Video: Cardinal Dolan on lawsuit over...

Video: Cardinal Dolan on lawsuit over contraception

There are 468 comments on the CBS News story from May 22, 2012, titled Video: Cardinal Dolan on lawsuit over contraception. In it, CBS News reports that:

New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, talks to Charlie Rose and Erica Hill about the lawsuit filed by 43 Catholic organizations over the Obama administratin requiring employers to include birth control coverage in their workers' health insurance.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

First Prev
of 24
Next Last

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#477 Jun 29, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
not so. The reason for the debt is spending.
I am not saying that the entire reason for the debt is no taxing churches, only that actually taxing them would help lower it.
McGruff wrote:
Not the tax status of a church. In fact you liberals want Seperation of church and state. Then why do you want their money? since there is a Seperation you have no right to it.
False "logic". The Constitutionally mandated separation most certainly does NOT allow them any tax exept status. If anything, it should require them to be taxed like any other property owner.
McGruff wrote:
Since churches provide billions in services every year you would be taking money away from people who actually benefit the public and give it to the gov to use to pay political debts to fake green companies and gov conventions etc.
Now, here you might indeed have something. Except of course, that for every church that actually does anything to hepl those in need, there are five megachurches that exist only to line the pockets of the preacher in charge. The government waste is a separate issue.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#479 Jul 3, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
no if there is suppose to be separation then thee gov shouldn't want their money either. Yes they could help pay. And so could everyone. We could just tax the hell out of everyone. Or we could not spend money we don't have. The gov could get out of things it has no business in. The gov could promote business and free enterprise. But taking money from a church is outrageous.
Here are some organisations I would like to see pay taxes.
1. NAACP
2. Planned parenthood
3. NPR
4. NOW
5. ACORN
6. SEIU
7. Tom Gietner
8. Charles Rangle
9. Tom Dashelle
10. MADD
11. Colleges
12. Salvation Army
13. Media Matters
And many more.
Um... the Salvation Army IS a church...

NPR and Planned Parenthood are supported by taxes (and rightly so) thus is would be foolish to turn around and tax them. Some colleges are government run, so again, it would be foolish to tax them.

And for the main point. the fact that there is separation should actually REQUIRE that all churches be treated exactly the same as any other business, thus they ought to pay their taxes on every cent that comes in, and on all properties owned. Anything else is weakening the wall of separation by providing government subsidy.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#481 Jul 3, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
it isn't a subsidy to not take money. It is a weakening to take the money.
Planned parenthood should pay taxes and not receive taxes and the same with NPR. Also
Media matters
NAACP
Acorn
Ows
And many others. They should all pay taxes.
Not paying taxes is a susidy.

For any other business, to merely exist in a certain location requires the payment of property taxes. By not paying property taxes, the government is thus subsidizing that portion of their expence.

For any other business, any money that comes in is subject to being taxed. In the case of a church, this would be the donations as well as any money generated through things like the sales of merchandice, or bingo games, or whatever. In a business, this can be offset through deductions for various expences, but only to a point. Any business that consistantly fails to show a profit can be declared to be a "hobby" and not a business, thus disallowing many of the deductions allowed to a legitimate business.

And both NPR and Planned Parenthood both provide needed services to their communities. Services that more than justify their receiving tax subsidies.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#483 Jul 3, 2012
McGruff wrote:
<quoted text>
so if it meets your requirement of needed they shouldn't pay taxes. That's lame. They shouldn't get tax money and they should pay.
Not taking money from someone isn't a subsidy.
Yes it is!

If it allows a business to operate at a reduced cost, then it is a subsidy.
McGruff wrote:
A subsidy would be giving money to someone or some organization.
Not having someone pay their fair share is also a subsidy. Look, this really is quite simple.

Entity "A" owns a piece of property htat the government declares to be worth an annual property tax of $1000 per year.

Entity "B" owns identical property, also valued at $1000 per year in property taxes.

If the government decides that entity "B" can get away with not paying their property taxes, that is $1000 each and every year that they can spend on other things. A bigger bonus for the CEO, a reduced price of the widgets they sell, or whatever else they want to do with that money - what every they want because the government has subsidized what SHOULD be $1000 of their expences. And, to make matters worse, that is $1000 that is NOT going to hepl the local schools, or fire department, or police.
McGruff wrote:
There is no reason for the gov to have its hands in church money. And it isnt going to happen so you are just flapping your gums.
Well, I agree that it is highly unlikely to ever happen. However, there is a vlid reason for it: anything else is a breach in the wall of separation when the government treats a church as different from any other business.
Johnny Gosch

Ishpeming, MI

#488 Jul 9, 2012
Washington Times Headline June 29, 1989 | NowPublic Photo ...
Mar 2, 2005 ... Washington Times Headline June 29, 1989 by salsa. Original file can be found at
http://www.iapprovethismessiah.com/spence.htm... ...

http://www.nowpublic.com/washington_times_hea... - 42k -
Cleo

Ishpeming, MI

#489 Jul 18, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>Our forefathers made sure we had freedom of religion, to worship and not be harrassed or confronted in how we worship. Did you forget this, or what?
And by that token, Religions and their dogma's should NEVER become a part of public secular law. I don't care what you worship, just as I don't care what you think constitutes "sinful" behavior..leave it out of public law. Don't ask me to pay for your religion to get prefential treatment.

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#491 Jul 19, 2012
Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
And by that token, Religions and their dogma's should NEVER become a part of public secular law. I don't care what you worship, just as I don't care what you think constitutes "sinful" behavior..leave it out of public law. Don't ask me to pay for your religion to get prefential treatment.
Then tell Obama to quit forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives and abortion.
Cleo

Ishpeming, MI

#492 Jul 20, 2012
pupsilicious wrote:
<quoted text>Then tell Obama to quit forcing the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives and abortion.
You already know that in 26 states, the Catholic Church is required by state law to provide contraceptve coverage.

Although insurance coverage will make contraceptives available for those who CHOOSE to use them, NO ONE is requiring that "Catholics" actually take them. However, considering that 92% of women, who currently are fertile, voluntarily take some form of contraception and consider themsevles "good" Catholics, I think your "fight" is weak and ineffectual at best.

We know why the Church is against abortion, it shortens up the field of potential victims for their future pedophiles. But you probably didn't know that before the Civil War, Catholics used abortificants up until the fourth month-or quickening-to limit their family size. It was only after Black Slaves won the right to be free that the Catholic Church changed its position. Looks like Mormanism isn't the only cult with a history of bigotry.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 24
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barney Frank Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Dennis Hastert Apparently Had Sex With Male Stu... Jul 29 Poverty Sucks 39
News More gay people can now get legally married. Th... (Oct '14) Jul 25 al3abmix 44
News Paulson seeks rest of bailout (Dec '08) Jul 24 Gordon Geko 15
News Paulson insists bailout restoring stability (Nov '08) Jul 23 Mexican Drug Lord... 16
News Numbers show how gay marriage has fared in Mass... Jun '15 hbgmysite 33
News Numbers show how gay marriage has fared in Mass... Jun '15 DaveinMass 20
News Numbers show how gay marriage has fared in Mass... Jun '15 nhjeff 1
More from around the web