US Republicans shamefully shred the constitution

[Seastallion]

Off Topic but...

At 3:24, did Hitler actually refer to Trump as "Herr Prick"?

[Seastallion]

It's ok if you don't understand a post, but better not to react to it.

Facts are that the Huckster is irrelevant.

Why bring the guy up?

And please post your proof that he would or has put faith above the Constitution.

Or does the 14thA not apply in the case of someone like Kim Davis?

Personally, I don't care but I think her case might go to the SCOTUS

I think her case might go to the SCOTUS

It's already gone to SCOTUS which told the clerk Davis to respect the Constitution and to adhere to it. SCOTUS, the federal circuit court of appeals, the federal district court, said the same thing to Davis. Kim Davis has absolutely no support in the Constitution, none. Carson's opinion too is 100% in contradiction of the Constitution.

Here is how SCOTUS has in just recent times protected the Constitution against resurgent American theocrats....

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional, and in Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) the Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:

1) the government action must have a secular purpose;

2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;

3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause

http://infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

The list is a partial listing but it does add up to a lot of shredded parchment on the basement floor of a lot of wooden Christian evangelical churches.

The evangelical religious right think all of the above that the SCOTUS has ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment are instead good, desirable, worth fighting for. Most of the religion laws overturned by SCOTUS were made by a state government here or there, again and again over much time, generated by evangelicals of the radical Christian right.

The OP goes in the right direction, it just doesn't make the case very well.

"Theocrats". A sadly under-used word when it comes to talking about US Republicans....and they have the hide to demonise theocracies around the world!

I suppose it's all about precisely whose "Theo" is being used.

[Publicus]

The following two SCOTUS rulings were inadvertently cut from my post above, so here they are to complete the list of post-WW2 SCOTUS rulings to protect the Constitution against the incessant ravages of the evangelical Christian right theocrats.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

City's ban on killing animals for religious sacrifices, while allowing sport killing and hunting, was unconstitutional discrimination against the Santeria religion.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

[DisparateDan]

More relevant pix ??

[Chicog]

I just saw a number of Muslims living in America being interviewed about the question "Would you consider Shariah law above the U.S. constitution?" An alarming number of them said "Yes, the law of Allah would ALWAYS supersede ANY laws created by man."

This is a valid concern - if a Muslim became president, would he (she?) be able to put aside their religious convictions and rule objectively?

A Christian like Mike Huckabee has proven he does consider Christian law above the US constituation.

What? There is no "christian law" that even closely resembles sharia. And instead of wishing Huckabee said that give a link that proves he said it.

Well there is a lot in common between Islam and Christianity, except that Christianity has grown up a little bit. Muslim extremists are really only doing what the Bible says.

• ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
• Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."
• ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
• HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
• KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
• LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."
• NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "'If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. "
• Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves." ₁
• NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
• NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
• NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."
• RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
• Webster: (Noah Webster Version, 1833): "If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
• Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."

[arjunadawn]

This is a ridiculous thread based on an editorial that is so full of holes it should never have seen the light of day.

In the first place, Dr. Carson had every right under the 1st Amendment to voice an opinion about Muslims being elected to the Presidency. That right is undeniable in this instance.

Dr. Carson has not asked for any test to be taken by any candidate before they are sworn in or even campaign. Article VI of the Constitution states...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The only ones in violation of the US Constitution are the author for trying to infringe on Dr. Carson's 1st Amendment rights and the Nation for even allowing such stupidity to go out under their masthead.

​End of story.

Not very insightful on your part.

Indeed Carson has a right to voice his opinion, but his opinion, by extension, suggests a religious test should be applied, and thus his opinion suggests going against the constitution.

BTW, The Nation is Thai, and thus is not violating the US Constitution because it does not come under the US Constitution. Same goes for the writer. Do you really think non-US citizens and entities are governed by the US Constitution? If they are not governed by it, they can not be violating it.

Your point seems valid, SS- though incomplete. The west has long been divorced from theocracy; islam is not. Irrespective of how you perceive your local muslim friends, Islam demands no division between faith and state. In fact, the two cannot coexist as allah has created them as one. It is this mix that confounds those in the west. So, it makes no difference whether those around us in our western lives coexist peacefully or not, it cannot be asserted that islam and the state can coexist- they cannot. Islam is the state. Any efforts to explain or mitigate this all pervading fact cannot be sustained. Islam and the state are one. Sharia is the thread that binds the cloth of islam. You can have faith without sharia but you cannot have islam without sharia. In this regard it is actually a self evident observation that an avowed muslim for president would be suspect.

