Originally posted by dannubis
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Seriously, GOP? Really?
Collapse
X
-
Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostI am against tax exempt ones. (I am not sure if these hospitals are tax exempt or not. I would assume they are?)
Do you think that charities should pay taxes? If not, why should a charitable hospital that is owned by a church do so?
I would expect the non-religious to understand a charitable hospital paying taxes more than a church not paying taxes.
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostYes. Typically, the departing candidate will endorse, and instruct his delagates to vote for, one of the remaining candidates. I don't know if the delagates are bound to it, though.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostNo, it is the same as the pharmacy. I am highlighting the difference.
Being able to do surgery is a hospital main function. If the hospital can not do it, it is not a hospital. Therefore a JW hospital has to be willing to do blood transfusions (For their nonJW patients). Offering invitro-fertilization is not part of the hospital's main function. A Catholic hospital can decide not to offer invitro-fertilization.
Being able to get perscription drugs is a pharmacies main function. The pharmacy must do it, or it is not a pharmacy. A Catholic pharmacist must be willing to hand out birth control when needed to. Offering make-up is not part of the pharmacies main function. A (very conservative) denomination pharmacist could decide not to offer make-up in their store.
Understand?
JM
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostI suspect Gingrich sufficiently despises Romney that he will readily direct his delagates to Santorum, if need be.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Mad Monk View PostI suspect Gingrich sufficiently despises Romney that he will readily direct his delegates to Santorum, Gloria Steinem or Fidel Castro if it will mean beating Romney.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostDo you think that charities should pay taxes?
We were talking about places accepting government money (which any kosher deli which serves old people is doing).
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostYes. (Though I think our tax code should be overhauled completely as well.)
Are there applicable regulations that Kosher delis are opposed to observing?
Government money supporting the kosher agenda? How could you be OK with that?
JMJon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostNo, it is the same as the pharmacy. I am highlighting the difference.
Being able to do surgery is a hospital main function. If the hospital can not do it, it is not a hospital. Therefore a JW hospital has to be willing to do blood transfusions (For their nonJW patients). Offering invitro-fertilization is not part of the hospital's main function. A Catholic hospital can decide not to offer invitro-fertilization.
Being able to get perscription drugs is a pharmacies main function. The pharmacy must do it, or it is not a pharmacy. A Catholic pharmacist must be willing to hand out birth control when needed to. Offering make-up is not part of the pharmacies main function. A (very conservative) denomination pharmacist could decide not to offer make-up in their store.
Understand?
JM
EDIT: Basically, it isn't to do with what a building is, it's to do with the the values and culture of the society, and what the clinical evidence is the best way to keep people healthy. Some contraceptives such as condoms have importance due to STIs, HIV and HPV that then causes cancer, and on that point I don't think that religion has a leg to stand on when it comes down to saying that they think it is a sin. Especially when it means that they will not follow the clinical and scientific evidence and ultimately abuse the patients at the hospital. Other things such as the morning after pill you can argue over, but frankly if this thread is representative of American religious beliefs affecting your culture, you're retards.You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by a.kitman View Posta hospitals main function is to keep people healthy. i sort of agree whit you here tho. i dont want to stand in peoples way of helping others. its just that to me both sides comes of as petty and small minded. but then iam a non-beliver so i have a hard time getting religious reasons.
1. It's not a particularly important issue from their perspective, but very important from the RCC's; birth control is too cheap to even require subsidizing in the first place (unless you're using something really exotic/experimental), but this is a serious moral issue for devout Catholics. Infringing on religious scruples isn't the sort of thing we traditionally take lightly, though it can be done in cases of compelling public interest ("no, you can't refuse mandatory vaccinations for your kids"). This is not a compelling public interest. And it would be easy to create a work-around for it on the government's end.
2. The administration created an exemption, but then deliberately confined it to directly worship-related institutions. There is an American tradition of religion as a private affair, but this is hardly the traditional m.o. of all religions. Certainly not for Catholicism, which has had its schools and hospitals for centuries. Same with plenty of other religions. Something like half the colleges in the US were started by churches. Religion has a definite role to play in public life here--just not with government money paying for it.
Put 1 and 2 together, what do you get? The administration has said, in effect, "you stay in your box, or, if you leave your box, you have to play by our rules even at the price of forfeiting your identity for no sensible reason." It comes across as deliberately hostile to religion.
Comment
-
-
In the end, yes.
But there is a lot of reasoning involved which you are deciding to ignore.
The government can say 'if you do surgery, you have to have blood available for transfusions for everyone who does not refuse them'.
To be a hospital, you have to be able to do surgeries/etc.
This is the reasoning. It isn't because the government arbitrarily should decide 'hospital is only a hospital if it does blood transfusions!'.
JM
(sleepy)Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aeson View PostI don't think kosher food poses any sort of risk to people. It's probably more healthy than the average American diet in fact.Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ElokPut 1 and 2 together, what do you get? The administration has said, in effect, "you stay in your box, or, if you leave your box, you have to play by our rules even at the price of forfeiting your identity for no sensible reason." It comes across as deliberately hostile to religion.Last edited by Krill; February 8, 2012, 19:58.You just wasted six ... no, seven ... seconds of your life reading this sentence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok View PostThat's fair enough. There are a lot of problems here, but you should also know (if you don't already) that Americans take individual freedoms very seriously.
Comment
Comment