Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
If one is NOT violating the separation of Church and Government, then the other would be equally fair in the opposite direction wouldn't it?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
Mar 10, 2012, 7:45:29 PM3/10/12
to
On 3/10/2012 1:54 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 12:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Josh<us...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:jjeg96$42s$2...@josh.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> On 3/9/2012 7:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean, "the contraception portion"? Do you think
>>>> contraception is costless to produce and distribute?
>>>
>>> As an actuarial matter, it might be:
>>>
>>> (*) Assuming the aggregate cost for providing contraception is zero
>>> (because contraception prevents pregnancy which costs more than the
>>> contraception).
>>>
>>
>> The church is not resisting this on an actuarial basis. They are
>> resisting it on a purely religious basis because providing artificial
>> birth control is against the tenets of the church.
>
> Under the compromise, the church isn't providing birth control.
SO we can also compromise with the TEN COMMANDMENTS and as long as you
aren't expressly forced to buy them, we can have you buy into a system
that will buy them for you and then we can mandate that every business
front door have it posted there?
That is the essentially the same as getting birth control from the ethos
and forcing all businesses to distribute it.
If one is NOT violating the *separation of Church and Government* , then
the other would be equally fair in the opposite direction wouldn't it?
It would NOT be violating the *separation of Government and Church* .
--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.
> On 3/10/2012 12:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Josh<us...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:jjeg96$42s$2...@josh.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> On 3/9/2012 7:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What does that mean, "the contraception portion"? Do you think
>>>> contraception is costless to produce and distribute?
>>>
>>> As an actuarial matter, it might be:
>>>
>>> (*) Assuming the aggregate cost for providing contraception is zero
>>> (because contraception prevents pregnancy which costs more than the
>>> contraception).
>>>
>>
>> The church is not resisting this on an actuarial basis. They are
>> resisting it on a purely religious basis because providing artificial
>> birth control is against the tenets of the church.
>
> Under the compromise, the church isn't providing birth control.
SO we can also compromise with the TEN COMMANDMENTS and as long as you
aren't expressly forced to buy them, we can have you buy into a system
that will buy them for you and then we can mandate that every business
front door have it posted there?
That is the essentially the same as getting birth control from the ethos
and forcing all businesses to distribute it.
If one is NOT violating the *separation of Church and Government* , then
the other would be equally fair in the opposite direction wouldn't it?
It would NOT be violating the *separation of Government and Church* .
--
When it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there is NO
moderation. To do so is to lose the battle before it has begun.
BeamMeUpScotty
Mar 11, 2012, 11:00:30 PM3/11/12
to
On 3/11/2012 10:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/11/2012 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 6:13 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2012 3:04 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>
>
>>> No, because it is not merely "having to pay" that concerns the church.
>>> They will gladly pay the premiums for pregnancy care and childbirth.
>>> They don't want to pay the cost of birth control because they don't
>>> believe in it. It is not strictly a financial decision for them.
>>
>> Under the compromise, and assuming insurance premiums do not go up as
>> a result of insurance companies covering birth control for free, the
>> church will not 1) be paying for birth control [the insurance
>> companies will], 2) have the cost of the insurance companies paying
>> for birth control passed onto them [insurance premiums are assumed not
>> to go up], and 3) will not have to provide birth control [the employee
>> deals directly with the insurance company].
>
> This is all some kind of shell game. The church and church-related
> entities don't want to arrange for birth control, birth control is being
> provided anyway, and someone is paying for it - the stuff isn't free.
> Somehow, some of that cost is going to be borne by the church, and they
> object to it.
If they were doing this to pay for prostitution or something like that,
these people in the private sector would go to prison, it's the kind of
shell corporation games that we use the RICO act to put MAFIA types in
prison.
Obama is once again telling you who he is, by showing how he wants to do
things. Obama is a Socialist and one that likes to use MAFIA TACTICS to
accomplish his goals of Socialism.
> On 3/11/2012 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On Mar 11, 6:13 pm, George Plimpton<geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 3/11/2012 3:04 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>
>
>>> No, because it is not merely "having to pay" that concerns the church.
>>> They will gladly pay the premiums for pregnancy care and childbirth.
>>> They don't want to pay the cost of birth control because they don't
>>> believe in it. It is not strictly a financial decision for them.
>>
>> Under the compromise, and assuming insurance premiums do not go up as
>> a result of insurance companies covering birth control for free, the
>> church will not 1) be paying for birth control [the insurance
>> companies will], 2) have the cost of the insurance companies paying
>> for birth control passed onto them [insurance premiums are assumed not
>> to go up], and 3) will not have to provide birth control [the employee
>> deals directly with the insurance company].
>
> This is all some kind of shell game. The church and church-related
> entities don't want to arrange for birth control, birth control is being
> provided anyway, and someone is paying for it - the stuff isn't free.
> Somehow, some of that cost is going to be borne by the church, and they
> object to it.
If they were doing this to pay for prostitution or something like that,
these people in the private sector would go to prison, it's the kind of
shell corporation games that we use the RICO act to put MAFIA types in
prison.
Obama is once again telling you who he is, by showing how he wants to do
things. Obama is a Socialist and one that likes to use MAFIA TACTICS to
accomplish his goals of Socialism.
Bob LeChevalier
Mar 22, 2012, 12:27:13 PM3/22/12
to
BeamMeUpScotty <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>On 3/10/2012 1:54 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 12:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Josh<us...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:jjeg96$42s$2...@josh.motzarella.org:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2012 7:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that mean, "the contraception portion"? Do you think
>>>>> contraception is costless to produce and distribute?
>>>>
>>>> As an actuarial matter, it might be:
>>>>
>>>> (*) Assuming the aggregate cost for providing contraception is zero
>>>> (because contraception prevents pregnancy which costs more than the
>>>> contraception).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The church is not resisting this on an actuarial basis. They are
>>> resisting it on a purely religious basis because providing artificial
>>> birth control is against the tenets of the church.
>>
>> Under the compromise, the church isn't providing birth control.
>
>SO we can also compromise with the TEN COMMANDMENTS
Of course we can. This is America, not a theocracy.
>On 3/10/2012 1:54 PM, Josh wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 12:08 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Josh<us...@nowhere.com> wrote in news:jjeg96$42s$2...@josh.motzarella.org:
>>>
>>>> On 3/9/2012 7:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that mean, "the contraception portion"? Do you think
>>>>> contraception is costless to produce and distribute?
>>>>
>>>> As an actuarial matter, it might be:
>>>>
>>>> (*) Assuming the aggregate cost for providing contraception is zero
>>>> (because contraception prevents pregnancy which costs more than the
>>>> contraception).
>>>>
>>>
>>> The church is not resisting this on an actuarial basis. They are
>>> resisting it on a purely religious basis because providing artificial
>>> birth control is against the tenets of the church.
>>
>> Under the compromise, the church isn't providing birth control.
>
>SO we can also compromise with the TEN COMMANDMENTS
Not that the ten commandments have anything to do with covering
contraception drugs with medical insurance.
>If one is NOT violating the *separation of Church and Government* , then
>the other would be equally fair in the opposite direction wouldn't it?
necessarily remove itself from the secular world. Otherwise, religion
should be ignored by the government when acting for secular purposes.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
0 new messages