Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

religion is a crazy thing, it is/ contraception is somewhat necessary and a great invention, since it does 2 things at once.

helgrenze wrote:My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...

One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.

Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.

To be fair, there's a lot about Roman Catholicism that isn't in the Bible. It's not particularly biblically-based compared to some of the newer Protestant sects.

Biblical fundamentalism in general is actually a fairly recent phenomenon.

biccat wrote:I agree that the President's "compromise" was no such thing, but the President gave the appearance of defering to the demands of the Church so, as far as most media outlets are concerned, the issue has been resolved.

I don't know if most media outlets consider the issue resolved but I think a lot of people do. Regardless of what was reported, what people appear to have heard was "Obama backs down." But he hasn't backed down at all, as I noticed from CNN's converage.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:What, do you expect me to go and scan and upload something from a book?

You profess to be a scientist, certainly you know what "proof" means.

You aren't my peer (IE, standards for proof and citations via peer review) by any scientific definition, Biccat, nor my professor (Ie standards for proof and citation for academia). You're a random person on the internet. So no, I don't know what YOU, specifically, mean by "proof".

If you want me to quote a peer reviewed study and provide links and quotes and images and gak for you, no. I'm not going to. Too much work (classwork is more important than convincing you, which is a futile attempt anyway as you're unlikely to change your opinion no matter what I post) and just as importatnly, psychology isn't my field so I am simply posting the hypotheses and conclusions of those whose field is psychology instaed, and if you don't like that , I could hardly care any less than I do right now.

I gave you a link. The link discussed NUMEROUS examples of this subject in scientific literature. That is a source as far as I'm concerned for this discussion. If you are actually interested, perhaps you can do further research in to the works by these authors-- the authors and their works were named in the link, making it easier by far than merely doing research without such assistance. If you're not interested, why the hell would I bother anyway?

Melissia wrote:I gave you a link. The link discussed NUMEROUS examples of this subject being discussed in scientific literature. If you are actually interested, perhaps you can do further research-- the authors and their works were named in the link, making it easier by far than merely doing research without such assistance. If you're not interested, why the hell would I bother anyway?

The idea that anything is "provable" especially as applied to every person, as Easy E attempted to do, in the realm of psychology is absurd. Which is why I asked for verification of his "proof." I have no idea why you decided to jump on that sinking ship.

I sincerely hope you don't consider that link to be in the body of "scientific literature." I suspect you're intelligent person, I'm reasonably confident that you know exactly the point I was making.

No, Biccat, try actually reading what I posted.

The link discussed NUMEROUS examples of this subject being discussed in scientific literature

Namely, the link mentioned the works of psychologists whom had published pieces on the subject. The link was a meta discussion, as it were, not an actual study itself. I never claimed it was a study.

gorgon wrote:

helgrenze wrote:My problem with the whole lot of this nonsense is two fold...

One: Most of these "Christian" Sects use the King James Version of the Bible. King James 1 of England was the second monarch after Henry the 8th and was thus head of the Church of England, a.k.a the Anglican Church.
By default these modern sects should be considered factions of the Angican Church, which has no restriction on the use of contraception.

Two: Having read both the KJV and the Catholic Bibles, I have yet to find any reference to using medicinal, herbal or other means to avoid pregnancy.

To be fair, there's a lot about Roman Catholicism that isn't in the Bible. It's not particularly biblically-based compared to some of the newer Protestant sects.

Biblical fundamentalism in general is actually a fairly recent phenomenon.

AFAIK until the late 30s protestants were against contraception, including the Anglicans.
The Catholic Church has never permitted abortion. The principal of double effect applies to medical procedures which have pregnancy termination as an unwanted side effect

As another point the more we seem to use contraception the more 'unwanted' pregnancies and abortions there are which is a bit ironic.

Also

Phototoxin wrote:As another point the more we seem to use contraception the more 'unwanted' pregnancies and abortions there are which is a bit ironic.

There were plenty of unwanted pregnancies back then too. The difference is back then women had fewer social rights so it was mostly unheard.

Nevermidn shotgun weddings.

I wasn't addressing any of that in particular, just the notion that there's something hypocritical about RC taking a stance with no biblical basis.

Melissia wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:As another point the more we seem to use contraception the more 'unwanted' pregnancies and abortions there are which is a bit ironic.

There were plenty of unwanted pregnancies back then too. The difference is back then women had fewer social rights so it was mostly unheard.

Nevermidn shotgun weddings.

I don't think there were as many unwanted pregnancies back then. This is mainly because women didn't have a whole lot of options in life other than to be a mother. So, might as well get pregnant and settle down to a life of motherhood.

An increase in unwanted pregnancies means that women are increasingly able to have goals other than just motherhood. So, its is a good thing to have more unwanted pregnancies.

My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.

Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?

Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.

Is that not true?

That is my understanding as well.

Yes, he caved. But, at least he didn't give up everything. That's progress, right?

He compromised, which is hardly "caving"...

Melissia wrote:He compromised, which is hardly "caving"...

He held all the cards. And, he folded. That's caving.

Grakmar wrote:

Melissia wrote:He compromised, which is hardly "caving"...

He held all the cards. And, he folded. That's caving.

Huh. I think what he did was fairly cagey.

He managed to get the same end result (Contraceptive coverage), and minimized the "Freedom of Religion" line, because the religous organizations aren't paying for the Contraceptives directly.

Different strokes I guess.

Grakmar wrote:

Melissia wrote:He compromised, which is hardly "caving"...

He held all the cards. And, he folded. That's caving.

... no he didn't. He gave some while not giving everything.

If he completely folded he'd remove remove ALL obligation of providing contraception. He didn't.

gorgon wrote:... there's something hypocritical about RC taking a stance with no biblical basis.

