sleeper;1076684 wrote:Thanks dw. Reps.

I understood what you were saying, not really sure why these guys couldn't figure it out. I think they were just trying to find a reason to start in with you.

I Wear Pants;1076612 wrote:Do they receive any money from the government or get tax breaks/don't pay taxes?

If the answer is yes to any of those then they can stop whining and provide contraception like intelligent people.

What you are illustrating here is how the tax code is used to coerce people to behave as the government sees fit. Be careful of what you wish for.

I Wear Pants;1076612 wrote:Anyone who doesn't support the use of contraceptives and other methods to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies whether they believe this for religious reasons or otherwise is an idiot.

You forgot abstinence.

The argument here is the government via the tax code mandating or coercing private groups of citizens into funding certain methods. You people would go ape shit if abstinence programs were required to be covered.

Because abstinence programs from a scientific standpoint don't work (not in a "you can get preggers or an STD via abstinence" way but a "abstinence programs have shown to not be effective at reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs").

I don't want to mandate things like this, except for people that have tax free status. You can be a religious idiot if you want but if you aren't paying taxes I'm going to take away your ability to trump science with religious "ideals".

If we would move to where religions aren't tax free then I would completely agree with you.

dwccrew;1076671 wrote:sleeper even admitted he'd be willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide free birth control to people. It'd be offered, not mandated, for no charge to the person (charged to the taxpayer, which sleeper said he'd gladly pay for).

I agree with your previous points, but sleeper would have to clarify what level of governace has the authority to implement a program such as this. If its the feds well I hope sleeper can point where we can find their authority in the constitution. The feds have countless programs that are not mandatory. The feds use a witch's brew of tax incentives, subsidies, and regulations to get individuals or entities to "voluntarily" participate. You don't even have to participate in Obamacare.

majorspark;1076744 wrote:I agree with your previous points, but sleeper would have to clarify what level of governace has the authority to implement a program such as this. If its the feds well I hope sleeper can point where we can find their authority in the constitution. The feds have countless programs that are not mandatory. The feds use a witch's brew of tax incentives, subsidies, and regulations to get individuals or entities to "voluntarily" participate. You don't even have to participate in Obamacare.

Whether it be a Federal or State tax that provides a program wherein contraceptives are free I would be in support of it. I imagine sleeper would be too.

I Wear Pants;1076730 wrote:Because abstinence programs from a scientific standpoint don't work (not in a "you can get preggers or an STD via abstinence" way but a "abstinence programs have shown to not be effective at reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs").

I don't want to mandate things like this, except for people that have tax free status. You can be a religious idiot if you want but if you aren't paying taxes I'm going to take away your ability to trump science with religious "ideals".

If we would move to where religions aren't tax free then I would completely agree with you.

Are you saying, if they are receiving any funds from the government and not having to pay taxes they should have to do what the government tells them and have no rights to refuse?

password;1076756 wrote:Are you saying, if they are receiving any funds from the government and not having to pay taxes they should have to do what the government tells them and have no rights to refuse?

They can refuse, just like the government can take away government funds for doing so.

sleeper;1076757 wrote:They can refuse, just like the government can take away government funds for doing so.

I am not a fan of any religion, but if they start telling private business what insurance they have to offer to their workers, they should be able to require mandatory drug testing for anyone on welfare, I do believe welfare is government funded.

I Wear Pants;1076730 wrote:Because abstinence programs from a scientific standpoint don't work (not in a "you can get preggers or an STD via abstinence" way but a "abstinence programs have shown to not be effective at reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs").

Scientifically abstence is 100% effective in preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancies. You can tell a guy to wear a condom or a gal to swallow a pill. Neither of those are 100% effective. We are dealing with the personal choices of individual human beings. I have no problem with any of these methods at the state or local level. Just when the feds want to get in on it.

I Wear Pants;1076730 wrote:I don't want to mandate things like this, except for people that have tax free status. You can be a religious idiot if you want but if you aren't paying taxes I'm going to take away your ability to trump science with religious "ideals".

Would you be ok with people that not only enjoy free tax status but recieve government funds (welfare) to have mandated drug testing?

I Wear Pants;1076730 wrote:If we would move to where religions aren't tax free then I would completely agree with you.

I alluded to this earlier on this thread. Its abused by many and opens the door for government coercion. I would prefer a tax code that eliminates all the BS. That treats everyone the same. Of course that means something flat and across the board. Absent of "loopholes" reguardless of social, financial or charitable status. This will not happen because the feds will never give up this power to control its citizens by taxation. The feds power to lay and collect taxes has become a separate an unique power.

sleeper;1076757 wrote:They can refuse, just like the government can take away government funds for doing so.

