Caesar's money, Caesar's rules

Catholics pay their share of taxes and America fought for independence from Britain under the rallying call of no taxation without representation. Why should Catholic tax dollars not help subsidise Catholic hospitals?
In earlier times many of these hospitals were originally built at no cost to the tax payer at all because there were no government subsidies of any kind.
Catholic hospital care is what medicine used to be about Doing all that is humanely possible to preseve life from the moment of conception till natural death.

The Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite currently works for the CFAP as a senior fellow. She was not listed on the IRS Form 990 for 2008 but senior fellows at the CFAP typically make $200,000/yr. Ref. guidestar.org)

Is some of that Caesar's money?

Perhaps one thing believers, and non-believers, of all stripes and political persuasions could agree on is to NOT respond to anything CCNL/YEAL posts. That way he can continue cutting and pasting and we can have a conversation about the topic.

With respect to "non-profits", the high salaries many pay plus the large investments many have in the stock and bond markets should be of concern to the IRS and USA taxpayers in general.

ref: guidestar.org

e.g. The ACLU

Dividends and interest from stocks and bonds for 2008 was $9,434,769. The major investments were in mutual funds which for 2008 totaled

$212,518,412

http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/13-6213516/american-civil-liberties-union-foundation.aspx#

Directors of USA non-profits appear to make on average $200,000+/yr and it looks like many directors use their non-profits as investment vehicles to escape paying taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains..

Whereas political parties in many countries pay taxes on the contributions they receive that is not the case in the USA i.e. the Republican and Democratic Parties and their PAC's are tax-exempt just like religious organizations and non-profits.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/527_Organization

Athena,

CCN-Yeal Does seem fascinated how gays do it. But what's the point?

CCN-Yeal, why are you condemning the bloggers here who work for non-profit organizations? What is your hangup with them? Also, the Democratic and Republican parties are NOT non-profit entities.

We're all aware of your fetish about the sexual practices of gay people. How a person has sex, or how disgusting people think it is, is not the issue. The issue is that gay people have the right to have their relationships considered equal in the eyes of the law. BTW, any sex that is not for procreation would also fall under the category that you state. So, would that mean that older women should not marry because they can no longer procreate? Tell that to my Mother-in-Law, who remarried twice after my husband's father passed away.

As noted by many bloggers:

The general population to include many of the voters in California, rightly or wrongly, find gay sexual activities, married or not, to be "yucky" and unusual and typically associate such activity with the spread of AIDS which is of course wrong. Said AIDS epidemic in the gay male community at the start of the AIDS crises will always remain unfortunately a stigma on the gay community.

" And after all of this rhetoric, gay "marriages" simply simplify and somewhat sanitize what are still "yucky" acts caused by a variant gene(s) and/or hormone imbalance. One wonders if stem cell research will find a cure??

Hmmm, would the embryos formed from the sperm of gay guys and the eggs from gay gals make more ethical embryos for this and other types of research?? "

Impressive list of gay people who did not let their yucky defect get in the way of being a contribution to society.

Unfortunately, they were not able to contribute to the evolutionary process of DNA improvement via procreation.

And one will never know whether they would have achieved even greater achievements without said defect.

From below, on top, backwards, forwards, from this side of the Moon and from the other side too, gay sexual activity is still mutual masturbation caused by one or more complex sexual defects. Some defects are visually obvious in for example the complex maleness of DeGeneres, Billy Jean King and Rosie O'Donnell. Of course not all having these abnormal tendencies, show it outwardly as alluded to in the following synopsis:

From Wikipedia:
" No simple cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated, and there is no scientific consensus as to whether the contributing factors are primarily biological or environmental. Many think both play complex roles.[1][2] The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association have both stated that sexual orientation probably has multiple causes.[3][4] Research has identified several biological factors which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual orientation. These include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure. Conclusive proof of a biological cause of sexual orientation would have significant political and cultural implications. [5]"

What's wrong with "mutual masturbation"? You do it alone I guess? Maybe you should take up Yoga. Who knows how flexible you might become.

As a Christian, I am familiar with the "render unto Ceaser that which is Ceasars" saying. I have to say that I can understand the logic behind separating the government funding from religious organizations and would not necessarily be opposed to that...A religious organization is a religious organization and religious beliefs will affect decisions made regarding the funds that are received.

But, why are only religious organizations singled out!?!? If we are going to not provide government funding or tax breaks to religious organizations than other organizations (even non-religious) should be considered too. I am an American citizen and I do not agree with many of the groups that I know my tax money is going to via government funding/tax exemption...i.e. anything supporting abortion. My views are being discriminated against when these organizations receive funding/tax exemption. I am not treated fairly as an American when funding goes to those groups. If this healthcare legislation is passed, I will not agree with it and would most certainly prefer that I not get taxed like crazy for it - which I most certainly will. Bottom line: is there any program for government funding that supports ALL American's equally? Very few...if any.

There are different opinions as to what a religion really is or what a non-profit is. To be fair therefore, there should be no tax-exemptions for any group and that includes the Democratic and Republican Parties. Faith and community initiative grant monies should also be cancelled and there should also be no tax deductions for contributions made to charities and non-profits like the Center for American Progress. (John Podesta is the president of the CFAP making over $250,000/yr with eight managers/fellows averaging $200,000/yr each. Contributions made to CFAP for 2008 were in excess of $28 million.

The Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite currently works for the CFAP as a senior fellow. She was not listed on the IRS Form 990 for 2008 but senior fellows at the CFAP typically make $200,000/yr. Ref. guidestar.org)

Would this generate the added taxes/contributions needed to pay for universal health care??

Cesar has no business providing charity. Leave the charity business to charities, keep our tax dollars out of it.

The RCC is not alone in not recognizing same-sex unions (some would describe it as "mutual masturbation"- see the over 1.4 million Google/Bing hits for added information)

See Wikipedia's review on same-sex unions:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_same-sex_marriage

Well said.