In Roman Catholicism, you don't need a biblical passage that says "thou shalt not X" in order to have a teaching against X. The teaching against contraceptives was only promulgated in 1968 -- you know, because the pill wasn't around in Christ's time. The idea is that sexual intercourse has a unitive as well as procreative value (lots of biblical basis) and that the arbitrary rejection of life is therefore contrary to marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:He gave some while not giving everything.

I don't know that he gave up anything. To me, it seems he wants to implement the same plan worded slightly differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?

I could be wrong but I think the problem is that all insurance coverage is paid for by all premiums. Under the "compromise," the insurer has to provide the coverage but the employer will not have to pay a higher premium tied specifically to that cost. But obviously the cost still exists and must still be covered by the premium. Therefore the premium goes up and the employer still pays for it, just not specifically. Is that right?

Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.

Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?

Original plan:
Religious groups must pay for health insurance that includes contraception coverage.

New plan:
Religious groups must pay for health care insurance. Insurers must provide contraception coverage for free.
Left unstated: insurers will increase prices for religious groups to cover contraception coverage.

Someone has to pay for it. Providing free contraception is going to impose a cost on the insurers who will pass that cost down to the religious group.

However, I think that the President also said that churches specifically won't be required to follow the contraception mandate, which is actually compromising. If so, good for him.

True. Of course, so is everyone else if all premiums go towards paying for the coverage. I have a feeling not all premiums go towards the coverage of everyone else.

By that rational that all premiums are used to pay all claims, we must end contraceptives for all Insurance contracts, because some person's money might go towards funding something that they find immoral.

Instead, I seem to recall premiums and claims beign segmented by the type of coverage. IF the Religous organization is self-funded (like many large employers) then they only pay their own premiums as administrative costs, and self-fund the actual claims. In that case, I'm guessing the Contraceptive costs come out of the overall profits of the Insurance Company. Which is something I can see Insurance Companies objecting too.

sebster wrote:....Except that people on the religious right continue to freak the feth out that they're religious freedom to not have anything to do with contraception is being ignored, despite

It was quite the puzzler, until I came across this quote from Rick Warren.....

Is there something you wanted between "despite" and "It was quite the puzzler?

biccat wrote:In fact, how is this anything other than an issue of religious liberty?

The revised version doesn't threaten anyone's religious liberty. It requires insurance companies to provide the contraceptive coverage, not the "religion-affiliated" institutions.

Your argument's against government-regulated healthcare. It has nothing to do with religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Easy E wrote:My understanding of the compromise, which is limited; was that Obama said that the religious organizations did not have to provide any funding for the contraceptives. Instead, the funding would come from the Insurance companies. therefore, no religious organization had to pay for the contraceptives, but coverage still had to be provided for by their insurance providers.

Is that a correct summary? What vital piece of information am I missing?

Original plan:
Religious groups must pay for health insurance that includes contraception coverage.

New plan:
Religious groups must pay for health care insurance. Insurers must provide contraception coverage for free.
Left unstated: insurers will increase prices for religious groups to cover contraception coverage.

Someone has to pay for it. Providing free contraception is going to impose a cost on the insurers who will pass that cost down to the religious group.

However, I think that the President also said that churches specifically won't be required to follow the contraception mandate, which is actually compromising. If so, good for him.

Churches were never required to follow it.

And yeah, someone has to pay for it. Churches get higher premiums? Crying shame. Bet those tax breaks will help.

Bet those tax breaks will help.

The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.

LordofHats wrote:

Bet those tax breaks will help.

The vast majority of churches never make enough money to pay any taxes so I don't know why people criticize religious tax exemptions. My church back at Fort Bragg (not exactly a poor community) only made about 100-120 every Sunday per service. That's about 500 a week including all services. That double at Christmas and Easter.

In Germany you can remove the sum of money you donate for good causes (including churches because they do a lot of social welfare here) from the taxes you pay. In the US the churches have to pay taxes on this?

Some of the threads in OT really go over my head sometimes...

Dark Scipio wrote:In the US the churches have to pay taxes on this?

They don't pay taxes on much of anything. Income directly from their main purpose of operation is not taxable at the federal, state or local level. So contributions from members would not be taxed. Pastors do pay taxes on their salaries. Properties owned can be a bit complicated. They don't pay property tax on properties directly associated with their charitable purpose - like the church itself, a fellowship hall, or parsonage. But if they own property they rent out to earn money for the church, they do pay property taxes on that. And they might be subject to income tax on the rent if the property is mortgaged, although not if it isn't - I know that sounds strange, but laws are strange sometimes.

The idea that a bunch of old religious men in a commite should be deciding what the other 52% of this nation does relating to birth control is absurd.

This argument is about as dumb as the "Anti-gay rights" one, people are still people. If these damn right wingers who want the government out of there hair so bad why do they keep wanting to pass laws against things?

Rick Perry last year after making a speech about "Keeping the Government on Capital Hill", tried to pass a bill in Texas to make gay sex Illegal.

People got up in arms over the lady with an I phone, yet I see lots of preachers
and their wives driving Mercedes, Lexus, etc... And they live in opulent homes that
are, or border on, mansions. The churches pay for it. And they are tax exempt.

Don't get me started on the televangelists....

I know a couple churches that require their members to share their tax information to make sure they are giving enough to the church.

Ahtman wrote:I know a couple churches that require their members to share their tax information to make sure they are giving enough to the church.

Then they should be required to share their tax info so the people can see how God is spending their money!

Seems to me it misses the point of church to admit members based on income. Hell, seems off to select who gets come in.

That actually why I loath mega churches. Their more of a business than a religious institution.