Joe, I presume the late hour interfered with your reading skills as AD clearly wasn't calling AU a house of worship.
AD, for them to accurately be called hypocrites, you'd need to point out some races where AU endorsed candidates. While it's a fine line between advocating political positions and advocating political candidates, the law governing 501(c)3's makes it a fairly clear line. So long as they don't endorse particular candidates, 501(c)3's can engage in political activity.
I've set up 501c3's previously, including some for religious organizations so I still have familiarity with the regulations, which actually prohibit 501c3's from intervening in any political race to support/oppose a candidate. The rule is vague and 501c3's break the rule 24/7/365, including AU. Therefore, I accuse AU of hypocrisy.
The no-endorsement-regulation is the somewhat enforceable provision within the regulations, but AU knows that churches are actually exempt from 501c3. What is AU doing, if not trying to meddle directly in the political process on behalf of complainants who have a vested interest in specific elections?
I can differentiate between the form of intervention and anti-intervention, but substance-over-form (tax doctrine) says AU are the same as other 501c3's who meddle in political races.
