Uncle Kenny
Member
- Mar 19, 2011
- 85
- 9
- 6
If we should not be able to ban abortion, in the name of womens rights, privacy, and an all around attitude of "Keep gov't out of my body" then we also shouldn't be forced to fund it. Quite simple.
Keep abortion out of the government. I the taxpayer can't ban it if I don't believe in it. But isn't it also only fair that if I'm against it, my tax money shouldn't have to fund it?
Defund Planned Parenthood (Aka the organization founded on the idea of making less black people. It's true, look it up.)
I (a liberal who has a healthy dislike for right wing conservatives) completely agree!
and I think this reasoning should apply to everyone;
why should I pay more in taxes while churches are not taxed at all?
why should some of my tax money be used to pay for religious purposes when I disapprove of religions and consider them to be a danger to my freedom?
all over the country tax money is being used to build sports arenas.
I don't follow sports nor care for them so why should I have to pay for them?
people who oppose war and the military should not be forced to pay taxes to subsidize these
people who oppose big business should not have been forced to pay taxes for the big bailout
Well, we can explore this if you like. Taxing a Church is a violation of the "seperation of church and state" that liberals love to expouse whenever they wish to force the state to disavow religion. Taxing the church would give them real political standing and therefore be counter-effective to what you later describe as your position on religion, right? Probably not a great idea.
Federal money isn't supposed to be used to advance or sponsor religion. Please give an example of Federal funding for a religion. As for purposes, I find it hard to believe a Liberal would honestly oppose Federal charity which I believe is what many liberals believe is their purpose.
Sports arenas, great point, except that they are generally funded through referenda so the people have a direct influence on that spending and it is often argued that it is an investment for future economic gain. As this is funded by states and principalities and not the Federal government, it is apples to oranges.
Funding the military is part of the "common defense" mentioned in the Constitution and is required regardless of opinion of military actions. As all benifit by the military and its ability to defend our citizens, it has to be funded, opinions on specific actions not withstanding. Of course I have to believe that was hyperbole, but just to state the obvious objection...
On the bailout, I agree completely, it was an overstepping of the granted government authority and should not have been funded. I am stunned that it hasn't been ruled on and reversed by judicial review.
The great irony is that PP is just like the bailout, not a government responsibility. If funds are spent by PP they had better not have an agenda, be a religious institution or have a political offiliation, right? Since we know they don't meet that criteria, they should not be eligible for federal funding, should they?