What gives us the right to interfere with secular laws?

[z0wb13]

I wasn’t intending to be contradictory.

i didn’t think so. but then it would seem that the government does have the legal authority to restrict some religious practices.

usually, there has to be some extraordinary circumstance. or, i guess if permitting a certain religious practice would necessarily harm another, or limit their rights.

but the point is that there are some instances when secular governments do restrict religious freedoms. that’s just reality. we could argue all day whether they should, or which practices. i think sometimes they should, but there must be a very compelling reason.

edit: interesting follow-up.

 

[JReducation]

To answer this question all Catholics need to do is to read Dignitatis Humanae, Parr 6.

Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men’s faithfulness to God and to His holy will

The State has to create conditions that are favorable to fostering the religious life. What happens is that these laws are passed and they interfere with the religious life of the citizens. For example, in the USA, most dioceses had to stop adoption ministry, because civil law does not allow Catholic adoption agencies to limit adoptions to heterosexual married Catholic couples. In some states, governments are forcing Catholic institutions to provide benefit packages that include domestic partners of either sex. This is contrary to the Catholic view on marriage and expensive. As a result, some Catholic institutions have stopped providing medical insurance to everyone except the employee. They no longer provide family plans.

. . . in order that people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties. There are civil laws that penalize not only Catholics, but people of any faith whose religious duties are in conflict with civil law. For example, in some countries, it’s almost illegal to be Christian. In most Muslim countries it’s a crime to convert to Christianity. In the USA public school teachers may not say that same-sex unions are unacceptable. They may not say that these are not alternative forms of family life. They will be terminated and they are accused of violating the student’s rights, rather than the school board of violating their right to exercise their conscience and to teach moral truth to the young.

in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice Abortion is a violation of justice. However, some want to pass laws that will deny government subsidies to hospitals and medical schools that oppose abortion and contraception. In essence, the civil system is failing to promote justice. On the contrary, it’s seeking to silence those who stand for justice.

It’s not the Catholics are trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do. It’s that we’re trying to protect ourselves from civil law. When civil law remains within the boundaries of moral law, everyone’s rights and duties are defined. When it steps beyond those parameters, it ends up violating someone’s God-given rights in order to protect another person’s state-given rights. Finally, every man or woman of faith is a citizen and has the right to participate in the political debate, even the clergy and religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…but these sorts of mistakes are not made only by religious people, or people of a certain faith. cognitive bias is…

What mistake? What cognitive bias?

… imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.

It is. We live in a nation committing crimes against humanity by the genocide of 50 million American citizens in the womb. Homosexual activity is glorified on TV. we caannot pray when and where we want. Women with children to care for and drug problems are exploited to create pornography for money. More than half of all marriages end in divorce. Half of our kids drop out of high school…The shoe is most definitely on the other foot.

but, if you want to put up the 10 commandments in a public building, that’s different. that’s my public space, too, and since we won’t agree on which religious iconography is appropriate, i say we stick to something secular that we can both agree on, like the constitution, or a ribald limerick;p

Christianity is mathematically verifiable by the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies. Making other religious opinions moot. We know that it is true, therefore we know all other faiths are false. Christianity is mathematically proven as demonstrated by mathematicians like Peter Stoner in Science Speaks, enumerated by Josh Mcdowell in, * Evidence that Demands a Verdict*. No other faith can make that claim. So we do not have to agree on iconography.

 

[Christopher68]

So, each individual in the US has a right to vote, speak, petition, etc the government to do what that individual believes is the correct thing.

As long as what they are asking does not trample anyone else’s individual rights. That’s the key criteria.

 

[z0wb13]

It’s not the Catholics are trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do. It’s that we’re trying to protect ourselves from civil law.

name one example where civil laws in the usa have compelled you to violate your moral code.

