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 (77128)	10/10/2003 9:06:25 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Automatically, if it a valid conscience claim, then only a compelling state interest can over- ride it. If you ask me:"Do you see such a compelling interest?", I answer, off- handedly, no, and no one so far has convinced me otherwise. If you ask me to guess what a court would decide, I have no idea. This whole thing is being argued as if we are supposed to take Mojo's side. That is beside the point. It is assumed that most people will judge the matter differently. The whole point has to do with getting a better sense of when it is legitimate for the state to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the individual. Thus, it is not a question of judging whether exercising it would be the right thing to do, it is a question of judging whether the interests of society, as manifested in state action, are so over- riding that we should coerce conformity. That is the sole issue, according to the terms of the hypothetical. If you want to argue whether or not Mojo is right to have such views, that is a different matter, and it was never adequately separated from the first discussion. I find the second discussion much less interesting than the first. Perhaps, if you decide to carry it further, I will change my mind.......