[dragonwriter]

> A law that cannot be enforced isn't really a law. Making a case for religious discrimination is difficult.

To the extent that it is difficult to enforce, it is because it is difficult to know when it has occurred. But, that doesn't reduce the surprise one should have when one discovers that it has occurred, because that means that it is one of the cases where the problems that usually exist with discovering that it has occurred (and which pose a difficulty for enforcing the law) are not present, at least at their normal level.

> See my comment below regarding skepticism and science

Religious beliefs in general are not incompatible with skepticism on questions within the domain of science; some specific religious beliefs may be incompatible with skepticism in some areas of scientific inquiry, but, again, that's different than the generality posed.

[druddha]

Surprise is subjective and I think my analogy is apt.

> Religious beliefs in general are not incompatible with skepticism on questions within the domain of science;

I disagree. The Bible explicitly attempts to provide explanations for the order of the natural world.

> some specific religious beliefs may be incompatible with skepticism in some areas of scientific inquiry, but, again, that's different than the generality posed.

How so? This sounds like a restatement of my original point: "Those beliefs may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job."

[alphapapa]

The Bible doesn't "do" anything. The Bible is a collection of ancient writings by various authors over a period of time spanning over a thousand years.

One of the most significant obstacles to interpreting the Bible today is the unreasonable burdens placed upon the text. For example, the writers of the creation story in Genesis had no concept of modern science, and their purpose in writing was not to explain how the cosmos were created, but to explain that the cosmos were created by YHWH. When we read it expecting to find scientific explanations for the nature of the universe, we obscure the authors' purpose and the intended meaning. People who do so then discount the entire text based upon their own unreasonable expectations, and then accuse those who find value and existential truths in the texts of being irrational (or worse).

Considering how poorly we humans tend to communicate verbally and face-to-face, I guess it's no big surprise that we tend to do a poor job of interpreting the written word as well.