 

[z0wb13]

What mistake? What cognitive bias?

false consensus and illusory superiority.

you don’t understand what i mean by the shoe on the other foot. i mean, imagine you lived in india, and everyone around you was hindu. now, you can’t eat hamburgers anymore, you can’t sport you boss leather jacket, and you can’t even tell a cow to get out of your house if it happens to wander in. (i don’t know how much of that is true;p)

We live in a nation committing crimes against humanity by the genocide of 50 million American citizens in the womb.

this is your religious opinion. my religion says that life begins when you take your first breath, and ends when you take your last. also, you can’t commit a crime against humanity where no human exists. but regardless of what we think about this, you are not being forced to have an abortion, so it’s kind of a moot point.

Homosexual activity is glorified on TV.

change the channel if it bothers you. also, it’s not glorified on tv. i’ve never seen a show where the takeaway was that being gay was fun. if a show addresses the topic it all, and the vast majority don’t, then it is usually portrayed with a little nuance. but just disappearing a class of people from tv won’t change anything. the people will still be there.

we caannot pray when and where we want.

yes you can. prayer is just speech, and you can do it whenever, wherever you want to. there are settings where it is more and less appropriate, but this attitude that you are under siege by secular forces rings very hollow. and it doesn’t follow that because you feel oppressed that you should be able to oppress others.

Women with children to care for and drug problems are exploited to create pornography for money.

i agree with you here. i don’t understand how pornography is legal but prostitution is not when the only difference is whether or not it is being filmed.

More than half of all marriages end in divorce.

what are you gonna do? i also wish that people didn’t get divorced, but how does that affect your religious freedom?

Half of our kids drop out of high school.

it’s closer to 10%.

Christianity is mathematically verifiable by the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies. Making other religious opinions moot. We know that it is true, therefore we know all other faiths are false. Christianity is mathematically proven as demonstrated by mathematicians like Peter Stoner in Science Speaks, enumerated by Josh Mcdowell in, * Evidence that Demands a Verdict*. No other faith can make that claim. So we do not have to agree on iconography.

my faith can absolutely make that claim. and i’m pretty sure that all faiths make the claim that they are 100% true. so, we are at an impasse. also, i’m a math guy, and i can tell you that math does not prove anything. it can be used to model the natural world; it definitely cannot be used to verify the existence of any deities.

 

[JRKH]

To the OP: my comments are not in reply to the specific example you gave, but in response to the overall question of your post.

My belief is that the proper role of government is the protection of individual rights. I am a huge proponent of the sovereignty of the individual in relation to society or the collective, as ‘society’ is merely a collection of individuals. So I despise any laws that have a misplaced desire to benefit society at the expense of the individual.

In relation to government and religion, I am also a huge proponent of the separation of church and state. With regard to religion, one is free to ‘believe’ any and all tenets of their respective faiths, but they cannot use their faith as a means of denying anyone else their individual rights.

I will just respond by noting that individual rights are not absolute, even in our own country.

Further, individual rights are not created by the individual. There are certain basic and essential rights that are explicitly protected, and others that are assumed or implied.

No one should confuse a desire with a right, despite the fact that it is very popular to do so in contemporary society.

All rights have context: the rights of the State, the rights of individuals, the rights of collective associations.

Interesting exchange…

We should also note that what constitutes individual rights (from a societal standpoint) can change over time as society and culture change.
In the U.S. the tendancy has been to expand what are considered basic individual rights in some areas and curtailing them in others.

Peace
James

 

[JReducation]

name one example where civil laws in the USA have compelled you to violate your moral code.

Washington DC:

The Archdiocese of Washington has had to drop family health care packages for all of its employees, because the District of Columbia has passed a law the requires that employers provide family benefits to employees who are not married, straight or gay, but are domestic partners. This has forced the Archdiocese, which covers the District of Columbia and Southeastern Maryland, to drop the coverage. By consequence, the employees who live in Maryland are also deprived of the benefits package.

Boston

The Archdiocese had to close its adoption program, because the State rules that Catholic Charities violated civil rights when it refused to consider applications for adoptions by same-sex couples heterosexual couples that are not validly married.

