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 (77341)	10/11/2003 9:24:43 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

<<Professor Joseph Tussman wrote in The Supreme Court on Church and State (1962): It is, I hope, hardly necessary to add, as we try to understand and deal wisely with the problems of religious freedom, that the freedom and dignity of the nonbeliever—the agnostic or the atheist—is as precious and as much to be protected as that of the believer. Earlier, we would have called ourselves a ‘Christian nation.’ More recently the phrase is a ‘religious nation.’ Someday, we may come to think of ourselves as a spiritual nation, deeply involved in the quest for truth about the nature of the universe and man’s [and woman’s] place in it.>> Thanks for finding that for me. "A spiritual nation." Cool. I shall make good use of that intelligence.

To: Neocon who wrote (77341)	10/12/2003 6:34:55 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Didn't reply yestereday because was away. Yes, the right to not believe is protected. But that's not the issue we were dealing with. We were dealing with belief that was unconnected with religion OR atheism OR agnosticism. And more than just the right to think what you want to (though even that is becoming suspect); we were dealing with asking for an exemption from a public duty because of that non-religious (pro or con) belief. That, as far as I know, is something the SC has never endorsed.