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: Lane3 who wrote (74402)	9/11/2003 12:38:21 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"People need to appreciate the higher value of an objection based on the more secular notion of conscience. I am pushing the non-religious aspects in response to the term Neocon has been using that he considers a fundamental right or priviledge granted by the constitution...protections for "freedom of conscience." You know this masseur is fictitious, right? I didn't declare that from the start.

To: Lane3 who wrote (74402)	9/12/2003 4:54:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

For conscientious objector legal status, the claim would need to clearly resonate with people and represent an ideal higher that the general cultural ideal. Your ideal, while I understand it, is not one that would be widely regarded as higher than our cultural ideal of non-discrimination, I don't think. I would consider it not just a matter of freedom of conscience but also freedom of association, and I would consider that combination to be more important then non-discrimination as long as it isn't an act of government. (I find equality under the law to be far more important in principle then equal treatment by non governmental organizations or individuals.) Tim