Unbelievable. How does the contract between a citizen and a private company hurt a homeless shelter, orphanage or hospital for that matter?
|
Unbelievable. How does the contract between a citizen and a private company hurt a homeless shelter, orphanage or hospital for that matter?
So you've finally realized it is the employer paying for the contraceptives. Now that we have that out of the way, that's wrong to force the church to violate their beliefs and pay for contraceptives and abortifacients.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What part of churches closing their ministries rather than violate their conscience do you not get? Is the government ready to take on that load or do you just have no concept of the vast number of people the church serves without costing you a cent?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's a business decision they are allowed to take. When businesses close their doors others often take over.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Here you go:Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan
6 Apr. 1816Writings 14:466
Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But, when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.
I'm a Jeffersonian.. The problem we have is figuring out whether taxing the richest people in the land, people who are GETTING richer as we speak, is "extra-taxation"..
Me and Jefferson, say no.
Excon
The church won't close anything speech, and they haven't after all this time. Why should they? If tribal challenges didn't stop missionaries, then how are a few pills going to do it? Closing hospitals because of insurance companies doesn't make sense either.
Don't offer insurance, pay the church employees the difference, and let them get their own insurance. If the STATE they do business in allows that. 38 do NOT! That was before Obama.
Churches are tax exempt, employees are NOT!
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The part that they'll ACTUALLY do that.. Bwa, ha ha ha..
excon
A church is not a business.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You really should pay more attention, I've proven this wrong on more than one occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
They have done it, they are doing it, they will do it. Unlike the government the church as an institution will do everything in her power to maintain her integrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Then maybe it shouldn't try to BE a business and expect to be treated like a church..
excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Got any links?
Their integrity?? Aren't they NOW paying state taxes on the same thing?? What?? A church doesn't have any integrity when it's being taxed by the STATE?
I didn't know that.
excon
Including hiding rapists from prosecution. Oh wait that was the Catholic Church, not YOUR church. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Back to that same, fallacious argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
No, I'm not Catholic and that must be the new Godwin's Law. Any discussion about the church will inevitably lead to references to pedophile priests. You can do better.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Search my posts, it's there, even on this thread. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you're too lazy to pay attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Got any links?Quote:
Their integrity?? Aren't they NOW paying state taxes on the same thing?? What?? A church doesn't have any integrity when it's being taxed by the STATE?
Harshness WarningQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The church can do better, and victimizing little boys for years isn't a small thing because if they are capable of rape,what else are they capable of. Harboring criminals is NOT integrity.
For a guy who is big on protecting the helpless unborn, you don't have a problem throwing the helpless born under the bus.
If World vision relieves your guilt, go for it. It doesn't relieve you of RESPONSIBILITY!
Those are not references, those are victims of church malfeasance,and criminality!! Worst, a betrayal of trust!!
You should have had a "Pulling sh*t out of my a$$ warning."Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Really Tal, enough of your BS assumptions. What part of "No, I'm not Catholic" did you fail to comprehend, and even if I were why in the hell would I defend pedophiles? I don't, I haven't and I won't, so before you EVER accuse me of "throwing the helpless born under the bus" you'd better be d@mn sure you have your facts straight.
Well it's not just catholics - they get the headlines:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy
So people are just doing what they have learned to do from this Current Events board: find a few crazies and attribute it to a whole group.Quote:
Wisconsin-based Church Mutual Insurance Co. has 100,000 client churches and has seen a steady filing of about five sexual molestation cases a week for more than a decade, even though its client base has grown.
“It would be incorrect to call it a Catholic problem,” said Church Mutual’s risk control manager, Rick Schaber. “We do not see one denomination above another. It’s equal. It’s also equal among large metropolitan churches and small rural churches.”
Iowa-based Guide One Center for Risk Management, which insures more than 40,000 congregations, also said Catholic churches are not considered a greater risk or charged higher premiums.
“Our claims experience shows this happens evenly across denominations,” said spokeswoman Melanie Stonewall.
