See, however, clouding of the simplicity - to be a nuisance, to garner publicity, to interfere with secular matters of politics and state, whatever, discussed, here.
The article and comments are worth a quick look. Best analysis, comments 2, 3, and 6; perhaps down in the 70's to 90' it's better stated, but you can read each that deeply, I will not.
Comments 3 and 6 are quoted:
#3.
October 5th,
2008
9:59 pm
We must remember that this issue is merely about taxing non-profits. It isn’t necessarily about religion at all. It’s not even that big a deal. We aren’t talking about whether the government should allow particular forms of speech; the only issue is what sort of organizations should be taxed.
Issues of taxation are always merely political decisions in Fish’s sense. We can debate whether to tax capital gains at a separate rate from earned income, or whether we tax alcohol or gasoline separately from food, or whether we have a flat or progressive income tax, and in none of these cases would we flatly undermine our liberal, democratic form of government should we choose one direction over another.
Fish is right if he means to say that the preservation of our form of government does not hinge on how we handle this issue.
— Posted by Scott Banks
[...]
#6.
October 6th,
2008
1:33 am
The tax breaks given to nonprofits, including the religious, are a form of tax spending paid for by all other tax payers. Applying for tax exempt status is voluntary, and requires submission to the rules, including the Johnson amendment. If a church wishes to enter into politics, it is free to do so, but we tax payers are also free to decide not to subsidize that activity with tax breaks.
— Posted by dairubo
Truth here, is simple. Obfuscation is attempting to lead you away from simple truth. And look who the folks are that are doing the obfuscating. I am surprised.
One final cliche of a thought --- doing a word search, "Caesar," you get what you'd expect, see the post at comments 11, 38, 47, 50, 91, 146, 156, and 196, for example,
#156.
October 6th,
2008
2:34 pm
The idea that the government should not intercede against or on behalf of church expression could be easily fixed.
Just get the government out of the business of supporting religous [sic] institutions and let the fully taxed churches advocate in any way they want…after rendering unto Caesar the “taxable” portion of the money they collect like any other free entity does.
If Churches want to get special consideration from the government to not pay taxes…they must and should follow the laws that govern those tax breaks.
Any religous [sic] person who wants to rail against the government may do so by merely rejecting their tax exempt status.
Sound too simple to be true….look it up.
— Posted by Jay Keating
#11.
October 6th,
2008
2:23 am
The great irony of this debate is that Jesus himself advocated the separation of church and state. When questioned about whether Jews should pay taxes to Rome, he said “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew, 22:21). He clearly recognized that spiritual and political authority occupied separate spheres. Those Christians who argue for their religion taking a more active role in government seem confused about what it means to be a Christian.
— Posted by Paul Mooney
I guess that sews it up. This election, I am voting for Caesar, not Obama, not McCain. I am not sure I read things correctly, but that Caesar, rendering, I think he wants to render that McCain fish wrapped in a newspaper called Change, the sooner the better -- but did the wrapped fish wear lipstick? That's a part I don't understand, pit bulls and pigs in the discussion, but when talk turns to fish, make-up or no make-up, huh?