Florida

The State of Florida’s Pregnancy Care Network does not allow religious pregnancy centers to discuss religion in counseling sessions without financially penalizing them. In other words, the State refuses to provide funds that help poor families in crisis pregnancies, if you discuss religion. They monitor it by asking every person who enters a pregnancy center to complete a form that has to be sent to the state. Question number 1: Was religion discussed? They don’t hide the fact that they prefer to allow poor parents and children to go without material assistant rather than allow the discussion of religion. It’s OK to go hungry or not to have what your infant needs, but it’s not OK to talk about God, chastity, family and marriage.

Catholic hospitals have come under fire because they do not allow patients, family members and doctors to choose to pull feeding tubes and water from patients who are terminally ill. To do so violates moral law. Every patient has the right to ordinary palliative care, food and water as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the patient. Every doctor, family member and patient must accept ordinary palliative care, hydration and nutrition except when it aggravates the patient’s condition. The Supreme Court of Florida ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny patients the right to accelerate their death.

Commonwealth of Virginia

Public school teachers may not wear any religious sign or symbol that is visible. This means that a Jew may not wear a kippah, a Muslim may not wear a bulka, a Catholic may not wear a visible crucifix, nor may clergy and religious enter public schools wearing a habit or a collar.

If you comply with civil law you violate the moral code. Your only choice is to stop doing a greater good in order to avoid a violation or go to court.

Allow me to ask a question. Why are people of any faith so protective of the US Government and far less protective of their faith?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JRKH]

There can be no right to commit a moral evil.

Whoa ther warpspeedpetey - might need to drop out of warp for a minute or two ans slip along on impulse speed while you peruse the Catholic Church Catechism.

Para 1782 has this to say…
Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

If a man is a Catholic, then Morally he is bound to a Catholic Conscience.
If a man is a SS Christian, then he is morally bound to what he finds in the bible.
If a man is a Muslim he is bound by the Quran and any other teachings of his faith.
If a man is not religious, then he is bound by civil law and his own conscience…

We, AS Catholics may not impose our morality on those not of our faith.
We CAN and SHOULD try to convince and convert, others to the Truth. That then is our mission.
So - I agree that there is no "righta’ to commit a moral wrong, but the only way to prevent the moral wrong (or at least minimize it) is through conversion.
Legislation will follow conversion. It is far less likely that conversions will follow legislation.

Peace
James

 

[michelleds]

Brother JR, excellent post. the problem is that we don’t live in an ideal world, and never will. Is there any government that meets these criteria of “create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life”? yes, I think maybe the theocratic states would fall into that realm, but what happens when someone sins or disagrees? stonings and beheadings.

I would posit that no government should be given positive duties such as those enumerated but negative ones instead. Instead of “The State has to create conditions that are favorable to fostering the religious life”, I would offer that it should read The State will not create conditions that are detrimental to the fostering of religious life.

To answer this question all Catholics need to do is to read Dignitatis Humanae, Parr 6.

Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men’s faithfulness to God and to His holy will

The State has to create conditions that are favorable to fostering the religious life. What happens is that these laws are passed and they interfere with the religious life of the citizens. For example, in the USA, most dioceses had to stop adoption ministry, because civil law does not allow Catholic adoption agencies to limit adoptions to heterosexual married Catholic couples. In some states, governments are forcing Catholic institutions to provide benefit packages that include domestic partners of either sex. This is contrary to the Catholic view on marriage and expensive. As a result, some Catholic institutions have stopped providing medical insurance to everyone except the employee. They no longer provide family plans.

