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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (2269)	10/22/2000 9:18:24 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Science, logic and reason should not feel the need to question belief unless we are going to chase belief with dollars and public policy. Then we should demand empirical evidence. If someone wants to believe good comes from their God, that is fine, yet, irrelevant to me until they setting policy upon things whose only basis is their frame of reference and no larger frame of reference. I think most everyone could agree that a whack on your hand with a hammer hurts. We don't need to consult God. Something like gayness is going to be tougher because there is no provable "direct harm". The harm" seems to be in some abstract social form perceived by those who don't practice it AND have a particular religious viewpoint. That tends to disqualify it because its only harm is that perceived by an indirect 3rd part. This is where there seems to be real human harm in forcing an external, locally held, morality on people who are different from agencies and people who aren't directly affected. First principle should be for those things that harm everyone in a real, concrete way, let's make law. For those things that don't have direct harm, the burden of proof should be upon the ones who want to restrict. That is a much higher hurdle, IMO.