What exactly are you saying?

552 Hits

Dear Editor,

Re: Taxes, God and meaninglessness 

I can see the dialectualism of the Church and State in your introduction. Or, the dialectualism of Religious organisations, and the H.R..P.P. Government’s enforced religious taxes. 

And, I thought, for a moment, that you were about to deliver a significant political commentary, but, then, upon further reading, I found that your moot seemed to peter out into something akin to being politically meandering and inconclusive.

I was trying to deduce the crux of your message but it seemed to have been lost in some unsubstantive political fizzer with the up in the air conclusive meaninglessness of the exact purpose of your commentary.

If you’re going to make a seemingly significant political point over current political affairs of state, such as the Government policy of imposing an unprecedented Clerical tax, then your message must be exact, and to the point, so as to allow the reader to understand where you stand on the issue, whether it is in favour of the State or of the Church, and above all, which side of the argument you’re trying to argue for. 

However, in deducing your somewhat cryptic verse, which seems to meander into some metaphysical religious tangent, then I had concluded that you’re arguing a point against the State.

And since, your message seemed rather dubious at best. I was bemused of whether you’re writing a poem, or writing in prose, with some very curious sentence structures which seems to be poetic in some parts or in reality an amalgam of adjectives in a disjointed syntax of nondescript prose.

But, getting to the crux of your argument, are you saying that the State shouldn’t tax the church, for it is ‘meaninglessness’ to do so? 

Or, is the pursuit of government revenue raising, from the Church, is in, reality, in pursuit of ‘meaningless’ revenue raising? 

I seem to have missed the point of your piece completely?

 

Timoteo Tufuga

© Samoa Observer 2016

Developed by Samoa Observer in Apia