In response to:

A Call to Conscience

DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 12:44 PM
"you do not get to impose your beliefs on others" Virtually every time this is said to "religious" people by a "non-religious" person, it translates into "I say you don't get to impose your 'religious' beliefs on me, but I get to impose my 'non-religious' beliefs on you." Beliefs are useless unless they're based in truth. Most people who say they don't want 'religious' beliefs 'imposed' on them are actually trying to avoid submitting to truth.
Jack2894 Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 2:07 PM
DCM, "beliefs are useless unless they are based in truth."? It is really hard to say exactly what that might mean. On one hand, if I have a belief, then it is by definition based in truth. In that case, it doesn't need to be said: its like saying "the direction of up is up" On the other hand, if you are saying that there is only one set of valid beliefs (I imagine they would pretty much be your beliefs) , then it's patently wrong: there have been any number of useful beliefs that do not conform to your vision of truth..
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 1:58 PM
Well which of those secular beliefs as you call them are you referring to? You're being very general here. Are there not any aspects of secular beliefs that are without merit? Or are you referring to certain issues in particular?
DCM in FL Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 1:10 PM
"By their nature, they're not contingent on demonstrable truth."

The real problem comes in with secular beliefs that are not contingent on demonstrable truth, and in fact may be flatly contradicted by demonstrable truth, but are officially treated as if unquestionably factual.
HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 1:06 PM
It cuts both ways. Each side, religious and non-religious, can claim to be victims. It will earn them sympathy, but it won't make them right. Beliefs are beliefs. By their nature, they're not contingent on demonstrable truth. That's why they're so diverse. I'm not saying there aren't genuine victims of persecution, but it's a matter of degree. And when Connor uses Nazi Germany, he's taking a very foolish and very extreme example that does not apply to current times.

"Theological courage calls the inner-man to ignore his buckling knees and take theologically driven stances that, while potentially controversial, are righteous in nature." So write Owen Strachen and Andrew Walker in a recent article discussing Hobby Lobby's stance against Obamacare's onerous trampling of religious liberty.

The idea of martyrdom, be it physical, social, or financial, is a strange concept to the American mind. The word conjures images of ancient inquisitions, tyrannical princes, and subjugated peoples. In the modern context, we hear stories of brave souls standing up for liberty in the face of Communist regimes in North Korea and China...