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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (53359)	10/29/2004 9:14:15 AM
From: J.B.C.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57110

But, the whole of our country was based on religion, the inalienable right to freedom, freedom of religion etc. Just because it sanctions marriage doesn't mean it's choosing a religion which is where the separation of church and state was intended. Are you "stuck" at BenWobbles? Is that a character that I'm not aware of? Jim

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (53359)	10/29/2004 10:57:57 AM
From: PuddleGlum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57110

My opinion is that the gov't should not be sanctioning a religious tradition. You are making a couple of faulty assumptions here. a) Just because there are religious grounds for a position doesn't mean that there aren't well-founded reasons for that position. In fact, most do's and don'ts in the Bible have some good (physical or social) science or psychology behind them, even if the science wasn't understood (by humans) at the time of writing. b) Are you saying that because my world view is based on God that my world view is less valid or less important than yours? That's an easy way to move your objectives to the top, isn't it? The libertarian point of view as I understand it is one of "Live and let live, so long as I don't bother anybody else let me do what I want". The question arises as to who determines what bothers/affects somebody else, and how to measure the impact that one person's actions have on others. The abortion issue is a case in point. We all abhor murder, right? But when it comes to aborting a fetus (killing an unborn human) the line becomes less clear. Is it less clear because we want it so (i.e., it's convenient), or less clear because there are truly confusing issues that have reached the limits of the purpose of a "law"? 200 years from now people might look back at the 20th/21st centuries in horror at the barbaric practice of abortions and soul-less experimentation with embryos. Or they might then have reasons or procedures for eliminating non-productive citizens under 2 years of age, and curse us in our graves for not doing more to prevent world overpopulation. What is "right" or "wrong" with respect to these things? Who decides? If a significant percentage of the population believes this is murder, then at what point do you tell that part of the population to "go %#@$%"?