And that doesn't tell the whole story but hints at it, pedophiles seek out places they can be around children and many of those are volunteers; church nursery workers, bible class teachers, coaches, etc. No one works with kids in my church without first undergoing a background check, volunteer or staff.
Are you against Obama care?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Are you against a .05% tax on wages above $250,000 to build, repair, replace bridges schools, roads?
Are you for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, and the ever growing working poor?
So you want a voucher for medicare? Not just for YOU,but your kids too!
If there is no money, and we are so broke, how the hell can Mitt find a few trillion for him and his buddies to keep even more of their loot??
I got my facts straight all right, without the Tea Party paranoid stances, or right wing excuses to do nothing but say NO!
Its YOUR government, OURS, and I just cast my early vote, and can feel empowered.
Irrelevant. I responded specifically to this charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You declared me GUILTY of some nasty stuff and assuaging my GUILT by giving to World Vision. You're little diversion up there ain't going to fly.Quote:
The church can do better, and victimizing little boys for years isn't a small thing because if they are capable of rape,what else are they capable of. Harboring criminals is NOT integrity.
For a guy who is big on protecting the helpless unborn, you don't have a problem throwing the helpless born under the bus.
If World vision relieves your guilt, go for it. It doesn't relieve you of RESPONSIBILITY!
Then have some empathy by not taking safety net money and giving it to the guy who has millions and billions and trillions. The safety net is more important than ever NOW given the robbery perpetrated by the elite class, that's making all us ordinary types have a really hard time.
And no, I wouldn't be sending my wealth to a hiding place. I would be building a road and a bridge to the biggest teaching hospital with a children's wing in the world. Free transportation and cable TV!! Across the park from a school that covers K-12, and a free college, with a technical school. Loan me a trillion bucks will you?
Another diversion. This is the only point at hand here, you declared me GUILTY of some nasty stuff and of assuaging my GUILT by giving to World Vision. Back it up or take it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again,
It's summertime... Relax. Have a beer. It's time to draft our football team. For the time being, THIS thread is closed.
I LOVE having power...
excon
Hello again,
Time out is over.. It's open. I LOVE power.
excon
Obviously you have nothing better to do, get a life
Thanks Ex, smart progressives like myself should be able to make a case without being personally insulting, or denigrating.
Thanks for the full quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Yes, there are a couple of sentences left out before and after the limited quote you provided. Let's just say this oversight is rather significant.
"Whether property alone, and the whole of which each citizen possessed, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants"
In other words, what particular part or parts of what the individual has amassed is subject to the distribution to the rest of society? Or shall it be only the surplus the individual produces is subject to this distribution process?
Jefferson says that this has yet to be decided. However, before we make such a decision we need consider a couple of important factors.
(a) Whatever we decide upon it should be just and fair to all.
(b) This position is covered in the selected quote you have provided and by itself supports a modern political position.
I am not saying this position is wrong, but what I am saying is that Jefferson is not advocating this position as a prescription for some type of modi operandi when it comes to such things as taxation.
Jefferson is asking us to balance things out.
The last part of the full quote provided also provided gives us an interesting insight into Jefferson's concerns when it comes to the wealthy being allowed to become too wealthy to the extent that they begin to pose a threat to government.
Clearly Jefferson is against extra taxation in this respect, but hopes to dilute the wealth and influence of such accumulations. Presumably redistribution upon death.
Overall the limited quote is taking his comments out of context.
Tut
But you don't love others having power.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nahh... I HATE others ABUSING their power, like arresting non violent POT smokers and ruining their lives... Yeah.. I HATE those people and I'll NEVER stop.
That you yawn while that's happening to your fellow citizens doesn't speak well of you.
excon
I HATE people ignoring what I've actually said in favor of repeating crap they've made up that does not reflect my views in an attempt to make me look bad. I just went through that with Tal before you closed the thread, so do you want to discuss reality or do you two just want to keep making sh*t up about me?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Actually, I listen very carefully... That you sit back saying it would OK with you if they DIDN'T put pot smokers in jail, is a LONG way from actively SUPPORTING it. When did you join Norml? When did you post your outrage? When did you write a letter? When did you DO anything about it?
