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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (15888)	6/28/2002 7:22:34 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

According to your statement the government should not support the principles of charity, mercy, and equality; because to do so would be in line with my God. That's a reach. Those principles can exist independent of your deity. Standing up for equality is not the same as standing up for God. There may be a connection between the two for some deities or some people, but advocating principles does not necessarily mean advocating God. One can revere "liberty and justice for all" without having a God. Now, I take your point that some of our fellow citizens wouldn't care a hoot about our liberty or justice if their deity didn't insist upon it. You suggest that by denying God, Laz and I risk undermining the support for the principles hold dear. If that's your point, I get it.

To: one_less who wrote (15888)	6/28/2002 10:43:31 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 21057

So I am hoping this to mean that if someone passed a law that says you have to worship God, or a god, or several gods ... or if someone passed a law that says you are prohibited from performing your worship, then it would be an unconstitutional law. Yes, that is a clear violation of the establishment clause. However, the logic that you proposed states that if the government is in line with any God then it has violated the Constitution. I disagree with the literal interpretation of your statements. According to your statement the government should not support the principles of charity, mercy, and equality; because to do so would be in line with my God. During the Cold War, the US was opposed to Communism. Communist gov'ts wanted their citizens to keep breathing so they would stay alive and support them. Therefore the West should have opposed respiration by humans. OK? You're pushing your logic too far. Opposition to a religion or opposition to religion in general does not imply opposition to EVERYTHING that religion or religion in general espouses. Jehoveh's Witnesses, based on their interpretation of the Bible, refuse to accept blood transfusions. Blood transfusions are part of te theory and practice of modern medicine. Are they then required to refuse all modern medical care? They don't think so.