You gloss over the power of taxation. Tax law is one step below martial law. One controls by monitary force the other by physical force.

majorspark;1076764 wrote:Scientifically abstence is 100% effective in preventing STD's and unwanted pregnancies. You can tell a guy to wear a condom or a gal to swallow a pill. Neither of those are 100% effective. We are dealing with the personal choices of individual human beings. I have no problem with any of these methods at the state or local level. Just when the feds want to get in on it.

I already acknowledged the 100% thing. Yes it works, but people will not do that en masse. You know it, I know it.

Would you be ok with people that not only enjoy free tax status but recieve government funds (welfare) to have mandated drug testing?

Depends on the type and method of testing.

But that delves into my belief that we should legalize most drugs and regulate them carefully while providing strong programs to discourage irresponsible use (or use at all of more damaging drugs).

I alluded to this earlier on this thread. Its abused by many and opens the door for government coercion. I would prefer a tax code that eliminates all the BS. That treats everyone the same. Of course that means something flat and across the board. Absent of "loopholes" reguardless of social, financial or charitable status. This will not happen because the feds will never give up this power to control its citizens by taxation. The feds power to lay and collect taxes has become a separate an unique power.

I'd be fully supportive of a tax code that got rid of loopholes and was more simple. But I do not believe a flat tax is a fair measure. A person making $10 million a year IMO should pay a higher percentage than someone making $50k. Not as a punishment and not some absurd amount but because they can do so without being negatively effected in any meaningful way.

Of course that doesn't help if we just spend all that money. Which is why we need to change things like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc and drastically reduce our military spending. I mentioned about my stance on the drug war which would save billions of dollars a year (and studies have shown probably make drug abuse and drug violence less of an issue). As for welfare and things like that I would be open to changes to it.

I think it would make sense if perhaps there was a time period where if you've been on assistance for longer than x months or whatever you have to either start going to job training or something or have the option to do work for your locality or state in exchange for receiving those benefits. That way if someone has a terrible run of luck the support is still there and it encourages people to get a job instead of just collecting that check.

Like sleeper I am not for the government telling you out of the blue what you/your company/etc must do. But if you receive some sort of benefit (like a tax break or check) from the government I think it's not unreasonable that they can have stipulations you must meet to receive the benefit (now what those could/should be would be up to debate but the principle I think is reasonable).

This will be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. Obama just lost the next election, and you can take that to the bank.

....Unless he backtracks on this.

Captain Cavalier;1076049 wrote:Ahhh yes, the "Separation of church and state" phrase.

The phrase that's used countless times yet is no where in our constitution.

There are any number of ways to say the same thing. It's in the constitution, just not using those exact words.

It'd be offered, not mandated, for no charge to the person (charged to the taxpayer, which sleeper said he'd gladly pay for).

Then charge it to sleeper and not the rest of us taxpayers who dont want to pay for more 'free' government services ...some of which are abhorrent(especially abortion services) to a very large percentage of those taxpayers. Usually what real conservatives do when they want to support a cause that the governmnet doesn't and shouldn't fund, is to donate to it. Since sleeper is an avowed atheist, a donation of 5-10% of his income to Planned Parenthood would be my suggestion. I believe that would be tax deductible for him...and better yet ...he wouldn't burden the rest of us by forcing us to fund those services that we won't use, and find offensive to our moral character.

The separation of church and state means both keeping the church out of the business of the state as well as keeping the state out of the business of the church.

It seems as though BHO has intruded on the latter. Like Zwick, I think this could lead to the possibility of BHO losing a big chunk of votes in November.

This is a colossal fuck-up on Bam's part. It's almost like he's throwing the election on purpose.

HitsRus;1076860 wrote:Then charge it to sleeper and not the rest of us taxpayers who dont want to pay for more 'free' government services ...some of which are abhorrent(especially abortion services) to a very large percentage of those taxpayers. Usually what real conservatives do when they want to support a cause that the governmnet doesn't and shouldn't fund, is to donate to it. Since sleeper is an avowed atheist, a donation of 5-10% of his income to Planned Parenthood would be my suggestion. I believe that would be tax deductible for him...and better yet ...he wouldn't burden the rest of us by forcing us to fund those services that we won't use, and find offensive to our moral character.

I actually do donate to Planned Parenthood. I suppose you are right in the sense that there is a free market solution to this, but if you take government money(ie. have zero tax liability) you are subject to the rules and regulations of the government. You can choose not to follow these regulations, just like the government can choose to take away the funding. In this case, I hope they do because churches are profit money making machines that have business being given non-profit status.