Nahhh... Sitting back IS yawning...
excon
There's nothing modern about it, it's the original position of the founders.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
No, he's asking it "to be equally and fairly applied to all" for the very reason I've argued for years and what I quoted, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.""Quote:
I am not saying this position is wrong, but what I am saying is that Jefferson is not advocating this position as a prescription for some type of modi operandi when it comes to such things as taxation.
Jefferson is asking us to balance things out.
He speaks only of inheritance, which would be kin. Nothing more.Quote:
The last part of the full quote provided also provided gives us an interesting insight into Jefferson's concerns when it comes to the wealthy being allowed to become too wealthy to the extent that they begin to pose a threat to government.
Clearly Jefferson is against extra taxation in this respect, but hopes to dilute the wealth and influence of such accumulations. Presumably redistribution upon death.
I disagree.Quote:
Overall the limited quote is taking his comments out of context.
I've explained that before too. You have your causes, I have mine. You can't tell me you actively engage in a battle against every injustice. If you did I'd call you a liar, because for one our ideas of what's unjust don't match. You can have my support or reject it, your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'll even make a deal, when NORML joins my fight against killing babies I'll sign up.
The intent of the founders was severely limited in scope and had no idea that things would expand and grow,or be complicated by the diversity we have seen as the nation grew from 13 colonies to 50 states. Their ideas, and intents while a guideline cannot begin to address the problems of a modern very complex society.
It would take them a while to get us Wall Street, or the global economy that have changed so much in the centuries following independence, as they had no civil or social revolutions that the modern era has brought. So lets not let original intent be the sole governance to solving problems that were unheard of back then.
Just as a gun is only a threat in the wrongs hands, so is a derivative. So is writing laws that favors WHO?? So since in the modern world females want birth control, and for some very good reasons so stated simply, why make it hard for them to have them?
If the goa lis saving babies from abortions, why is this not a reasonable alternative? Seems you want government out of YOUR life, but in everyone else especially the bedroom. That's almost sick.
I mean does your wife use the pill? Tell me what you DO approve of in your house to prevent unwanted pregnancy?
I strongly disagree . The founders studied all the Enlightenment philosophers and studied the history of Republics and democracies as far back as the Greeks.Quote:
The intent of the founders was severely limited in scope
Most of them had the expansion of the nation in their eyesight ;and Jefferson engineered the biggest territorial expansion in the nations territory. Further ,many of them were some of the most brilliant scientists of their time. Do I have to dig up all the inventions of Frankin ?Jefferson ;besides being a politician and statesman, was an established architect, and inventor. Hugh Williamson was a renown scientist and physician. No ;they saw the future well and created a blueprint for governance that is ageless.Quote:
and had no idea that things would expand and grow,or be complicated by the diversity we have seen as the nation grew from 13 colonies to 50 states. Their ideas, and intents while a guideline cannot begin to address the problems of a modern very complex society.
I want some of what you're smoking.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Horse hockey.
There is no problem with access to contraceptives. We've had this dance before, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease. Why not solve some actual problems instead of pandering to your base?Quote:
So since in the modern world females want birth control, and for some very good reasons so stated simply, why make it hard for them to have them?
Another fallacy, another assumption and another insult. Are we going to do this again or can smart progressives like yourself "make a case without being personally insulting, or denigrating."Quote:
If the goa lis saving babies from abortions, why is this not a reasonable alternative? Seems you want government out of YOUR life, but in everyone else especially the bedroom. That's almost sick.
My wife had a radical hysterectomy after her second child, my (step) daughter who is battling AIDS. We can't have more children. Care to try and touch on any more sensitive areas of my life?Quote:
I mean does your wife use the pill? Tell me what you DO approve of in your house to prevent unwanted pregnancy?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:02 AM. |