. . . in order that people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties. There are civil laws that penalize not only Catholics, but people of any faith whose religious duties are in conflict with civil law. For example, in some countries, it’s almost illegal to be Christian. In most Muslim countries it’s a crime to convert to Christianity. In the USA public school teachers may not say that same-sex unions are unacceptable. They may not say that these are not alternative forms of family life. They will be terminated and they are accused of violating the student’s rights, rather than the school board of violating their right to exercise their conscience and to teach moral truth to the young.

in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice Abortion is a violation of justice. However, some want to pass laws that will deny government subsidies to hospitals and medical schools that oppose abortion and contraception. In essence, the civil system is failing to promote justice. On the contrary, it’s seeking to silence those who stand for justice.

It’s not the Catholics are trying to tell other people what they can and cannot do. It’s that we’re trying to protect ourselves from civil law. When civil law remains within the boundaries of moral law, everyone’s rights and duties are defined. When it steps beyond those parameters, it ends up violating someone’s God-given rights in order to protect another person’s state-given rights. Finally, every man or woman of faith is a citizen and has the right to participate in the political debate, even the clergy and religious.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[michelleds]

As long as what they are asking does not trample anyone else’s individual rights. That’s the key criteria.

Not true for the US. the right to vote and petition your government has nothing to do with whether what you are asking for impacts other’s rights. that’s why we have a republic rather than a democracy. twenty people can tell their legislator that they want all blondes to be required to wear a hat when in public. the legislator could even draft such a bill. You might be thinking of the following: the right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose or you don’t have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. those are limits on an individual rights, but the limits do not overwhelm the right.

 

[JReducation]

Whoa ther warpspeedpetey - might need to drop out of warp for a minute or two ans slip along on impulse speed while you peruse the Catholic Church Catechism.

Para 1782 has this to say…
Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

If a man is a Catholic, then Morally he is bound to a Catholic Conscience.
If a man is a SS Christian, then he is morally bound to what he finds in the bible.
If a man is a Muslim he is bound by the Quran and any other teachings of his faith.
If a man is not religious, then he is bound by civil law and his own conscience…

We, AS Catholics may not impose our morality on those not of our faith.
We CAN and SHOULD try to convince and convert, others to the Truth. That then is our mission.
So - I agree that there is no "righta’ to commit a moral wrong, but the only way to prevent the moral wrong (or at least minimize it) is through conversion.
Legislation will follow conversion. It is far less likely that conversions will follow legislation.

Peace
James

This is fine as long as we do not tolerate legislation that violates moral law. Never forget the example of Thomas More. “I die the loyal servant of the King, but the faithful son of the Church.” If a law is immoral, then it cannot be tolerated in the name of religious freedom. That’s not what Dignitatis Humanae says. It says that we may not force faith on anyone. It does not say that in order to allow religious freedom, we must allow immoral laws. We do have a duty to push for moral legislation.

A good read for this subject would be my confrere’s book. Render Unto Caesar{/u] Bishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap. Caesar’s rights are determined by divine law, not by Caesar or by the governed. When Caesar violates divine law, the governed have a moral obligation to rebel.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[michelleds]

Allow me to ask a question. Why are people of any faith so protective of the US Government and far less protective of their faith?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Interesting question. I need to ponder this.

 

[michelleds]

“not impose our morality on those not of our faith”

I had a lengthy and never-resolved argument years ago with a philosopher friend of mine regarding this issue and female circumcision. He argued that we (Christians and/or Americans) could not judge the action of fc because that was someone else’s society. This was my first exposure to relativism and I was horrified. I think there are some things which are so immoral that it is our **obligation **to oppose them.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR, excellent post. the problem is that we don’t live in an ideal world, and never will. Is there any government that meets these criteria of “create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life”? yes, I think maybe the theocratic states would fall into that realm, but what happens when someone sins or disagrees? stonings and beheadings.

I would posit that no government should be given positive duties such as those enumerated but negative ones instead. Instead of “The State has to create conditions that are favorable to fostering the religious life”, I would offer that it should read The State will not create conditions that are detrimental to the fostering of religious life.

An interesting perspective. In this case, the Council Fathers were trying to help law makers. They wanted to offer guidance by telling them, “This is the good toward which you must strive.”

