HAL's Dreams
New Member
- Sep 28, 2019
- 4
- 2
- 36
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Republican
Answer: Because the Thirty Years' War and the English Civil War.The whole thrust of this thread is in trying to understand why there is an acceptable difference between what is expected of a religious vs a non-religious entity. Since I don't have the answer I'm seeking opinions.
Opinion: Radical faith healing. Some groups forego medical intervention. Should they be able to impose this on their own kids?
Yes. The object of religious freedom is to prevent further wars of religion and thus to observe the ethics of not taxing someone else to pay for the propagation of your own opinions. The objection that atheism is not a religion misses the point. A war could just as easily arise between a religious and an atheistic faction, each trying to tax each other to pay for its own opinions to be forced on the other's children. The purpose of reproduction is... to reproduce oneself, not to serve up memetic brood hosts for someone else. But if children must die for "yes"--and they will, because they have before--then this is simply the Machiavellian price for religious freedom and thus the stability of the polis. Not paying it increases the probability that my memes will die out through rival indoctrination and that the memes of many, many others will die out in another English Civil War. Ergo, I am willing to pay the price. Conventionally immoral of me. But morals have nothing to do with ruling a state, and I am a ruler of the state by virtue of its being a democratic republic.
Upvote
0