It is an awful conundrum because while there should be no religious test for office a religion that holds all secular laws subordinate is anathema. This cannot be reconciled by ignoring the facts nor assigning "religion" some special hands-off status because one believes in a man in the clouds. Personally, I think any candidate for office who offers his religion as a running mate should be banned from office. I do not know how to reconcile the soundness of the law with the very real facts that some religion-ists, christians included, are terrifying prospects for leadership in the 21st century.

[chuckd]

This is a ridiculous thread based on an editorial that is so full of holes it should never have seen the light of day.

In the first place, Dr. Carson had every right under the 1st Amendment to voice an opinion about Muslims being elected to the Presidency. That right is undeniable in this instance.

Dr. Carson has not asked for any test to be taken by any candidate before they are sworn in or even campaign. Article VI of the Constitution states...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The only ones in violation of the US Constitution are the author for trying to infringe on Dr. Carson's 1st Amendment rights and the Nation for even allowing such stupidity to go out under their masthead.

​End of story.

Not very insightful on your part.

Indeed Carson has a right to voice his opinion, but his opinion, by extension, suggests a religious test should be applied, and thus his opinion suggests going against the constitution.

BTW, The Nation is Thai, and thus is not violating the US Constitution because it does not come under the US Constitution. Same goes for the writer. Do you really think non-US citizens and entities are governed by the US Constitution? If they are not governed by it, they can not be violating it.

Your point seems valid, SS- though incomplete. The west has long been divorced from theocracy; islam is not. Irrespective of how you perceive your local muslim friends, Islam demands no division between faith and state. In fact, the two cannot coexist as allah has created them as one. It is this mix that confounds those in the west. So, it makes no difference whether those around us in our western lives coexist peacefully or not, it cannot be asserted that islam and the state can coexist- they cannot. Islam is the state. Any efforts to explain or mitigate this all pervading fact cannot be sustained. Islam and the state are one. Sharia is the thread that binds the cloth of islam. You can have faith without sharia but you cannot have islam without sharia. In this regard it is actually a self evident observation that an avowed muslim for president would be suspect.

It is an awful conundrum because while there should be no religious test for office a religion that holds all secular laws subordinate is anathema. This cannot be reconciled by ignoring the facts nor assigning "religion" some special hands-off status because one believes in a man in the clouds. Personally, I think any candidate for office who offers his religion as a running mate should be banned from office. I do not know how to reconcile the soundness of the law with the very real facts that some religion-ists, christians included, are terrifying prospects for leadership in the 21st century.

Since I have Seastallion on "ignore", i usually don't respond to his baits. I will make an exception in this case.

Exactly when and where did Dr. Carson call for a "test" on religion be performed on any candidate for any office?

He has very simply voiced an opinion, which is protected by the 1st amendment. Nothing more and nothing less.

Rather like all those Obama supporters were doing during the last Presidential election when a Mormon was the opposition candidate.

Edited September 28, 2015 by chuckd

[Publicus]

Wouldn't take the "test" language quite so literally cause no one is talking about pencil and paper. More something like a requirement that is stated to be a requirement. Carson is free to say what he thinks and believes but the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings in the matter say Carson is wrong. Very wrong.

[arjunadawn]

This is a ridiculous thread based on an editorial that is so full of holes it should never have seen the light of day.

In the first place, Dr. Carson had every right under the 1st Amendment to voice an opinion about Muslims being elected to the Presidency. That right is undeniable in this instance.

Dr. Carson has not asked for any test to be taken by any candidate before they are sworn in or even campaign. Article VI of the Constitution states...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The only ones in violation of the US Constitution are the author for trying to infringe on Dr. Carson's 1st Amendment rights and the Nation for even allowing such stupidity to go out under their masthead.

​End of story.

Not very insightful on your part.

Indeed Carson has a right to voice his opinion, but his opinion, by extension, suggests a religious test should be applied, and thus his opinion suggests going against the constitution.

BTW, The Nation is Thai, and thus is not violating the US Constitution because it does not come under the US Constitution. Same goes for the writer. Do you really think non-US citizens and entities are governed by the US Constitution? If they are not governed by it, they can not be violating it.

