You are shooting holes in the example without looking at the point the example is trying to make. Of course the public health hazard is ridiculous. My point was your argument made a distinction between religiously based arguments and scientifically based ones and that is discriminatory at the worst level, imo. You say we have to have a "proven reason" but then you expect us to not include our faith based beliefs in that argument. You see your argument as logical and I see it as discriminatory. I suppose we should end it here. This one is not going to move either of us. Best wishes to you. We have an equinox coming up and I wish you well as you celebrate your holiday.
Not at all. If science proved that something was dangerous to the greater good of the nation, then by all means abolish it. Of course there has to be a distinction. There is no "fact" when it comes to religion or religious beliefs, and anyone who thinks otherwise is being foolish. Science can provide facts. Of course. Where are there any stone hard cold facts in religion? How can you associate ANYTHING from faith with "proven reason". It's called faith because it's just that. Until one of the deities that anyone believes in comes down to this planet in front of millions and proves they exist, we don't know if any of them do or not. That's why it's faith. You are correct about neither of us moving, but actually Ohio...with all due respect I'm seeing it as you seeing it as discriminatory to the beliefs you have. I wouldn't want any of MY beliefs involved either, so how is it discriminatory? I don't base any of my voting on my spiritual beliefs. My faith calls for harming no one and nothing, yet I'm pro-choice. It's the person's individual right to choose that, and MY religious beliefs have no right in telling her not to. And a Happy Easter to you, my friend.
if i could, i just wanted to say this thread has been incredibly educational, and i have really enjoyed reading it. Thank you guys
