[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Semi related: Catholic Churches no longer tax-exempt in Italy.
[/quote]
Doesn’t sound like it.[/quote]
Churches are still exempt, it’s just commercial entities that are owned the church. In the end, it’s not that big a deal. I am not sure the commercial entities here are tax exempt either, I don’t believe they are, but I am not certain.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Obama, the persecutor of Nuns. Real tough guy, that Obama.
http://sistersoflife.org/response-to-hhs-mandate [/quote]
Like I said, he gag ordered the military chaplains to not read the bishops letters to the troops. It begs the question, what is obama afraid of if he is gagging non-strategic, non-military related info from the soldiers?
Among all women, 7% were at risk of unwanted pregnancy but not using a method in 2006?2008, an increase from 5% in 1995
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
So hold up a damn moment. Some of you people are ready to go all tyrannical for this? 7%? Are you serious? That’s pretty friggen close to universal coverage! This is a damn power grab. This is about using the government to make Catholics (and other orthodox types) bend the knee publicly to the sovereign state.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”[/quote]
Yeah, but others want to charge US citizens (change in tax status) for their ‘free’ exercise.
Testifying before Congress, Timmy Geithner referred only to “demographic challenges”—an oblique allusion to the fact that the U.S. economy is about to be terminally clobbered by $100 trillion of entitlement obligations it can never meet. And, as Chart 5-1 on page 58 of the official Obama budget “Analytical Perspectives” makes plain, your feckless, decadent rulers have no plans to do anything about it. Instead, the Democrats shriek, Ooh, Republican prudes who can’t get any action want to shut down your sex life! According to CBO projections, by mid-century mere interest payments on the debt will exceed federal revenues. For purposes of comparison, by 1788 Louis XVI’s government in France was spending a mere 60 percent of revenues on debt service, and we know how that worked out for His Majesty shortly thereafter. Not to worry, says Barry Antoinette. Let them eat condoms.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291383/contraception-misdirection-mark-steyn?pg=2
Mark Steyn is a genius and a comedian. Very clear political thinker and hysterically funny LOL!!
Hey Pat,
A while back you had said that you wondered why insurance covers contraception at all since it isn’t necessary. I have your answer.
It turns out there is a net benefit of offering it and saves employers roughly $100/person.
“Spending $235 million on family planning would save $1.32 billion.”
Think about how many Rosaries that could buy.
That is why their argument about the church paying for their contraception doesn’t work.
Church: One insurance plan please
Insurance: Okay that will be $100
Church: Oh and can you hold the contraception please
Insurance: That’s included for free so there’s no need
Church: Yes but we don’t believe in that, so no contraception please
Insurance: Well your employees don’t HAVE to use it, its completely optional on their part, so how about we just include it anyway just in case some of your employees share different religious views
Church: No thanks, we would rather not give them that choice
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
That is why their argument about the church paying for their contraception doesn’t work.
Church: One insurance plan please
Insurance: Okay that will be $100
Church: Oh and can you hold the contraception please
Insurance: That’s included for free so there’s no need
Church: Yes but we don’t believe in that, so no contraception please
Insurance: Well your employees don’t HAVE to use it, its completely optional on their part, so how about we just include it anyway just in case some of your employees share different religious views
Church: No thanks, we would rather not give them that choice[/quote]
Incorrect - the church has agreed to provide insurance to the employee as part of their compensation, and instead of running an insurance plan itself, it subcontracts out that service to insurance companies.
The church pays for the insurance product, employees share the costs. But the provider of the insurance is the church.
This should be common sense, but just in case it isn’t - that’s why the insurance terminates after you no longer work there. If you change jobs, you don’t keep that insurance because the former employer was the one providing to you, not the insurance company.
So, the church would be the one providing the service as part of the employee’s compensation, and the church has every right not to include birth control as part of its compensation to the employee if it finds such provision morall objectionable.
And the notion that insuruance companies throw in birth control “free of charge” is, in a word, stupid. It’s part of a bundle of services that costs something - none of which is free.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hitler was a Catholic.
Lets not be delusional now.[/quote]
If Hitler was a Catholic today he’d be labeled a CINO.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hitler was a Catholic.
Lets not be delusional now.[/quote]
He was an occultist. Born Catholic and being catholic is not the same thing. Don’t worry, you have atheist friends like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao se tung and Castro pulling the heavy load for Team Atheist.[/quote]
So what you’re saying is he wasn’t an atheist?[/quote]
Hitler? No, he and his cronies were very much into the occult. That didn’t stop him from trying to butter up the church early on, but that was all political. He cooked a couple million Catholics in those ovens too.[/quote]
The church played ball.[/quote]
You mean by signing a document that “guaranteed” the Catholic Church could operate within Nazi Germany?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh for cripe’s sake. Get on topic.[/quote]
Yep.
It’s just a little hard to resist these obvious lies that are continually posted.
killed in the name of atheism
Hitler was an atheist
Atheism is a religion
Imagine if every time a thread related to Catholicism came up someone writes “All priests are pedophiles!!!” How well could you prevent yourself from reacting?
Just a thought.[/quote]
Thought you were agnostic.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
If the Pope sold the Vatican (read: he can’t, it’s a country owned by the Church Members), the next day we’d build him a bigger palace. Back when I was volunteering at the soup kitchen this summer, I used to ask the homeless people if they’d rather have a mansion or keep the Pope in St. Peter’s Square. Either they’d look at me with bewilderment because they didn’t speak English or they’d yell at me for asking the question.
