Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (860)	9/7/1999 5:31:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 6418

these were practices sustained by specific religious notions about the worth and status of particular classes of human being, I think that's a stretch. A big stretch. For example, slavery has always tended to be an economic, not a moral, issue. It has existed under many different societies, pretty much irrespective of religious principles. Indeed, the end of slavery in the US was principally brought about by religious groups, as the civil rights movement in the 60s was led primarily from the churches and synagogues. (For example, the civil rights workers killed in Philadelphia, Miss. were jewish.) Religion is a sufficiently flexible concept that some people will use it to justify almost everything (as some atheists will blame it for almost everything! <g>). But the fact that some people use their belief system, whether they call it religion or anti-religion or anything else, to bolster what they say has little do do with religion. Not all who claim their beliefs come from a church are right, just as not all who claim their beliefs are liberal, or conservative, or libertarian, or etc., are right. Your side wants to translate dogma into law. When did I take "sides" in this? I don't recall doing that. I am trying to clarify the environment in which everybody is working, and to point out that what you see as sides are, in my opinion, not what you say they are. As as to "translating dogma into law," I would say that that is exactly what Roe v. Wade did, and what you want to do, and indeed what any substantive law does. It's just a matter of whose dogma. And when you catch up with your obligations, do come back. This stuff is worth discussing.