Is it possible for religion to be a "private matter"?

[Moderator Hat ON]

TVAA, do NOT call your fellow posters “foolish one”, and you should not be “belittling” posters. Attack the post, not the poster. Blink, if you see an instance of what you believe is trolling, please report it to the mods, don’t call the poster a troll in the thread.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Objection:

What is the difference between attacking a person, attacking that person’s beliefs, attacking the person’s ideas about their beliefs, and attacking their expression of their ideas about their beliefs?

No matter what, any criticism will inevitably (and correctly) be interpreted as an attack on the posters themselves.

Why, how dare you, you new to the boards and daring to criticize me poster you…

I outta say really mean things to you and hurt your feelings, you whippersnapper.

[sub] Your point is well taken. I will do penance by spending a frightening amount of time watching the Hampsterdance site’s dancing hamsters.[/sub]

Returning to the OP:

This “energy work”, if it’s anything like the general “healing energy” fads, has absolutely nothing in it which is genuinely objectionable to actual Catholic sensibilities. It doesn’t involve the invocation of spirits or entities to bring about healing. (I wonder how Thea interprets Native American rituals, but that’s another thread altogether.)

If it doesn’t work, then it’s objectionable because it’s pseudoscientific claptrap, but it’s utterly harmless. Again, Thea has no reason to complain.

If it works, which I find extremely unlikely, Thea still has no reason to object. By definition, she’s not working with the occult, because she’s merely working with a phenomenon she doesn’t currently understand.

Thea doesn’t understand high-energy particle physics, either, yet she doesn’t suggest that particle physicists are occultists. Why? Merely because she hasn’t been trained to react to them in that way. This thread is nothing but knee-jerk false piety.

And again, this is wholly irrelevant to the OP.

We can sit here and dicker around about whether certain spiritual beliefs are actually contradictory to Thea’s religious worldview, but that avoids the larger question Thea proposed for debate. Is “energy work” incompatible with the Catholic belief? Who cares? The point behind the example is not to explore the contours of what spiritual invocations are and are not acceptable to practicing Catholics, but rather to discuss the intersection of one’s privately held beliefs with one’s real-world responsibilities. The issue Thea seeks to resolve is not a reconcilation of “energy work” with her Catholicism, but rather a balancing of her own belief system with aspects of her daily life that may require her participation in things she (rightly or wrongly) finds incompatible with her particular faith.

The “energy work” stuff was actually only a small part of Thea’s OP. She included other examples as well, such as certain job requirements for waitstaff and policemen and dietary restriction’s impact on company dinners.

I’m not particularly bothered by a good hijack every now and again, but let’s not pretend this little side trip of yours is anything but that. You are simply wrong when you say Thea’s OP was not appropriate for a form dedicated to reasoned debate. Her OP asked a question very different from the one you are trying to answer, and it is a question worthy of discussion.

** But that is precisely my point.

Truth is universal. It transcends belief systems of all kinds. Thea’s purpose in taking the class is to learn how to treat a specific type of injury or condition. Whether rightly or wrongly, this “energy work” is taught as a vital part of doing just that.

If this contradicts Thea’s religious beliefs, she can drop out. She has no more right to complain than a devout Hindu seeking work at a cattle slaughterhouse.

Now, if she can present a reasoned case that this therapy doesn’t actually work, she can appeal to the universal nature of truth to justifiably object to the necessity of learning the therapy. Her personal beliefs are just that – personal – and have no power over anyone but her.

If Thea is not concerned with the validity of this treatment, she has no case. She has no reason to object; her religion prevents her from following this career path. If she objects on objective grounds, she might have a point, but her objections this far are irrelevant.

Sure, the universe can be defined as the Ultimate Truth and as such would transcend all kinds of belief systems. But such a broad definition is of no help to Thea in the particulars of applying her belief system and finding a balance between private and public expression of it.

According to the OP, Thea is taking massage therapy. I did not know that massage therapy was limited to a specific type of injury or condition. AFAIK some people go to massage therapists for the sheer pleasure of the experience and aftermath.

It might help everyone if you read with more care, TVAA. Responding to a kalhoun post, Thea said:

** That seems rather an abuse of the therapy. Opiates are used to treat extreme pain, but I’m told that people take them for the sheer pleasure of the experience.

Then there’s really no problem, is there?

So, is “energy work” being taught, or at least taught about in class or not?

If it’s discussed in class as a valid technique, all my objections to Thea’s position apply. If it’s not, she has no reason to complain in the first place.

Problem solved.

