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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (76911)	10/12/2004 2:43:59 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793790

Well, it's not possible for Catholics to disagree with the Pope when he has spoken ex cathedra, because on matters of doctrine the Pope is infallible. So this isn't actually a matter on which Catholics can disagree. vatican.va As for "imposing religious tenets" -- voting your conscience is not what I would call "imposing religious tenets." We live in a democracy, and if the majority believes something, they can impose that belief on others, as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution. Quakers, for example, must pay taxes for wars. If drafted, they must serve, although historically we've allowed conscientious objectors to work as medics and so forth. In earlier times, including the beginning of WWII, they went to jail.

To: Lane3 who wrote (76911)	10/12/2004 10:19:54 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793790

Of course we impose morality. What I said was "impose religious tenets" which is another matter. If the moral issue is held because of a religious belief, it isn't signifigantly different, in this context, IMO, than other moral beliefs. If someone believes X is wrong (and is wrong enough to be illegal) because religion Y tells them it is, they still believe X is wrong. They should get just as much say as those who think X is wrong (and should be illegal) for secular reasons, those who think it is wrong but should be legal, and those who think X is ok. I would make a distiction between a religious person, who thinks abortion is wrong because of his religious beliefs and tradition, pushing for abortion to be illegal, and the same person pushing for a law that says "God says abortion is wrong so it shall be illegal". The first is just participating in the political process, trying to get your ideas or justice and rights accepted, the 2nd is directly seeking to impose a religious principle as a matter of law. Tim