I hope they do because churches are profit money making machines that have business being given non-profit status.

I would have to say that is a broad generalization and that a great majority of what churches do would be considered charitable for tax purposes. The argument really here is whether government should pick and choose by mandates. Ahh the slippery slope of Obamacare rears it head already. What else will they mandate? Who gets to decide?

That you have Ronulans falling for this just shows the deviousness of the socialist agenda....persistently a strategy of divide and conquer....pit groups against each other so that the government can decide the merits. Religious against non religious...rich against poor...black against white....carbon producers against green folks.

HitsRus;1076978 wrote:I would have to say that is a broad generalization and that a great majority of what churches do would be considered charitable for tax purposes. The argument really here is whether government should pick and choose by mandates. Ahh the slippery slope of Obamacare rears it head already. What else will they mandate? Who gets to decide?

That you have Ronulans falling for this just shows the deviousness of the socialist agenda....persistently a strategy of divide and conquer....pit groups against each other so that the government can decide the merits. Religious against non religious...rich against poor...black against white....carbon producers against green folks.

Welcome to reality. Almost anything can and will be described as a generalization because that's the way the human mind works. There is always an exception to everything, but for the sake of argument you lump everything into one category. Of course this always cues the faux intellectual who chimes in with the exception pretending that he's cracked the argument and pointed out something that the OP didn't think about, when in reality, he's lost the argument by resorting to those tactics. For example, if we are talking about gravity and I make a statement in regards to gravity, it would be akin to someone saying "Well Venus doesn't have gravity and such such exists there". #weaksauce

I hope the Church remains in complete defiance of this rule. I know the bishop of the Youngstown diocese said, in writing, "we will not" comply with this ruling. I hope they make enough of an issue of this that the majority of the Church members take their votes elsewhere; it is high-time the Church told the radical left to shove it.

fish82;1076928 wrote:This is a colossal fuck-up on Bam's part. It's almost like he's throwing the election on purpose.

I think BHO is using this to redefine the narrative of the election.

Maybe he's not actually throwing the election, but using a social issue to deflect from the economic issues. He can not win if the election is about the economy. If he can change the narrative of the election away from the economy and into the realm of social issues, maybe he thinks he will have a better chance of getting elected.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if he tries to up the highly charged ante of class warfare with a double-whammy of abortion rights. Using the abortion issue against Romney would be pretty easy given the way he has flip-flopped on the issue.

Romney looks weak trying to run against ObamaCare when RomneyCare was the blueprint for it. Romney looks even weaker when he runs against abortion when he supported it in the past.

I Wear Pants;1076612 wrote:Do they receive any money from the government or get tax breaks/don't pay taxes?

If the answer is yes to any of those then they can stop whining and provide contraception like intelligent people.

Anyone who doesn't support the use of contraceptives and other methods to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies whether they believe this for religious reasons or otherwise is an idiot.

Actually, by our Constitution no they do not.

I don't agree with the Catholics view on contraception. However, I also believe in their constitutional right to have and exercise their belief.

That means, they have 100% the right to offer whatever health insurance they want to their employees, and their health insurance complies with their beliefs.

If the employees of a CATHOLIC institution don't believe in the CATHOLIC beliefs/practices then they are FREE to get a job anywhere else.

The government should not be telling a religion they can not excercise their belief.

I Wear Pants;1076730 wrote:Because abstinence programs from a scientific standpoint don't work (not in a "you can get preggers or an STD via abstinence" way but a "abstinence programs have shown to not be effective at reducing the rates of unwanted pregnancies and STDs").

I don't want to mandate things like this, except for people that have tax free status. You can be a religious idiot if you want but if you aren't paying taxes I'm going to take away your ability to trump science with religious "ideals".

If we would move to where religions aren't tax free then I would completely agree with you.

You do realize that anyone who works for a religion is taxed on their earnings just like the rest of us, correct?

Only "tax exempt" status is that the religion is not taxed on money that is donated to them. That money is donated from people who already paid taxes on their income. So, the money has already been taxed.

It is no different than donations to any non-profit organization, they do not pay taxes on those donations either. Many non-profits provide free birth control and accept donations and they pay no tax on the donations either.

FYI, in Ohio churches aren't even free from property taxes, I know this for a fact. So religious organizations really only get "away" with not paying taxes on the donations, just like every other non-profit out there.

I think jmog pretty much summed it up. I do not agree with catholic view on contraception but they do have a right to make the decision on what type of healthcare benefits they offer. Healthcare are benefits of employment ,not a right.

98% of Catholics use BC already... who the fuck cares?