SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Solon who wrote (77340)10/11/2003 11:28:59 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 82486
 
Thank you for an intelligent representation of the concept "freedom of conscience." I have asked neocon to better define the formation of conscience that would qualify for an "invocation" as you put it. With freedom of religion it is easy to point at doctrinal or moral standards and declare them core to one's outlook and character. I would like to see freedom of conscience defined as simply so that there is less argument over what qualifies and what doesn't. It may not be possible to simplify it to that level and there may only be a slight to none qualification from freedom of religion to calling something freedom of conscience. However defining the factors that qualify ones conscience as a legitimate entity is a good starting point. Not sure we could even agree on the criteria for that.

Regarding "thought control:" that was never a factor in the mojo scenario, except as you portrayed it. I think we can all agree that normal human beings have sexual thoughts intermittently through out the day with or without external stimulation. There is no point in promoting that as a core issue since no one has an issue with it. ... It changes the mojo hypothetical to a different kind of argument "thought control." Not relevant ...
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext