Seriously????

[ZYX]

I used to have a science teacher that went to GUTS. Uhhhhhh...science teacher. She was not preachy or anything like that. She taught science as a theory to how the world works. She even taught evolution. She never said whether she agreed or disagreed with it though, but that is not her job.

You have obviously never been to a Baptist Church.  Or Church of Christ.  Or Pentecostal.  Or Rhema Cult.  Or Guts Cult.

I believe I previously stated that I did not agree with religious beliefs. I also did not deny their existence.

[Townsend]

Anyone who truly, wholeheartedly believes in something will say that anyone who disagrees with them on said subject is wrong.

An absolute faith in anything is wrong, absolutely IMO.

There should always be open mindedness but if you even have a small doubt then you burn.

(Edited in deference to others)

[Conan71]

An absolute faith in anything is wrong, absolutely.

There should always be open mindedness but if you even have a small doubt then you burn.

How is absolute faith in what I believe in wrong so long as I don't try to force that on anyone else and I don't wear it on my sleeve?

My faith in what I believe is unwavering, yet I'm perfectly open-minded about what others believe so long as they don't see it as being so superior to my beliefs that I need to believe as they do.  I know what works for me, but it might not work for others or even get them arrested in 11 out of 57 states 

And again, I think it's a smaller minority of Christians who take a closed-minded view.  Unfortunately it's the intolerant nut-jobs who get all the recognition and think they represent the religion the best.

And yes, Yoda is my messiah.

[ZYX]

An absolute faith in anything is wrong, absolutely.

There should always be open mindedness but if you even have a small doubt then you burn.

You just 100% proved my point....

[Townsend]

How is absolute faith in what I believe in wrong so long as I don't try to force that on anyone else and I don't wear it on my sleeve?

It came with years of philosophy classes.

I believe England exists because I've been told over and over again that it's there.  Have I seen it/touched it?  Nope.  So there can always be a tiny doubt in my mind.

Does an arrow ever truly touch its target?  I used to believe it did until I divided the distance in half infinitely.

Is there a supreme being?  Maybe...but no matter what choice I make, there will always be a little doubt.  It's healthier to me.
 
If I'm wrong, well, I can't make myself believe.  If that is what gives me an eternity in Hell, then that god sucks.

[Townsend]

You just 100% proved my point....

Not really.

[Conan71]

It came with years of philosophy classes.

I believe England exists because I've been told over and over again that it's there.  Have I seen it/touched it?  Nope.  So there can always be a tiny doubt in my mind.

Does an arrow ever truly touch its target?  I used to believe it did until I divided the distance in half infinitely.

Is there a supreme being?  Maybe...but no matter what choice I make, there will always be a little doubt.  It's healthier to me.
 
If I'm wrong, well, I can't make myself believe.  If that is what gives me an eternity in Hell, then that god sucks.

Perhaps a better way to word that would be adding an IMO before or after your statement on absolute faith.

It's not wrong to those who have it, though I will admit I arrived at what I believe via open-mindedness and my mind is always open to new ideas and new impulses, yet that doesn't mean I don't believe absolutely.  My believe is real spirituality is always evolving and growing, yet that doesn't mean what you believe or have faith in today can't be absolute.

[ZYX]

You said that you absolutely believe that absolute faith in anything is wrong. So you basically said "I'm right you're wrong"...So yeah, really, you did.

You said you absolutely believe that one should not absolutely believe anything. You contradicted yourself. Is there not any part of you that believes absolute faith is what is needed?

[Townsend]

Perhaps a better way to word that would be adding an IMO before or after your statement on absolute faith.

Done

It's not wrong to those who have it, though I will admit I arrived at what I believe via open-mindedness and my mind is always open to new ideas and new impulses, yet that doesn't mean I don't believe absolutely.  My believe is real spirituality is always evolving and growing, yet that doesn't mean what you believe or have faith in today can't be absolute.

Our language is fallible.  Maybe our understanding of the meaning of some words differ.  Maybe it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.  (smiley winky face)

[ZYX]

I'm with Conan on this. Just because I absolutely believe, please don't confuse that with being close minded. I'm not. Actually, I consider myself to be very open minded.

[Townsend]

You said that you absolutely believe that absolute faith in anything is wrong. So you basically said "I'm right you're wrong"...So yeah, really, you did.

You said you absolutely believe that one should not absolutely believe anything. You contradicted yourself. Is there not any part of you that believes absolute faith is what is needed?

It's not a faith.  It's a statement.

We differ in opinions now that I've place the "IMO".

I never said I believe it.  It just is.

[ZYX]

I agree that our opinions are very different on the matter. 

[Townsend]

I agree that our opinions are very different on the matter. 

Ditto.  Until we part for different destinations or the light is snuffed out.

[we vs us]

 
If I'm wrong, well, I can't make myself believe.  If that is what gives me an eternity in Hell, then that god sucks.

Truth.

[pmcalk]

It's not just about if the person is being restricted from practicing their own religion, but if the state is "sponsoring" a religion by showing favoratism to it and forcing someone to attend.  I could see that being the case if they were being forced to attend a service or ritual, and not a Law Enforcement appreciation day mixed with "get to know us" day.

True, if as I said he were trying to make an anti-establishment argument, but he hasn't alleged facts to support that either.  It's not enough to simply say a decision favored one religion over another.  Lots of employment decisions favor one religion over another--for example, closing an office on Christmas.  Requiring work on Saturday.  You must show more--either that the purpose of the action was to further (or prohibit) a religion, or that the primary effect was to further (or prohibit) a religion.  Or, more generally, that the government (TPF) is somehow "endorsing" one religion over another.  Even requiring someone to sit through a service may be ok--for example, if it were required as part of a class on Islam. The plaintiff doesn't allege--and I don't think facts would bear out--that his supervisor required attendance in an effort to further Islam.  And I really doubt that any police officer felt any need to convert after they attended the event.  I don't think anyone doubts that the primary purpose was to further police relations with the Islamic community.  I don't even think there are facts to support the argument that one religion is favored over another--the police go into houses of worship all the time as part of their job, even during services (Check out the Synagogue on a high holiday--there is always an cop on duty).