Not sure what you are saying at all. Are you agreeing with what I wrote or not?
I am not too elitist to do some chazarah, cherry.
You said this:
I'm saying that taking you shouldn't take money if you will then be beholden to the givers deios that you don't agree with.
It's very very simple. Nothing really to analyze.
Not daas Torah. Just common sense.
Klur. Only if you become beholden to his opinion may you NOT take. If you are beholden you should return the money. Meaning, if someone gets up and is mivazeh talmidei chachamim and then gives a million bucks, one MAY take since they don't agree with what he had to say. (That is clearly against RMBM by the way. see Avos perek 4 mishna 5 for starters)
Now, according to that (wrong) hashkafah, then satmar and brisk and others are wrong for not taking. They should use the money for their mosdos. Why? Because, as you say, they will never be beholden anyway to the government. Binei Brak takes. Are they beholden? They don't even serve in the army.
And besides, the sevarah is full of holes. Why is it only an issue of beliveing in his hashkafah? The ACT of taking is a chillul Hashem because it demonstrates that deep down money is more important than what is correct. Is that not true? And the RMBM is clear on that point.
Finally, I know you say it is common sense, but its a svorah. Shouldn't your sevorah require daas torah? After all, its not 1+1=2. It is establishing a full blown policy of when to take from a wealthy gvir in a case where he spews forth chillul Hashem.
Hayotzei midvareinu, your shlugged up. tiyuvta d'cherry tiyuvta.