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 (77337)	10/11/2003 7:43:49 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"but freedom of conscience does not give you immunity when you take action according to your conscience that damages someone else." Freedom of conscience is simply the right to believe as you wish. Historically it is connected with religious values and the right to worship in ones own way...but it really just means freedom of conscience. Nobody has anymore of it than anyone else. The Mennonite who is exempted from the battlefield has no more freedom of conscience than I do. He has simply INVOKED it before government, spelled out his beliefs, and asked to be exempted because his belief is so intrinsic to his entire cultural and religious fabric. So we all have freedom of conscience. When the NATURE of that conscience may persuade the courts to give special exemption to an individual or group from legal requirements and responsibilities of all citizens, is the question. Generally, the courts have required that the belief have profound and fundamental significance to the applicant's identity, and that it embrace an overwhelming moral imperative. These claims are substantiated or given weight and credibility when the applicant can point to religious dogma which is well established and intrinsic to a certain cultural and religious tradition. Everyone has freedom of conscience. But rational beliefs are already represented in the social structure. It is because of the immense importance which spiritual tradition has had to the sense of meaning which has informed many people and cultures throughout history, that some religious beliefs have been accepted as issues of conscience which may exempt certain behaviours. Now, the belief that others may be legitimately and actively harmed in certain ways is freedom of conscience, too--whether it is a religious belief or not. However society will not allow such people to act in accordance with their beliefs in violation of the rights of others. The case of the J.W's and withholding of blood is a sticky in-between issue. They are not actually acting to cause harm, but harm and risk attaches to their inaction. Freedom of conscience (the birthright and usually the legal right of all of us) is rarely permitted to justify citizens being allowed different rules. It is an exception which is not given lightly, as different laws for different people flies in the face of democracy. Even so, in the case of military exemption, I believe there is a requirement that they compensate with commmensurate civilian duties. In the case of MOHO he would not have a leg to stand on. What would he say? "My religion tells me it is morally wrong to give massages to homosexuals" The court notes that. Is it considered morally wrong to give massages to heterosexuals?" "No. I mean, YES. It depends who gives it." "Why is it morally wrong for you to masssage a homosexual and not a heterosexual, Moho?" "Because they might think sexual thoughts" "But they might NOT think sexual thoughts, is that correct?" "Yes, M'Lord" "So what do their thoughts have to do with you, Moho? People think thoughts all the time, don't they? You don't know what thoughts they are thinking, do you? And even if you had some way of knowing what someone was thinking...why is it any concern of yours" "But I don't want them thinking sexual thoughts M'Lord" "I'm sorry, Moho. They have freedom of conscience. They can think whatever they please; they can believe whatever they please. It really is none of your business. I do not find your defense that other people thinking about sex makes you impure to have any merit, nor do I accept that you know anything about what they actually are thinking about. I am awarding damages of $500,000 to the two plaintiffs."

To: Lane3 who wrote (77337)	10/11/2003 10:35:10 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Maybe the Supreme Court opinions I posted will clarify the issue with freedom of conscience. I have reiterated the ways in which it differs from ordinary liberty several times, but perhaps my formulations have been deficient. There are already religious exemptions from certain areas of non- discrimination law. If we follow the extrapolation in the cases I have cited, it is at least possible to envision the extension of such exemptions to those who are not religious, but have convictions that are functionally equivalent, of an ethical nature. If I have misread you, and misattributed a tilt against Mojo, I apologize........