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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (262115)	6/8/2002 8:44:37 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

We would all agree that we should "minimize the infringement of civil liberties." But we make judgments all the time as to how far the Constitution should go, and in what circumstances. There is no Constitutional absolutism, as I suspect that even you would agree to arresting the father in my example for murder, regardless of what his religion "required" him to do. We have always made judgments as to what type of religion falls within "acceptable" limits, even in cases where the harm isn't so clear (ie., the prosecutions of Mormon polygamists). Revival of native religions that provide for human sacrifices would never be allowed, even if the sacrificed is enthusiastically in favor of getting to heaven that way. We just don't like "that type of religion." Freedom of speech? Go around the country advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government by force, or the shooting of the President. You will be arrested. Should you be? I personally have read the Consitution many times, and do not see abortion, right to abortion, trimester, etc. anywhere in there. I do see a right of equal protection, which should protect the very elderly at death's door and the newly conceived equally. Why doesn't it? It's not as simple as you make it out...