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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (15445)	6/4/2001 5:28:13 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I will mull it over before replying......

To: Solon who wrote (15445)	6/4/2001 6:00:47 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Now: I suppose whether or not you can get elected depends upon the district you run from. Since no one is obligated to vote for you, I think it is a trivial point. Since there is no draft, I am not sure what you are complaining about. It was my understanding that some boards were accepting ethical objections to war, so long as they were blanket, during the Vietnam War, but perhaps I am mistaken. In any event, not pressing. Ugliness around your neighborhoods: huh? That is just a condition of citizenship. Since it is ludicrous to suppose that you are being prevented from organizing debates on you ideas, especially in Massachusetts, I have no idea what you are talking about. As for the bill of rights for unbelievers: no one has the right to be free of reaction, even if hostile. I have no idea who might be discriminating against you in ordinary life. As far as I know, secular affirmations in court are available, if one makes a point of it. One can go before a judge to get married. I am doubtful about the charge of disadvantage in custody or adoption, but will not make a point of it. Otherwise, people live as they please, without interference, in my experience. I think that holidays are legitimate as a matter of custom. Most states have struck down blue laws. There is secular counseling available in the services. There are psychologists and psychiatrists. As for living free from religious imagery, well, there is no reason for the minority to ride roughshod on the majority, and some concessions have to be made on both sides....... I have to go to dinner. I will pick it up later......

To: Solon who wrote (15445)	6/4/2001 6:20:06 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

When and where can you not hold office? Please cite enforceable statutes that prohibit it. Constitutional provisions that will never be enforced don't count.

To: Solon who wrote (15445)	6/5/2001 5:36:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I. Think freely, autonomously express their views forthrightly, and debate or criticize any and all ideas without fear of censure, recrimination, or public ostracism. Religious people don't have this right. Giving it to religious people, or secular people or any other group would infringe on the rights to freedom of expression and association by every one else. VI. Empower members of their community to perform legally binding ceremonies, such as a marriage. Non-religious people can perform marriage ceremonies. VIII. Conduct business and commerce on any day of their choosing, without interference from laws or regulations recognizing religious days of prayer, rest, or celebration. You are free to conduct business any day you want to. Other people might not want to conduct business on christmas for example but in the US you won't be arrested or foricbly shut down if you try to open an office or store on Christmas. Actually you do have something of a point for particualar areas were the law locally does put in place such restrictions. These cases are not common any more. IX. Enjoy freedom from taxation supporting the government employment of clergy, and access to secular counseling equivalent to that provided by chaplains. You could make the case for either as a matter of fairness but arguing for both the end of religious chaplains and the new or continued employment of the secular equivilent seems to me to be arguing for special privilges for the secular. Secular counselors are available for those who are not religious. I understand your objection here but I do not agree with it. If we are going to possibly send people off to fight and possibly die for their country I think we should give them with the support of counselors or clergy. Military life sometimes does not give people the freedom to seek this out for themselves from non-military sources. Most of the rest I can agree with. Tim