Your point seems valid, SS- though incomplete. The west has long been divorced from theocracy; islam is not. Irrespective of how you perceive your local muslim friends, Islam demands no division between faith and state. In fact, the two cannot coexist as allah has created them as one. It is this mix that confounds those in the west. So, it makes no difference whether those around us in our western lives coexist peacefully or not, it cannot be asserted that islam and the state can coexist- they cannot. Islam is the state. Any efforts to explain or mitigate this all pervading fact cannot be sustained. Islam and the state are one. Sharia is the thread that binds the cloth of islam. You can have faith without sharia but you cannot have islam without sharia. In this regard it is actually a self evident observation that an avowed muslim for president would be suspect.

It is an awful conundrum because while there should be no religious test for office a religion that holds all secular laws subordinate is anathema. This cannot be reconciled by ignoring the facts nor assigning "religion" some special hands-off status because one believes in a man in the clouds. Personally, I think any candidate for office who offers his religion as a running mate should be banned from office. I do not know how to reconcile the soundness of the law with the very real facts that some religion-ists, christians included, are terrifying prospects for leadership in the 21st century.

Since I have Seastallion on "ignore", i usually don't respond to his baits. I will make an exception in this case.

Exactly when and where did Dr. Carson call for a "test" on religion be performed on any candidate for any office?

He has very simply voiced an opinion, which is protected by the 1st amendment. Nothing more and nothing less.

Rather like all those Obama supporters were doing during the last Presidential election when a Mormon was the opposition candidate.

No, Carson has not said such a thing. His detractors, such as J Tapper, wield the no religious litmus test for office as an amulet to ward off rational discussion regarding Carson's self evident truth. Carson, in following up on the first comments, doubled down and ably re-stated the obvious- sharia is anathema to the constitution, not muslims.

Social Nationalists, avowed communists,and apocalyptic theocrats should equally be blocked from the office of US President. All equally have common ground in their ideology (not their faith)- they proscribe in the social/public/military space first and primarily with articles of faith second or nonexistent.

Islam is a superposition in the life of its adherents; it is a comprehensive vehicle for the conduct of all life; islam sits atop all other facets of life simultaneously- Social, Military, Justice, Economics, Sciences, Arts, diplomacy, domestic, marital, education, etc, ad naseum. This fact cannot be intellectually whitewashed or minimized. All secular or similar social contracts of man are subordinate to sharia explicitly. Islam is not suspect because of its beliefs rather its social/military practices and its imposition on nonbelievers is what makes islam game for circumspection=ideology! The problem is not the faith but its actions in the non religious space.

The fact that such an issue is dissembled in the public forum reveals the degree to which both the Republic and the intellectual faculties of modern Western Man have deteriorated.

[KMartinHandyman]

World news,,I need to look closer

Edited September 28, 2015 by KMartinHandyman

[arjunadawn]

Well there is a lot in common between Islam and Christianity, except that Christianity has grown up a little bit. Muslim extremists are really only doing what the Bible says.

• ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
• Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."
• ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
• HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
• KJV: (King James Version): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
• LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."
• NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "'If {there is} a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. "
• Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves." ₁
• NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
• NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
• NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."
• RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
• Webster: (Noah Webster Version, 1833): "If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
• Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."

Great points, though totally unrelated to the issue underlying the conflict with islam and secular life. It is not the non muslims who have elevated this issue to the forefront. All throughout the world islamic issues, grievances, etc., have been made front and center by muslims themselves as they oppose this, that, the other. There is a very long line now of things that cause islamic disdain. For this manner the issue percolates to suspect and deliberative.

You offer these various examples of social injunctions that are equally abhorrent to that which is objected to in islam. However, since no one generally cares how muslims behave in their own private lives and islamic countries it is the imposition of their faith and code of conduct on others that is the issue. Jews do not force the Torah on others (as proselytizing) nor has there been a history of this. Indeed, while Pentateuch injunctions remain by concession and history it is apparent Judaism accommodates the modern secular world as has for millennia.

That which is christianity traces successive covenants since the Leviticus era injunctions cited above with the last being emphatic. The christ came with a covenant that is in diametric opposition to war, oppression, and subjugation, and also made as a central tenet the accommodation of secular life with faith apart- Render unto Caesar... While it can be argued that christians parted ways with such lofty injunctions in history this is not that debate; we know they had. What has been offered is that the core construction of the Judeochristian faith is analogous to islam, and this is patently false.

