RANGER AGAINST WAR: Syntax <

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Syntax


Sowing in the morning, sowing seeds of kindness,
Sowing in the noontide and the dewy eve;

Waiting for the harvest, and the time of reaping,

We shall come rejoicing, bringing in the sheaves.

--Bringing in the Sheaves


Render therefore unto Caesar
the things which are Caesar's;
and unto God the things that are God's
--Matthew 22:

I'm going to Graceland,
For reasons I cannot explain

There's some part of me wants to see Graceland

--Graceland
, Paul Simon
______________

Ranger has been mulling over ways to pump money into this economy that will not hurt the little people. Obama's latest round of spending cuts won't put much of a dent in the deficit.

Since we levy a heavy
Sin Tax, why not a "Grace Tax," as well. Since the Lord wishes to prosper his faithful, they might even be better poised to kick in a little extra to the national coffers. Surely, since God is such a patriot, he would be happy to have his brethren shoulder a civic burden in His name.

The Grace Tax would come in the form of the church paying property taxes on its not-immodest real estate holdings.
We must put aside eternity for this moment, and live in the here and now. Ur-messiah Eckhart Tolle can shepherd us on this earthly plane, and we would then have the Oprah acolytes on our side.


God owns a lot of primo real estate. Tax Him like any other good citizen and see that deficit dwindle.


Hallelujah! Can I get an "A-men!"?

Labels: , ,

10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Religious institutions should be taxed. Also, why not do away with the "Charitable deduction"? If it's really charity, and the spirit is to give, then any tax deduction for charitable contributions should be eliminated. For the record, I donate no small part of my income to needy in-laws for such things as medical expenses, funeral expenses, and payment of tuition and fees for four college students. None of that shows up on my income tax as a "charitable deduction", and some of these kids are the grandchildren of VC.

Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 2:27:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Old Bogus said...

If God owns it, I shudder to consider the postal costs for delivering the assessments!

Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 7:48:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Ghost Dansing said...

He's Got the Whole World in His Hand.......

Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 8:11:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous sheerahkahn said...

I would concur.
But for different reasons.

Giving to G-d should be an act of worship, and to receive the gift to G-d should be an onerous responsibility not to be taken lightly.
But alas, most give to the Church because there is a...well...incentive to do so, but yet the church has lost it's focus.
The whole reason for the tax deduction and exemption was that the church, ostensibly, would be looking after the orphaned, the widow, and the elderly.
And though "some" churches still honor that, others, feel that that is what the government is for and what paltry assistance they can laud the needy with should be viewed as gravy rather than the entree.
A sad commentary all around.
Be that as it may, the only church organization that I know of that consistently seeks to take care of the poor is the Catholic church...as far as the other denominations go...it's usually on individual church basis, and not on the corporate whole.
So I'm all for taxing the church, make the churches earn their tax credits by the government, for me at least, it would be satisfying to finally see an end to the cozy church and state relationship that has grown over the last thirty years.

Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 10:46:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous tw said...

Sheer,
I guess you don't consider the Salvation Army a church. They're the only religious organization I see helping the poor and they help allot of Catholics too.

Sunday, May 10, 2009 at 11:10:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

make sure to tax the tv preacher's limos, and their padded expense accounts.

hell yes, we should tax the church, of course, there have been some absolutely autocratic regimes that have tried throughout history.

the church usually wins because they know how to play the long con perfectly.

Monday, May 11, 2009 at 12:22:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

MB,
It's hard to say if Government or the church is the greater of the long con.
I will steal this as a future title for a blog. Thanks in advance.
jim

Monday, May 11, 2009 at 9:17:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger The Minstrel Boy said...

i give the nod to the church for supremacy in running the long con. for a perfect long con to work the mark must never really quite understand that they have been conned.

their participation, even the illusion that they are driving the action, is essential to the working of the long game.

the church not only runs the game, they provide the illusion that the marks all buy into.

smedly butler had it right on governments, it's a racket.

a bog simple protection racket. you pay them so they can hire police and raise an army, so that they can fuck you up if you decide you're tired of paying to be protected from the people you're paying.

Monday, May 11, 2009 at 11:49:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous sheerahkahn said...

"I guess you don't consider the Salvation Army a church."TW,
I am not aware of any extant evidence that would/could frame the Salvation Army as a Church (and I suspect they don't think of themselves as a non-or-de-nominational church); however, there is plenty of evidence that points to their non-denominational stance that says they'll help anyone...regardless of their station in life, or their spiritual situation.

They are what many Churches should be...but are not.

Monday, May 11, 2009 at 4:03:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous tw said...

"I am not aware of any extant evidence that would/could frame the Salvation Army as a Church"

Sunday services, congregation, preacher, sounds like a church to me.

Monday, May 11, 2009 at 10:59:00 PM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

<< Home