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 (77570)	10/15/2003 3:58:35 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Right off the bat, the freedom to be a conscientious objector without showing a religious foundation. In other words, freedom of conscience is a more accurate phrase when freedom of religion is held to extend to the non- religious. It is not a question of overlapping circles. It is a question of expanding the freedom of religion circle to include not only standard free exercise items, but some items that had been previously neglected that might be claimed by agnostics or atheists.

To: Lane3 who wrote (77570)	10/16/2003 12:28:18 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Karen. I have been away, and reading through all this now impels me to jump in. I whipped through a ton of interchanges (not yours) that were so irrational I simply left them alone so as I can catch up with the rest of you. This seems like a good place to cut in for a short waltz. Beliefs of conscience are not a priori ethical. They are simply beliefs. Some of them would obviously repulse the reason even of dullards, and would offend the moral decency of a nanny goat. The question is when can beliefs be used to justify exemption from common treatment. When can freedom of conscience be used to JUSTIFY special discrimination from the State? The State will obviously look at any overall or specific harm the exercise of said belief might cause, and then it will balance the urgency of the belief (and the power of the presenters) with other considerations. Conscience is the aegis while religion (as you correctly stated) is the common appeal. Normally, beliefs outside of consensual reason (the presumed basis of society) would be given short shrift. However, religion having traditionally informed the meaning and values of large blocks of society it was thought expedient to very seriously entertain claims of belief which could be justified on a religious basis (sincere beliefs held by a large number of organized people can lead to the overthrow of the State for their recognition). It does not matter that the belief is not predicated on a religious foundation. But a case for special discrimination due to an intensely held belief had better refer to a religious ethic if it is to have success. Thus, in a Canadian case, the defenders of a print shop which refused to print for homosexuals justified their beliefs on a religious basis. Just saying "Gays are evil" would not have cut it. But saying I believe the bible which believes they are evil gives their conscience some context and "justification" which forced the State to hear them at the Supreme Court level. Atheists are not so organized historically as say the Catholic Church. So if such a one wished to request a deeply held belief be specially acknowledged by society as to its exercise...the belief had better be one that has the "credibility" of either Mcdonald's or the Vatican, or similar.