The language of the Church always parallels the language of Scripture. In the OT the Commandments were written in the negative. “Don’t” In the NT the same commandments are repeated in the positive. "Blessed are the . . . "

They are simply two ways of speaking.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[michelleds]

An interesting perspective. In this case, the Council Fathers were trying to help law makers. They wanted to offer guidance by telling them, “This is the good toward which you must strive.”

The language of the Church always parallels the language of Scripture. In the OT the Commandments were written in the negative. “Don’t” In the NT the same commandments are repeated in the positive. "Blessed are the . . . "

They are simply two ways of speaking.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

simply two ways of speaking unless you are an appellate court judge!!

fwiw, I just ordered Render Unto Caesar for my kindle.

 

[edwest2]

The Church proposes but does not impose.

visnews-en.blogspot.com/2008/10/church-does-not-impose-but-freely.html

Should religious voters be excluded from voting on the issues? The intersection between faith and reason should be a concern for all Christians.

From George Washington’s Fareweel Address, 1796:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[z0wb13]

If you comply with civil law you violate the moral code. Your only choice is to stop doing a greater good in order to avoid a violation or go to court.

Allow me to ask a question. Why are people of any faith so protective of the US Government and far less protective of their faith?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

so, the catholic church would cut off its nose to spite its face.

none of the things you listed (providing healthcare, adoption services, wearing religious symbols) are religious obligations. further, they are not cases where the church was compelled to do anything besides treating all of their employees the same way. if a church wants to be exempt from laws regarding equal treatment of it’s employees, then i think they should give up their tax exempt status.

but the line about the boston adoptions is patently false.

Catholic Charities of Boston was not forced out of the adoption business because of marriage equality in Massachusetts. The organization voluntarily ceased doing adoptions after the state’s four Catholic Bishops got wind that gay parents had been adopting kids through Catholic Charities from an October 2005 Boston Globe story. Not surprisingly, all of this happened as the Massachusetts Legislature was wrestling with whether to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the statewide ballot, which the local Catholic hierarchy supported wholeheartedly.

The Globe reported that over the course of about two decades, Catholic Charities placed 13 children with gay parents, out of about 720 adoptions they facilitated during those years. For the record, those 13 children were considered hard to place with adoptive parents because they were older or had physical or emotional difficulties, meaning had they not found loving parents who happened to be gay, they’d likely not have parents. Catholic Charities was accepting state funds to provide adoption services and was thus bound by the state’s gay-inclusive anti-discrimination law not to reject qualified adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. Oh, and by the way, the non-discrimination law has been on the books since 1989—long before marriage equality was but a doodle on Mary Bonauto’s legal pad.

The Globe also reported that though Catholic Charities President Bryan Hehir didn’t love the idea of placing children with same-sex couples, he saw it as “a legal accommodation in the name of a greater social good.” The story later states that, “Hehir said that to his knowledge, his agency has never sought an exemption from the nondiscrimination language.”

as for the florida abortion counseling, of course an organization that is taking state funds shouldn’t be promoting a certain religious viewpoint. and in virginia, of course teachers should have a dress code.

nothing you said would force you to do anything you don’t want to. they are hypothetical situations at best. and when you actually look into the issues that you mention, it’s not like the catholic church is being singled out. all religious institutions have to follow the same rules.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

false consensus and illusory superiority.

I haven’t mentioned any consensus, nor have I mentioned any kind of superiority.

you don’t understand what i mean by the shoe on the other foot. i mean, imagine you lived in india, and everyone around you was hindu. now, you can’t eat hamburgers anymore, you can’t sport you boss leather jacket, and you can’t even tell a cow to get out of your house if it happens to wander in. (i don’t know how much of that is true;p)

I am saying that it feels like that to a great many of us. The we are in a secular “India” like your analogy.

this is your religious opinion…

Defining someone as not fully human is how every genocide occurs. The Jews, Tutsis, Ugandans, and so on. Those have been found to be Crimes against Humanity. They even prosecuted the people who took part in places like Nuremburg and the Hague. It seems imminently logical to me to classify the murder of 50 million children as a Crime against Humanity. My religion need not enter it. Poeple of all stripes should consider that the most rational position.

change the channel if it bothers you. also, it’s not glorified on tv. i’ve never seen a show where the takeaway was that being gay was fun. if a show addresses the topic it all, and the vast majority don’t, then it is usually portrayed with a little nuance. but just disappearing a class of people from tv won’t change anything. the people will still be there.

