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 (77071)	10/9/2003 3:11:07 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Freedom of conscience is generally behind the First Amendment, and such exemptions as are carved out in the law for those that dissent against generally enforced rules. It first referred primarily to those who could show a commitment to a religious group, and who could show that it was a doctrinal matter to, for example, refuse military service. In other words, it was an extension of the free exercise of religion. It is not absolute: for example, we do not permit polygamy, even among Hindus or Muslims, but it requires a compelling state interest for the restriction to stand. Since there were early claims among some groups, such as the Ethical Culture Society, to function as a church, though deriving their principles from philosophy, freedom of conscience was broadened. After awhile, institutional affiliation was not necessary, since the rights of conscience of agnostics and atheists began to come to fore. Thus, it was possible to assert freedom of conscience on philosophical rather than religious grounds. However, it is still necessary to distinguish merely self- serving assertions from legitimate claims of conscience, which would require a higher test for government coercion. Generally, in a religion, the matter has to be central to doctrine, or easily derived from the doctrinal core, to withstand scrutiny, and one has to have seem sincere in adhering to the religion or sect. In the case of a philosophical claim, one has to show a certain coherence of belief, and, again, that the claim is at or near the core of one's moral tenets. I want to underline that the court may decide that the interest in a certain policy over- rides freedom of conscience, for example, in forbidding child sacrifice, or restricting animal sacrifice. There was case in Florida about 15 years ago where Santaria adherents made a first amendment claim to unfettered animal sacrifice, which was disallowed, on the basis of public health and pollution considerations, although the practice was allowed to continue under certain conditions. However, there is an attempt, on the part of the courts, to honor freedom of conscience in most circumstances, not because the court necessarily agrees with the matter, but because it is fundamental to human freedom........

To: one_less who wrote (77071)	10/9/2003 3:21:39 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

By the way, whether or not someone is hurt is never the main point of ethical dissection. We hurt people all the time in the ordinary exercise of our rights and responsibilities. For example, if I am in an athletic competition, and win, I hurt someone by making him the loser. Henry Ford hurt the horse and buggy makers. We hurt Nazi Germany. If I ground my son, it hurts. If I am dating someone, and break up, I hurt her. What matters is whether we have been exceptionally unkind, and whether we have been just......