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: Neocon who wrote (77069)	10/9/2003 2:40:12 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't think you would get very far if you defined it and tried to get support for it. ... It would be cool if you could prove me wrong on that.

To: Neocon who wrote (77069)	10/9/2003 3:07:04 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm not so sure it was confusion on the MEANING of freedom of conscience as on the RIGHT TO EXERCISE freedom of conscience in your daily life where such exercise infringes on the freedoms and rights of other members of society. You are free to believe what you want to. But there may be a price to pay for it. Freedom of conscience isn't necessarily free. Even today, for just one example, followers of the Bahai faith in various countries are being killed because of their desire to exercise their freedoms of conscience. See, for example, www-personal.umich.edu Prisoners of conscience, sentenced to death for following their consciences. Or, for a more comprehensive analysis, including the justifications given by the court: bahai-library.org Herewith a translation (I can't vouch for its accuracy) of the Court's verdict: The Court's verdict: Concerning the charges brought against Mr. Dhabihu'llah Mahrami, the son of Ghulamrida, i.e., denouncing the blessed religion of Islam and accepting the beliefs of the wayward Baha'i sect (national apostasy), in light of his clear confessions to the facts that he accepted the wayward Baha'i sect at the age of maturity, later accepted Islam for a period of seven years, and then returned to the aforementioned sect; and because of the fact that, despite the tremendous efforts of this court to guide him and to encourage him to repent for having committed the most grievous sin, he remains firm in his baseless beliefs, he has, in three consecutive meetings, while being of sound body and mind and in absolute control, announced his allegiance to the principles of Baha'ism and his belief in the prophethood of Mirza Husayn-Aiy-i-Baha, he has openly denied the most essential [principle] of Islam (Prophet Muhammad being the Seal of the Prophets), and he is not willing to repent for having committed this sin, the following verdict was issued based on the investigations of the Department of Intelligence of the Province of Yazd, and the damaging consequences of his leaving the true religion of Islam and rejoining the Baha'i sect, which, according to indisputable principles accepted by reasonable people, is a clear insult to the beliefs of over one billion Muslims. By applying the tenth definition of "Nijasat" [impurities], to be found in the first volume of Tahrir-Al Vasilih (p. 118), in defining an infidel and an apostate, as well as section ten of the book of Al-Mavarith (on the topic of inheritance) and sections one and four of Al-hudud (on the topic of apostasy) written by the great founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, his holiness Imam Khomeini, the accused is sentenced to death because of being an apostate. Furthermore, based on section one of Almavarith (on the topic of inheritance), and in light of the fact that he does not have any Muslim heirs, a verdict is issued for the confiscation of all of his properties and assets by the Yazd division of the Imam's Executive Body. This verdict was issued in the presence [of the accused], and can, according to paragraph 19 of the law of Public and Revolutionary Courts, be reconsidered in the Supreme Court. The verdict was apparently set aside and then reinstated. I haven't been able to find any current information about whether it was actually carried out. But Baha'is have been put to death in Iran in the past. It is, IMO, a good thing that Mojo didn't base his position of conscience on Islamic religious grounds, seeing to what extent freedom of conscience is NOT recognized by at least one Islamic government.