We take many things on faith. We believe the earth is round based on interpretive data, photographs, testimony, etc. We believe in neutrinos even though we have never seen one and most of us take it on faith that the existence of neutrinos is true, but have never seen the evidence of their existence. (I certainly haven’t seen the tests, or even the test data, but believe in them because scientific logic tells me that they exist.)

Isn’t it possible that religious faith is similar? There is no real conflict between creationism and evolution in my mind. I would recommend watching a DVD – ‘The Case for a Creator’ if you truly have an open mind.

There are so many religions, which God? Again, I don’t think that is something humans are meant to know based on the mere concept of God.

I respect that you are willing to look at new evidence and reconsider. Many people aren’t willing to do that.

You said “If new evidence arises…I will appropriately revise my beliefs.” To me, a belief needs to be formed based on existing evidence, not lack of evidence. I believe the world is round in part because we have sent shuttles into space and photographed it. But I don’t dismiss the existence of God because we didn’t seem him in the heavens above.

Dogma is one of my favorite movies because it brings up a number of good questions about the role of religion and the “truth” it claims to hold. I can completely understand the idea that god is something unknowable. The question then becomes which god? The god of the Christians is very different than the Hindus, and still separated from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I respect ideas, but question the validity of some. Not all opinions on a subject are equally valid or true. The ongoing “debate” between the concepts of evolution and intelligent design is an excellent example of an idea gone wrong.

I put up today’s LICD comic because it entertained me and fit in with some of the themes that I hit on with this blog. Ryan and Lar touch on a great variety of subjects and often do so without tact of any sort.

As you rightly know you and I have rather opposing views on many subjects but I think we’re in agreement here:

I guess I feel that if a hospital or doctor has moral objections to the procedure or medication, then it should be that doctor/hospital’s responsibility to refer them to someone else

I don’t want to force a doctor or hospital to perform a procedure, but opposition to a procedure should not prevent a patient from getting proper care or information about available care.

After reading your blog, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a Boston Legal episode (I love that show, even though I disagree with their political views) where a girl was raped and beaten and was taken to a hospital for treatment. The doctor’s there could not prescribe the “morning after pill” as it was a Catholic hospital. Because of her injuries, she was not released for several days and by that time, she was not able to use the morning after pill. Needless to say, she was against abortions and so she was carrying the rapist’s baby. The doctor’s in this story would not release her or refer her to another hospital where they could prescribe the pill.

In this case, I guess I feel that if a hospital or doctor has moral objections to the procedure or medication, then it should be that doctor/hospital’s responsibility to refer them to someone else. I do think it is wrong to deny treatment to someone in the aggregate but I don’t really have a problem with an individual doctor not providing the treatment… as long as they refer them to someone else who would not have an objection. Who know, I am probably not making any sense.

First off, I’d like to see what evidence you’re using to support the assertion that Webster Cook is a nutjob or idiot.

Anyone who has grown up in a non-Catholic religion would likely be interested in the ritual and objects involved in the sacrament of communion. While I don’t know the details about the friend who was interested in seeing the eucharist, it’s quite possible that he falls into my definition. If, having never experienced the Catholic religion, he was interested, he may also have had a fear of going himself and/or talking with a priest.

Again, my knowledge of the details is incomplete (and I’ll gladly accept any correction) but I don’t believe that Cook disrupted the mass in any significant way. Certainly, it was not his intention to do so. He was a threatened party following his actions. Death threats and threats of physical violence are unacceptable. I make no qualifications there, the religious aspect is irrelevant.

The guarantees in the Constitution allow freedom to practice a religion and the separation of religion from the government. Religion does not get a free pass and is not allowed to do anything it wants under the umbrella of “religious belief.” I still fail to see how Cook’s actions would be harassment and how they interfered with the ability of Catholics to practice their religion.