Reply #264: ok

[Two Americas]

"Yes, we most certainly do. Identification with something is all in the head. That's different from being identified for legal purposes, but identifying is most certainly in your mind and there alone."

In that sense, everything is. That doesn't tell us anything. There are bonds of affection, most importantly with the people, that leads us to identify with groups or with the nation.

"But they don't depend on those sick people for health care advice (the way church-goers depend on the clergy)."

You sure are determined to identify a "they" here, and assign the same negative qualities to all of "them." All priests are bad, or all Catholics, or both?

Church goers are not depending upon the clergy for "advice."

"Sure it is. Lots of people have done it. You don't even have to show ID or take a test. If you're unwilling to switch, that's your business, but you most certainly can."

We sure are becoming good little sheep, while calling it "individual choice." So unless someone is forced to do things, those things are therefore easy?

"It is precisely because I'm more attached to the ideals than the actual government that I come to a site devoted to changing the government in order to make it fit the ideals."

Right. You work within the system. Same reason many stay in the Church.

"I don't comply with the government when it violates those ideals except insofar as they have guns, tasers, police, judges, etc who can force me to. That is not true of the church."

If the Church cannot compel anyone to do anything, then why the necessity of demanding that people leave it?

These arguments contradict each other - either the Church is dictating to people or it is not. You say that it is easy to leave because they have no power to stop anyone. Then what is the problem with people staying? You justify being complicit with other immoral organizations for the sake of self-preservation.

So morality, and taking stands, depends upon ease and convenience?