to shut down schools. If the aim of this requirement is more patriotism, I think there are plenty of interactive educational opportunities that can provide more insight for students.

I do hope my comment is well received and that a more appropriate means of inspiring patriotism is developed instead of a requirement that threatens school accreditation.

Thank you.