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 (77285)	10/10/2003 5:38:48 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

In other words, it should be up to the state to demonstrate sufficient reason to abrogate freedom of conscience, not to the person to prove he "deserves" an exemption, except in the limited sense of showing the claim is sincere. There is a presumption that when the legislature passes a law, it has considered the competing claims of freedom of conscience and social need. That's the deliberative part of a deliberative democracy. If you are going to give anybody who thinks they have an issue of conscience the right to challeng any law they think infringes on their conscience, you will quickly produce stalemate.

To: Neocon who wrote (77285)	10/10/2003 5:49:44 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

it should be up to the state to demonstrate sufficient reason to abrogate freedom of conscience The legislature does that every time it passes a law. It decides to abrogate something. Supposedly, at least, it weighs that carefully. If it identifies legitimate exceptions to laws, then they are included in the law. If Mojo's case was not accounted for by some oversight, then that can be corrected with an amendment. From a systems perspective, this is the place to assert the claim for conscientious objector status. Failing that, we have an opportunity for the judge to effectively grant an exemption at the individual level by finding for Mojo. The business of assigning conscientious objector status belongs in the legislative process, assigned to a class of principle-holders for a very good reason consistent with the mixed interests of the state. An individual exemption is another matter, an individual matter, and does not necessarily need to meet such high standards or be of national significance or have a huge support group. Regarding claims of freedom of conscience, we are sensitive to them if we refrain from forcing someone to do something against his conscience and if we give a fair hearing to his claim should opposition arise. We do not have to give him carte blanche to barrel through the lawbook to meet our obligations to be sensitive to his claim.