Please be so kind as to identify your opinion as such when you state it as a fact. Works wonders.
Yeah. Terrible of someone to actually go out and practice his religion (which you, ever so diplomatically, refer to as a cult) in a country which guarantees his right to do exactly that, isn’t it?
One would think that a mere “thanks, not interested” would be enough. That has always worked for me. Now, I also have friends who are members of different religious groups, and we do manage, among ourselves, to discuss what the teachings and differences, as we understand them, are. You might want to try that sometime.
So, do you always ask questions to which you will not listen to the answer? Kind of odd discussion, if you ask me. Sounds more like a diatribe.
Please be so kind as to define “in your face.” I’m willing to bet all the poor folks did was ask you a question about their group along thelines of “are you interested in hearing about…?” A simple “no, thanks” works for me almost every time. Only time it didn’t work was when someone asked me if he could pray for me. I told him yes & it turned out he wanted me to be there with him while he prayed. I politely informed him he was more than welcome to pray for me in his absence. He said he would. Kind of nice of him, I guess.
The flag and patriotic songs are nationalistic emblems and, as such, are prohibited to members of certain faith groups. It’s a shame the leaders of said group forgot to ask for your approval of their doctrine before they founded the group, isn’t it?
You see, their religion most likely forbids assisting others in committing what they regard to be a sin. Since consuming blood products in any manner, such as via transfusion, is considered a sin, they are not permitted, by their faith, by their religion, to assist anyone else in committing a sin.
Here’s an analogy for you: say your religion prohibits you from actually killing somebody, but that it does not say that you can not eat the meat from the dead human’s carcass. Just that you can not do the killing yourself.
This analogy is directly on point because the faith group in question, essentially, considers the consumption of blood via any method as equivalent, if not equal, to consuming the carcass of the human in the analogy.
And exactly how do you know this? Are there ore are there not JW firefighters? I don’t know but since fighting fires isn’t swearing allegiance to a nation, I can guess that this is a profession (or volunteer service) not denied to them by their faith. Are they or are they not praying for the folks killed, missing, searching, etc. in the wake of the tragedy? Is not praying, according to some faiths, doing something for those people?
So it is you and not the Constitution and the laws of the land which decide how things work? Thanks for informing us of this fact.
Maybe you didn’t, but there actually are people who not only do need to know this but are happy to have someone tell them this. And the poor individual practicing his religion (his constitutionally protected right, mind you) had no way of knowing the extent of your prejudice to that right.
No, it is not. That would only be true if the poor guy practicing his religion in your presence actually was one of the terrorists involved in that terrible crime.
And you were mistaken. This is turning into a great polarizing issue and not a unifying one.
Do you suppose that’s because you were right or merely because they wanted to distance themselves from irrational viotrol?