The goal isn’t to make them dissappear, that’s a little scary. Sexual sins don’t start in the homosexual community, we are all guilty. Me, you, everyone. No sexual sins should be glorified on TV or in the media. There can never be a right to commit a moral wrong or to promote their commission.

yes you can. prayer is just speech, and you can do it whenever, wherever you want to. there are settings where it is more and less appropriate, but this attitude that you are under siege by secular forces rings very hollow. and it doesn’t follow that because you feel oppressed that you should be able to oppress others.

The problem is the “where its more or less appropriate” There is nowhere it is inappropriate. Nor do I claim a right to oppress anyone engaging in moral behavior.

i agree with you here. i don’t understand how pornography is legal but prostitution is not when the only difference is whether or not it is being filmed.

Because our form of government in the States allows all sorts of immorality as long as its a popular one. Why is weed illegal, but beer is not? Nobody gets high and starts fights or car chases. Our secular system does not make sense to me.

what are you gonna do? i also wish that people didn’t get divorced, but how does that affect your religious freedom?

It affects our society. It hurts the people divorcing, It hurts children. It hurts us financially. It means we have to keep large social welfare programs running, it brings down our entire quality of life, all in the search for a “personal happiness” regardless of the fact that happiness is a group activity.

it’s closer to 10%.

I thought is was closer to forty, But I haven’t been in highschool since I was 16. Now that I stop and think about it, I think half is an overstatement, but the point is that it is too high a percentage in many places.

my faith can absolutely make that claim. and i’m pretty sure that all faiths make the claim that they are 100% true. so, we are at an impasse. also, i’m a math guy, and i can tell you that math does not prove anything. it can be used to model the natural world; it definitely cannot be used to verify the existence of any deities.

Perhaps you don’t know what Christianity is. There are 73 different documents written across 1800 or so years that describe G-d and mans relationship. These books were written by men who lived in different places and different times. Some of these documents, books actually, have dozens of prophecies that a Messiah would come and have certain qualities. For example, being born in a certain place, doing certain things, being of a certain lineage, dying a certain way, be betrayed for a certain amount of money, have his clothes clothes gambled for,etc. In the later books these prophecies are fulfilled. Jesus was born in the right place, did the right things, was descended from the right family, he was betrayed for the correct amount, and so on. Mathematician Peter Stoner demonstrated it in the book Science Speaks. Which you can google a .pdf of. Stoners methodology shows that Christianity is verifiable by a mathematical analysis. This is the same thing that the Apostles knew intuitively when they realized that Christ was fulfilling the Messianic prophecies from a millennium before their own time. This is why they lived torturous lives and died torturous deaths, when a mere recantation of what they had witnessed would have spared them. Christianity exists because of these fulfilled Messianic Prophecies. The martyrs all died for this reason. they knew it was an undeniable truth. Imagine the courage it took to allow themselves to be burned or beaten to death, to be eaten by lions as people cheered. Because you knew the absolute truth of reality, you had witnessed G-d first hand. No, Christianity is the only faith which can really claim to be true. I think there is great wisdom comes from wei wu wei, but no other religion or philosophy can claim to be mathematically verifiable the way Christianity is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Whoa ther warpspeedpetey - might need to drop out of warp for a minute or two ans slip along on impulse speed while you peruse the Catholic Church Catechism.

Para 1782 has this to say…
Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”
…

I am not talking about conversion by force.