Further, the Vatican has been running a deficit for years from giving to charity (the Vatican budget is actually about the same size as the Chicago Dioceses’ budget, this massive wealth I haven’t spotted and I purposefully study the Vatican’s finances).
The Pope’s personal allowance is mostly spent on giving to charities. The gifts sent to the Pope also go to charity. I have sent the B16 a 100 Euros on his birthday since I fully joined the Church. I always get a letter back saying that the money was given to a charity of the Pope’s choosing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh for cripe’s sake. Get on topic.[/quote]
Yep.
It’s just a little hard to resist these obvious lies that are continually posted.
killed in the name of atheism
Hitler was an atheist
Atheism is a religion
Imagine if every time a thread related to Catholicism came up someone writes “All priests are pedophiles!!!” How well could you prevent yourself from reacting?
Just a thought.[/quote]
Thought you were agnostic. [/quote]
I’m case 3
"Q: What’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a “theist” is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an “atheist” is one who does not have a belief in the god. A “gnostic” is one who knows about the existence of god and an “agnostic” is one who thinks that god is unknowable.
Notice that the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don’t think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don’t choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an “untheist”, perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a “gnostic atheist”, one who doesn’t believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.
So there are four possible ways one could be.
Case 3 is sometimes referred to as “weak atheism” and case 4 is sometimes referred to as “strong atheism”. Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.
Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can’t positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist."
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If the Pope sold the Vatican (read: he can’t, it’s a country owned by the Church Members), the next day we’d build him a bigger palace. Back when I was volunteering at the soup kitchen this summer, I used to ask the homeless people if they’d rather have a mansion or keep the Pope in St. Peter’s Square. Either they’d look at me with bewilderment because they didn’t speak English or they’d yell at me for asking the question. [/quote]
…OK and? Do you consider them an authority on the issue or something?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Further, the Vatican has been running a deficit for years from giving to charity (the Vatican budget is actually about the same size as the Chicago Dioceses’ budget, this massive wealth I haven’t spotted and I purposefully study the Vatican’s finances). [/quote]
And yet the vatican is worth 60 billion dollars. You could clear that deficit, donate much of that to the poor and still have a pretty nice place to work out of.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The Pope’s personal allowance is mostly spent on giving to charities. The gifts sent to the Pope also go to charity. I have sent the B16 a 100 Euros on his birthday since I fully joined the Church. I always get a letter back saying that the money was given to a charity of the Pope’s choosing. [/quote]
The Church does do some good work.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And yet the vatican is worth 60 billion dollars. You could clear that deficit, donate much of that to the poor and still have a pretty nice place to work out of.[/quote]
Can I get a source for this. Not that I don’t believe you, I just haven’t sent his number.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I’m case 3
[/quote]
I see. Thank you.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And yet the vatican is worth 60 billion dollars. You could clear that deficit, donate much of that to the poor and still have a pretty nice place to work out of.[/quote]
Can I get a source for this. Not that I don’t believe you, I just haven’t sent his number.
[/quote]
It was mentioned by a Priest who works near the Vatican while giving an interview to Bill Maher in the documentary religulous.
According to this it was worth 900 billion in 2004 before the real estate bust
“According to the AP’s Nicole Winfield, the Holy See’s real estate was worth about $900 million in 2004 – before the real estate bust. That doesn’t include St. Peter’s Basilica and the Sistine Chapel, but even if both brought holy sites brought in another billion, that wouldn’t come close to covering it. The UN reports that poor countries get $7.9 billion in agricultural aid each year, and will need $44 billion a year by 2050.”
http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/10/sell_the_vatican_feed_the_world.html
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And yet the vatican is worth 60 billion dollars. You could clear that deficit, donate much of that to the poor and still have a pretty nice place to work out of.[/quote]
Can I get a source for this. Not that I don’t believe you, I just haven’t sent his number.
[/quote]
It was mentioned by a Priest who works near the Vatican while giving an interview to Bill Maher in the documentary religulous.
According to this it was worth 900 billion in 2004 before the real estate bust
“According to the AP’s Nicole Winfield, the Holy See’s real estate was worth about $900 million in 2004 – before the real estate bust. That doesn’t include St. Peter’s Basilica and the Sistine Chapel, but even if both brought holy sites brought in another billion, that wouldn’t come close to covering it. The UN reports that poor countries get $7.9 billion in agricultural aid each year, and will need $44 billion a year by 2050.”
Both your quote and link says 900 million, I am still not getting how you are getting 900 billion or 60 billion when at the peak it was only 900 million…that’s only 1/66th of 60 billion. And, further the Pope, nor all the clergy put together in the world has the power to sell the Vatican IT’S A COUNTRY.
And, even if they could sell the Vatican. That would cover costs for at most…2.5-3 years (they wouldn’t be able to produce any revenue without the estate). Their budget is ~350 million a year and they’ve been spending for the past decade ~360 million a year. They wouldn’t be able to run their Institute for Works of Religion (which would cause all kinds of havoc for religious in unstable countries), sell paintings, &c. so they’d run for about 3 years (out of where I don’t know) and then they’d be all out of money.
That is about as smart as Arizona selling their Capitol building to produce revenue…you can only produce that revenue once. It is not a recurring source of revenue once you sell it.