So, where are the analogues? The analogues can only be found in social and military ideologies of man. There are no religious analogies in history. No articles of faith mandate physical war until global conquest. This is not present in any other religion in any age such an ideology. None can offer this. Were christians to act out the penalties suggested above there would be no safe haven, no accommodation, no quarter given. Individuals may still harbor inferior biases but no other faith celebrates and socially accommodates such heinous crimes/penalties.

It is incorrect to call people who follow the proscriptions of their faith "extremists." When actions are carried out in accordance with the time honored consistency of religious law such people are not called extremists. "Extremists" is a word that defines nothing but obfuscates. There are very rare examples of islamic brutality that are not accurately scripturally cited. Calling people "extremists" transfers the burden for the action upon the individual, and this is hardly the complete story. (Example: When christian billybobs form their little right wing militia and want to go kill people to save babies are some other nonsense they are extremists. There cannot be found any scriptural authority for their actions in either the gospels, the Apocrypha, or even legendary texts. They are extremists).

[DisparateDan]

More Americanism, surely an appalling indictment of greed.

Edited September 30, 2015 by DisparateDan

[chuckd]

Interestingly the only group that might be in violation of federal law is CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations).

Dr. Carson is certainly within his rights to do as he has done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslim Civil Rights Group May Have Violated Federal Law By Criticizing Ben Carson

CHUCK ROSS

Reporter

12:35 AM 09/30/2015

The largest Muslim civil rights group in the U.S. may have violated the federal tax code when its executive director last week called on retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson to drop out of the presidential race because of his comments about Muslims.

During an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this month, Carson said that he would not support a Muslim president.

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said. The comment led to backlash from Democrats and many Muslims.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/30/muslim-civil-rights-group-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-criticizing-ben-carson/#ixzz3nEvfCWmz

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, the problem is when the Executive Director of CAIR called on Dr. Carson to resign from the race, he placed CAIR in violation of iRS rules which state 501( c)(3) organizations are not permitted to intervene in any political campaign in support of or opposition to any candidate.

Where's Lois Lerner when you need her?

[Publicus]

Interestingly the only group that might be in violation of federal law is CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations).

Dr. Carson is certainly within his rights to do as he has done.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslim Civil Rights Group May Have Violated Federal Law By Criticizing Ben Carson

CHUCK ROSS

Reporter

12:35 AM 09/30/2015

The largest Muslim civil rights group in the U.S. may have violated the federal tax code when its executive director last week called on retired pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson to drop out of the presidential race because of his comments about Muslims.

During an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” earlier this month, Carson said that he would not support a Muslim president.

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said. The comment led to backlash from Democrats and many Muslims.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/30/muslim-civil-rights-group-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-criticizing-ben-carson/#ixzz3nEvfCWmz

-------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, the problem is when the Executive Director of CAIR called on Dr. Carson to resign from the race, he placed CAIR in violation of iRS rules which state 501( c)(3) organizations are not permitted to intervene in any political campaign in support of or opposition to any candidate.

Where's Lois Lerner when you need her?

Lois Lerner who was an IRS supervisor persecuted by the Congress Maximus has been cleared of false and political charges against her which is more than can be said of her accusers in the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

Ms Lerner did the smart thing by taking the 5th Amendment to the Constitution so the sleazebag politicians in the House could not twist or mangle her words, statements, pleadings.

CAIR does not oppose Dr. Carson for president per se.

CAIR considered that Carson is inconsistent with the Constitution in his view that a test of religion needs to be applied to a public office in the United States that would affect Muslims directly and universally. CAIR said no one can hold such views about a religion and at the same time say he will represent Americans of all faiths and backgrounds. Nothing unconstitutional about that no matter how the right tries to slice it.

Carson btw did not specify how in his humble opinion a Muslim would not meet the Constitutional requirements to serve as POTUS. Dr. Carson in short would disqualify a Muslim born in the USA from serving as POTUS singularly and solely because the person is Muslim. This is unconstitutional as the Council on American-Islamic Relations correctly points out.

If the right does not like it let them hide more of their tax money than they already do escape paying.

[chuckd]

Pertinent CAIR comments are at the 2:18 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRyQiZUrlt8

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Exemption Requirements - 501( c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501( c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501( c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. 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.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501©(3)-Organizations

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited October 1, 2015 by chuckd