<ol>
<li>Thanks BlueBayou and NRG21B for your input. That’s what I thought BC would be, and how its people would act. As someone who went to a Catholic High School and a Catholic college for a shorter time, I never felt that anyone shoved religion down my throat or tried to convert me. I had no problem marrying a Catholic or my daughter being raised a Cathlolic. On balance, even though I am agnostic, and have been agnostic since at least the age of ten, I married a Catholic, and my daughter has been raised Catholic. She likes religion, it works for her, and I’m truly happy about that. I’ve never ever even remotely tried to convert her, try to get her even look at or consider agnostism, or even discuss my reasons for this view. I truly respect genuine people of real faith and actually admire them for what they possess, something maybe I lack? I’ve always just told my daughter I’m a science guy, and when she grows up she needs to figure it out for herself.</li>
</ol>
<p>Indeed, I had great discussions about religion and had some truly fantastic teachers. Unfortunately, I wish I knew then what I know now, for I would have been even more appreciative in my youth for everything they and the Catholic school did for me. This is why, even though I am agnostic, I really think it would be great for my daughter to consider schools like BC and Georgetown. It’s really about caring teachers and educators. And, to me that’s what’s really important.</p>
<ol>
<li>ScottJ, I’m not sure if you are with BC, if you are, I was not aware. So, please take this in the spirit with which I offer this.</li>
</ol>
<p>In your last post you said " Provided that the poster has been educated in the area of religious philosophies, it is fine to draw your own conclusions of fault. However, to enter Boston College with that preconceived view will potentially cloud one’s ability to think critically about the subject. In summary, has one truly been educated in the field to draw that conclusion? "</p>
<p>I agree. However, I would take exactly what you have said and go further and apply you very words to agnostism and atheism. Perhaps, they could all be looked at, in the abstract, as potentially emanating from the same primordial soup. It’s not difficult to see thesis/antithesis, in matter (antimatter), in the atom, or just a whole host of science and non-science areas/concepts. So, BC and religion could be said to cloud its ability to think critically about these subjects, in the absence of the anti-thesis. So, in summary, one can potentially ask if BC and religion have been truly educated in the field (which contains the primordial soup of religion and non-religion) to draw its conclusions without the benefit of Kepler and the time it took to accept Heliocentrism and how some of those people were treated.</p>
<p>I realize I have strayed too far on this board. My apologies and I will try to remain silent and just observe.</p>