SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (77545)10/14/2003 5:53:02 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Well, yes it would, but it was not my impression that freedom of conscience was the basis for extending freedom of religion to folks like me. Not explicitly, anyway, as a separate concept. If there were no such thing as freedom of conscience, it would seem that the extension to the non-religious would still have been granted. Rather along the lines of extending "Christian nation" to "religious nation" to "spiritual nation." Just an evolution in open-mindedness and maybe a recognition of diversity. Perhaps freedom of conscience danced around the edges, given it's close relationship to freedom of religion. But freedom of religion is the five hundred pound gorilla in this. Freedom of conscience is a flea, Constitution wise.

At least that's the impression I had. No claim of expertise from this quarter.



To: Neocon who wrote (77545)10/14/2003 6:03:16 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
That was the whole point of mojo and James. It is not Religious Freedom, although founded on the same grounds. They can live with a clear conscience without signing membership cards at the local Babtist church. I also thought the anti-religious here would eventually see the benefit in that. They may have been blinded by what they thought was a religious gorilla wearing doves clothing.