Your statement is kind of funny. Religion started Science as a way to better understand God's world/works. Therefore, the Catholic Church (to be specific) has encouraged skeptical inquiry (science) since science was founded.
Therefore, you lie.
I think Galileo and Descartes might disagree with your proposal. Once the sacred cows start being threatened, the pretense of endorsing skeptical inquiry evaporates as well.
Is the statement "God exists" genuinely up for skeptical inquiry to a Catholic? Most attempts at questioning the existence of God on the part of the religious has been laughable. They can't see all the assumptions that have been made in their conceptualization and linguistic process. Real skeptical inquiry requires questioning all the tacit assumptions which subconsciously guide the mind to select for confirmation bias and circular justification of preconceptions.
Skeptical Inquiry quickly segways into the question of epistemology and when is it appropriate to form beliefs. Epistemology segways into perception and fallibility of classification, ontology formation and ontology revision. In order to get to any kind of objective perspective to answer ontological questions of this nature, one must first become neutral and self-aware. Be able to see how making an assumption has ripple effects in the belief system. The presence of a concept can skew how we interpret our experience in order to be consistent with the concept.
besides, I would hardly call the ideas "benevolent" if I first have to believe I've committed mortal sins and require saving from those sins. In essence it attacks the self-esteem in order to get you to buy into the idea of being redeemed.
Can you think of any organization which would be accurately described as a "religion" which encouraged each person be skeptical of all beliefs, to challenge them and erode them? This would include challenging and skeptically investigating whatever tenets were the foundation of forming the organization.
Even if you could only reduce the idea of a religion to a family of resemblances such an organization (assuming it lived up to its own ideals) would hardly resemble any cluster of things which we could label "religion".
While it is true every entity which has a desire also has the agenda to fulfill that desire, when someone highlights the existence of an agenda within a class of entities, they are carving out a set of agendas which are typical among class members and atypical for entities outside the class.
It is a common speech act (see the field of pragmatics) that when a universal attribute is invoked to describe a particular set in contrast to its complement, the nuance of meaning shifts to highlight the distinguishing features which are universal among and contribute to the classification of the set members.
Because when you are in a public place you have no right to the expectation of privacy. If you are walking and talking down the sidewalk in town other people are able to hear your side of the conversation. Depending on if your state and the state the other party is in are two or one party states it is a moot point.
Unless the person is using speaker phone, the guy or gal on the other end of the line can't be heard. But a man-in-the-middle would hear the other person. As for texting, I do have an expectation of privacy as the viewing of the screen is typically limited to just me.
it's not really the legal problem.
It is a legal problem. The Second Amendment is perfectly clear — keeping and bearing arms is a right. Any and all laws imposing licensing requirements turn that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) into a privilege (to be granted and withdrawn by the Executive), are just that: Unconstitutional.
the culture of guns in the usa is fucking retarded
That may or may not be so. I tend to like it, however.
Can you define for me what a "well regulated malitia" is and how the general populace passing a background check for gun ownership is sufficient to constitute a well regulated militia?