tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3418825914680132383.post1442305812485636102..comments2024-02-20T10:05:48.189-06:00Comments on Startled Disbelief: Prayer at City HallAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01226088146391183228noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3418825914680132383.post-39484775349426965882012-05-31T17:13:09.588-05:002012-05-31T17:13:09.588-05:00You'll find a response to some of your critici...You'll find a response to some of your criticisms <a href="http://www.startleddisbelief.com/2012/05/in-which-my-position-is-untenable.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01226088146391183228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3418825914680132383.post-25068770480384304312012-05-31T06:12:38.484-05:002012-05-31T06:12:38.484-05:00This position is rather untenable, isn't it, a...This position is rather untenable, isn't it, as to a religionist it would be equally inconceivable and indeed offensive to undertake any public work without the invocation of the relevant God or gods? <br /><br />Likewise, however, such an invocation would offend an atheist, and even, as you say, a non-interventionist deist (somehow: I'm not quite convinced that the atheist and the non-interventionist shouldn't just view it as a meaningless exercise that's more than a little humourous and leave it at that. I'm not sure where the offence really lies).<br /><br />In light of that, doesn't it make the most sense to allow for a state in which the views (and I'm not suggesting this obtains presently in Canada, bear in mind) of the overwhelming majority (say a really, really Catholic country like, oh, Vatican City) are enshrined in law and practiced not simply on a private basis but in civil society and government functions, but which tolerates the freedom of conscience/thought &c. of all the citizens as private citizens? <br /><br />It just seems unfair to assert that the lack of prayer, the secular position, is somehow the neutral course here, by which no one could be offended. Most well-developed moral casuistry will have some notion of peccatum omissionis, and certainly it would be thought "omiss" and grossly offensive by most of the citizenry for a state comprised mostly, but not exclusively, of religionists to neglect its God or gods at important functions of state.Frobenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04716579315832745700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3418825914680132383.post-57988622258879459802012-05-11T09:38:40.918-05:002012-05-11T09:38:40.918-05:00Hah!Hah!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01226088146391183228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3418825914680132383.post-45728487090379948982012-05-11T09:36:03.782-05:002012-05-11T09:36:03.782-05:00Thanks for the support, Greg!Thanks for the support, Greg!Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14655286074525484645noreply@blogger.com