And…?
I am Protestant but I can confidently say Catholic highschools produce the highest performing results even in the sciences. Catholic highschool grads have no handicap studying science in university. Had Galelio been a little more patient and not pushed the envelope it is more likely his findings would have been accepted. But he was afraid of being scooped by Protestant scientists.
Didn’t it take the church until the 80s (the 1980s) to release a statement saying they were wrong for persecuting Galileo?
So, the belief that you are impressing on RCs (i.e., others) is that RCs should not impress their belief onto others? Got it.
Pls detail how you arrived at this system without employing irrational thought (e.g., circular reasoning) or logical fallacies (e.g., begging the question).
For your benefit (again): It’s OK to be a Catholic. Or anything else. But you do you and don’t bother others while doing it.
Understood. I was merely pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in your statement that the requirement for others to stop bothering others was itself bothering others because of your belief.
For the sake of clarity, I would accept your acceptance of RCs provided they stop bothering others; but, I can’t accept it because of your hypocrisy insofar as you are bothering others due to your belief system, and I am against the practice of bothering others.
That is an impossible standard in a social world. Every post has the potential to bother someone else.
If someone puts a sign on their front door saying “no solicitors” it is possible that a would-be solicitor will find that bothersome. But, it’s trivial compared to the potential bother of someone ringing your doorbell and then engaging you in unwanted conversation.
If asking to be left alone is inherently hypocritical— because you have to communicate that to others, who potentially will find it bothersome — then we have stretched the notion of hypocrisy to an absurd extreme.
1 Like
I don’t think laws should be passed to accomodate the religious preferences of this or that group. Nothing is stopping people in those groups following their beliefs, not sure why the rest of us should be forced to play along. No reason for Blue laws in a secular society.
Except that’s not a reasonable representation of what philly stated. We’re straining the analogy here, but his statement was more like a person selling “No solictors” signs door-to-door.
Right. You think that way because you are mis-casting (deliberately?) the social compact (i.e., “society”) into something that you’d personally prefer (i.e., a “secular” state). Instead, our social compact is expressly built on a freedom “of” religion [and “the free exercise thereof”]; not a freedom “from” religion.
The absence of a blue law does not force you to buy alcohol on Sunday. You’re free not to buy or consume alcohol that day, if that is what your chosen religion teaches. Saying that alcohol sales inhibit your exercise of your religion stretches the notion of “exercise” too far.
A strawman argument.
Can we pass laws that exclude religious practices? Like what people wear?
Not if I were king.
Doesn’t it depend on the context and the purpose of the restriction?
No, I’m telling you how I think society should be.
Just to follow up, as a relgious person do you think you should be able to tell people who aren’t in your sect what they can and can not do?
e.g. How is it any skin off your back in I can hunt on Sundays?
I suppose, but I have a hard time thinking under normal circumstances why society should prohibit religious people from wearing whatever garb they want to wear.
Well really any people, religious or not.
99% of the time, I’d agree. But, TSA or immigration ought to be able to use some form of facial recognition. LEOs can require you to take your gloves off to be finger-printed or roll up your sleeves for a blood test.
[quote=“Thiswasit, post:77, topic:1289806”]
No, I’m telling you how I think society should be.[/quote]
So, your post was relevant for a different world. Got it. In your “should be” “secular society” is there a “freedom OF religion” provision? A “free exercise” provision?
[quote=“Thiswasit, post:77, topic:1289806”]
Just to follow up, as a relgious person do you think you should be able to tell people who aren’t in your sect what they can and can not do?[/quote]
A gross oversimplification/misrepresentation [deliberate?] of what you’re positing.
Evenso, yes. My religion contains a sanctity of life; that we were made in the image of God. Thus, I think we should have laws that preserve life (e.g., laws prohibiting murder). I don’t arrive at this law by utilitarianism. I arrive at it based on my religion.
None.