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 (77350)	10/11/2003 10:42:19 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't have any problem with anything you said in the post to which I am responding. I don't understand where you see any tilt in the post to which you responded. Could you be more specific?

To: Neocon who wrote (77350)	10/11/2003 12:53:44 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"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. Yes. That is how I understood it from the start, which is why I insisted on making mojo non-religious to test it out. Without the dogmatic base of religion to reference, you have a more difficult task of qualifying the "ethics" that are at the core of the freedom of conscience claim. Which is why, you must require the claimant to demonstrate some sort of core personal philosophy that can be demonstrated as pervasive in his personality, is demonstrated accross settings, and has been present for a significant amount of time. The ethic in question should also have some universal reference to a moral outlook as well. In mojo's and James's case we have the objection to being forced to perform in sexualized or risk of sexualized settings.