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: one_less who wrote (74913)	9/16/2003 4:50:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

So, we apparently consider it noble for a person to take a stand against his group or society at large, as a matter of conscience. You won't get any argument from me. I certainly find it noble. You may recall I managed to find a small warm spot in my heart even for Judge Moore, jerk that he is, for standing on principle. If there is truly protection for freedom of conscience, then at what point or in what ways could the rules that govern us come in conflict with an individual’s conscience. I don't think there is. Truly or otherwise. The construct of freedom of conscience as you're using it makes no sense to me. It's not a freedom in the legal sense. As I said in my discussion with Neo on the subject, it seems no different to me from plain old ordinary generic freedom, hence my comment about cocoa yesterday. We act according to our consciences. As well as according to our needs, or whims, our aspirations, etc. etc. We do it every day. For "freedom of conscience" to be a legal construct, there must be some legal utility to it. I mentioned the conscientious objector status that is accorded some people of conscience that enables them to avoid certain legal requirements pertaining to military service. I don't know of any other matter or conscience that has been accorded an exemption from legal requirements. I don't know that discrimination has ever been sanctioned in that way. So, you can make what you will of "freedom of conscience" but that and two bucks will get you a Big Mac. It's a nice phrase, but basically useless, best I can tell. You seem to be using it as synonymous with "standing on principle." There are no laws about that either, far as I know. When you exercise your freedom of conscience and stand on principle you may be doing something noble and you may get a lot of respect for it, but you'll still get indicted or sued if your principle damages someone. That's the way civil disobedience works. It's supposed to work that way. Standing on principle is only meaningful if doing so puts you at some risk because you are crossing a legal or societal line. Freedom of conscience is a lovely notion, but essentially meaningless in practice, best I can tell. As for your therapist, he's entitled to proceed through life according to his conscience just like the rest of us. Just so long as he doesn't run afoul of the legal system, he's free to do whatever his conscience or any other part of him tells him to do. As long as your guy only rejects his male clients if they behave inappropriately, seems to me that he's in the clear. Whatever principles may be in his thoughts are legally irrelevant. They matter only to him, his God, and his admirers or critics.