The New Jersey News reports on this group. I think this is perfectly fine -- religious figures are just as entitled to participate in political life as are secular figures, and religious groups should be just as entitled as secular groups. But I likewise disagree with the common condemnation of some religious leaders' "mixing religion and politics" that I often hear when the leaders back conservative candidates and causes.

I should add that some religious people and movements may, for their own theological reasons, conclude that their own religious teaching counsels against involvement in politics. Likewise, some religious leaders might think that their involvement in political life will be counterproductive towards their own personal or ideological goals. But if religious leaders or groups think some behavior is right or wrong towards one's fellow man -- something that many religious belief systems teach -- it strikes me as quite proper for them to convey their views, much like it's quite proper for secular ideological leaders or groups (e.g., libertarians, environmentalists, etc.) to convey their views.

Note that both secular and religious nonprofits to which tax-deductible donations are given are limited by tax law when they endorse or oppose candidates, or, to a smaller extent, when they endorse or oppose legislation: Such speech has to be carried on through affiliates which get nondeductible donations. But that's a matter of tax exemption policy applicable without regard to the group's religiosity, not of some supposed "separation of church and state."

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.