Pseudo-Christian Liberals and Tax Deductions

To say the least, I figured that-- well, here we go again. Pseudo-Christian Liberals always try to do this kind of stuff. Here's what a George Soros-loving, Far-Left, Pseudo Christian proposed; and the rest of the conversation but his and my part in it will be censored. So for both our sakes will be his name (I'm not willing to get sued by a man who thinks that Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life" was a Republican and who endorsed that awful University of Indiana, Bloomington study against Bill O'Reilly.).


Read this like a phone call, because I'm just using what this man said to sum up what he believes-- and believes to the detriment of not only churches and schools like those of Chapelgate, but batei knesiyot and shuls, mosques and madrassas, and other organizations as well. By the way, I posted only a part of the conversation; the part where I refused to get goaded into an argument with this guy.


So this George Soros-loving, Far-Left, Pseudo Christian  proposed the following:




[Paraphrase of what he told a mutual friend] The charity tax deduction should be abolished. 
...


 did I? I thought I proposed including religious organizations in said category.








 I propose excluding religious organizations from the category of an acceptable tax deduction. I believe that it infringes on the separation of church and state. I believe it attaches strings to religious organizations. Furthermore, I believe that it is grotesquely abused. I also believe I am going to get killed on this one.










It also frustrates me that many religious persons will defend Mitt Romney's right to use his church as a tax dodge and overlook his exceptionally immoral accumulation of wealth. He should be giving 90% of that away.




AS I said earlier, I believe it is showing favoritism to persons of religious belief. While I recognize the right of a holy God to show such favoritism, I categorically deny the right of a secular state, particularly under the guise of our particular system, to do so.




 in the moral sense.








 I think that charitable tax deductions should be acceptable when they are for some sense of the greater good, virtue in its historic sense.




...






 if you are going to use WSJ, can I use HuffPo?






 Isn't he simply identifying a return to a pre-Jeffersonian situation?








Indeed. I think they should get. WE are in a massive deficit. Either we cut spending (and yes Reagan fans, foreign policy is big government and expensive), or raise taxes.










 not surprising. Why do you think these people support policies that would seem to so threaten their wealth?








And that, I believe, is where Jesus comes into play. If America's evangelicals would start loving people like he commands us to, we wouldn't have many of the problems that government poorly tries to deal with. But of course they do a bad job. What do we expect from something as massive and complex as the Untied States?




 agreed on Buffett.


...




 the film in question was by Jamie Johnson, heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune, and it was about the unethical nature of wealth perpetuation in the United States. He disowned her for being interviewed in it.
...




[Me] I don't see why legitimate good should be taxed. As pointed out, the tax deduction is there to protect the religious organizations from the government and vice versa-- which is based on a 1954 law endorsed heavily by then legislator Lyndon Baines Johnson.




 indeed it is worth seeing! I would love to hear your thoughts on it.






[Me] I've said what I'm going to say.