🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <46766@dscatl.UUCP> mgresham@dscatl.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:
>In  <1992Aug14.141612.29066@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander) writes:
>}
>}Okay, let me try to understand your point.  Because the law stipulates
>}Sunday, then you assume that the law is there because of the religious
>}belief of others.  If the law said Monday, then I guess we would not be
>}having this discussion, right?
>
>And I suppose that Sunday was the *randomly* chosen day for
>Chick-fil-A to be closed, right? :-)

In the case of Chick-fil-A, Sunday was not a random day.  I think that
it is widely know that they are owned by Christians, who have chosen to
remain closed on Sundays for a variety of reasons.  I know of stores
that are closed on Saturday because they are Jewish owned or that are
closed on certain religious holidays.  In these cases we know the
reason.  For alchol sales, I do not know the reason Sunday was chosen.
Regardless, we seem to be going in circles, and maybe we should just
drop this point and let it rest.

>}[...] Would you exclude
>}any of the following from being a religion?
>}
>}   - Christianity - the religion derived from Jesus Christ based on the
>}                    Bible as sacred scripture
>}   - Satanism - obsession with or affinity for evil
>}   - Humanism - a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human
>}                interests or values
>}   - Atheism - the doctrine that there is no diety
>
>How you "slice the pie" regarding definitions here is very
>revealing in terms of your indoctrination, Owen.

Perhaps my definations were not the best, I tried to use them as from
the dictionary.  The point I wanted to make is that I think everyone has
a set of beliefs, doctrine, guidelines, etc. that they hold to strongly,
otherwise I don't think we would be having such lively discussions.

>And most secular humanists and atheists will argue that their
>beliefs do not constitute a "religion" no more than an ardent
>belief in "free speech" creates a Church of Free Speechism or a
>a firmly held belief in the value of public education implies
>a "Church of Public Education" -- there are many "strongly held
>beliefs," which, though organized or even institutionalized, do
>not constitute a "religion," in spite of Webster.

Perhaps they should not be called religions, but from abstract view there
isn't a whole lot of difference.  My Christian beliefs are based on the
Bible.  Most other religions are based on some set of principles or
beliefs.  Humanism, Atheism, Feminism, and other "ism's" have some set of
principles/beliefs/doctrine that define that particular group.  If someone
holds strongly to those beliefs, then it will influence their behavior
and what they believe good laws should be.  A feminist may believe women
should be treated just like men and support a law allowing them to fight
in combat.  A Christian may believe that men and women are created
differently, apart from physical differences of course, and doesn't
think men and women should be treated the same.  Either may be right or
wrong, but just because one is based on "religion" should not be a
disqualifer.  This is what got me started with this whole discussion.
It seemed that the argument was that because a law was passed that
looked like it was influenced by a religion, that it should be illegal.
My point is that a lot of laws are influenced by different groups and
different people with different beliefs.  Excluding "religion" from
being an influence and allowing Humanism or Feminism or something else
is not "proper".

>Read your history, Owen.  The instances of religious persecution
>at the hands of civil authorities is extensive over the centuries
>and with probably more rife *between* Christian sects than between
>religions with greater differences, even.

History will also show that a great number have suffered under
Communism, Marxism, and other non-religous authorities.

Owen Alexander