Actually, IMV, it doesn’t really matter if you’re invoking Lord Hunk-Ra or your own Inner Bloody Awful Poet (or just sayig “Om”, for that matter). It’s the intentional manipulation of psychic energy that I have a problem with.

I leave the questions of quantum mechanics to my cat, Schrodinger.

So you’re against the Mass, then?

And prayer. Don’t forget prayer.

Forgive me if I’ve been whooshed, but is that supposed to be some kind of proof of your knowledge of quantum physics? If so, it’s a piss-poor one. I mean, my cat’s named Eponine, but that doesn’t exactly mean I know much about the works of Victor Hugo, or even about Les Miserables, you know?

As for the OP, I think that it depends on how you define “private.” If you mean that it will never in any way affect anything you do outside the church or your own home, then the answer is obviously no. Your personal system of ethics will affect the decisions you make and the way you act in public. One’s religion might, for instance, prompt one to volunteer at a shelter, or to give money or food to a panhandler. It might lead one to be kind and gentle and forgiving to others who have committed some offense.

If by “private” you mean not deliberately drawing attention to one’s religion in public, then I think that’s quite possible. In most instances, it’s quite possible to follow a belief system without jumping up and down yelling “Look at me! Look at me! I’m a (religion of your choice)!” I have worked with plenty of folks who managed this over the years, from those who simply told interviewers that they were not available to work on certain days (no explanation given or requested), to those who simply said, “Thank you, but I don’t eat meat/pork/catfish/beef,” or “I’d prefer not to take part in that, but thank you for offering.” As long as it didn’t affect job performance, it was a non-issue.

In instances where their beliefs actively interfered with their ability to do a given job, one of four things happened. Either a) they anticipated such situations and did not apply for those jobs b)they discussed the matter with the interviewer before accepting those jobs and worked something out c)they discussed it with the interviewer and were not offered the job or d)they got fired for performance-related reasons.

After all, an ER doc doesn’t get to pick and choose which patients he treats. If you’re unwilling to treat certain patients, you can’t do the job, and your ass is out the door. A firefighter doesn’t get to pick and choose which fires he puts out. If you’re unwilling to put out fires at certain places, you can’t do the job, and your ass is out the door. And a cop doesn’t get to pick and choose which citizens he protects. If you’re unwilling to protect certain citizens, you can’t do the job, and your ass is out the door. It doesn’t matter why you aren’t willing to do the job you were hired for, the fact that you aren’t doing it is adequate grounds for firing.

I don’t know the full story about the Jehovah’s Witness who was fired after not singing to a customer, so I can’t really comment on it. After all, it’s perfectly possible that she got mad and threw a full plate at the manager’s head when he told her to go sing or had some other perfectly valid grounds for dismissal.

I cannot imagine a catering person not making sure there were vegetarian options at a company function, given the growing number of vegetarians in the country. It’s not always a religious thing, either, as I know several atheist veggies, and one or two who just don’t digest meat well and a few who eat veggie because they’re trying to lose a little weight.

As for the “energy work” in your class, I suspect that, since the curriculum didn’t include it, your particpation (or not) wouldn’t have come up in the first place. And if it did, all you really would have had to say was that you felt uncomfortable participating and the matter would likely have been dropped.

There’s no need to go around saying, “Oh, I can’t do that because I’m a [insert religion].” It’s really quite enough to just say, “I’m sorry, but I can’t do that.” If someone presses for an explanation, then you can bring up your religion. Before that point, it’s pretty much unnecessary.

From the Consumers’ Guide to Therapeutic Massage & Bodywork found on the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork:

Apparently, the comparison to opiates is invalid. :stuck_out_tongue:

If it comes up in class, Thea will have to decide whether the principles by which she professes to live require her to make her opinion on the topic known.

Faith is a funny thing. Some people feel they have to proselytize about religion. Some people feel they have to proselytize about about science.

Say what you want about the relative merits of the two. But examine the proselytizing of both.

** So it is.

How does that joke end? “Madam, we’ve already established what you are, now we’re just haggling over the price.”

** No, she’ll be forced to recognize whether those principles require her to make her opinion known, and then she’ll have to decide whether to follow them.

** There is no god but Truth, and Science is its prophet.

Nah, it’s not catchy enough. How about “Science! Obey it or be vaporized by 1920’s-style death rays!”?

How about “Science! Obey it or be vaporized by 1920’s-style death rays!”?

Who would want to follow a god that changed its mind all the time?

Did I mention the 1920’s-style death rays?

1920’s-style Death Race? Is David Carradine that old?

TVAA

I thought that was implicit in “professes”. But yes, I agree.