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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (20452)	6/16/2005 12:58:46 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

You have covered your points in an excellent manner. I have some comments in mind but I'm tired and need to call it a day. I will try to look back at this topic on another day. best regards, gem

To: Greg or e who wrote (20452)	6/16/2005 11:08:59 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

There are several points in your presentation that are of interest to me. I don’t want to interrupt the discussion on the unborn; I would, however, like to also pursue the tangential topic of unalienable rights. The only reason that materialists will agree to any unalienable rights is because the term was codified into law at a time when belief in God was a general assumption. The entire American political experiment has been established on that unique premise. We could not have made such a declaration as the Declaration of Independence without invoking the Authority of God and Nature. By this authority we were able to declare a violation of certain of our inalienable rights. The declaration declares them to be self-evident and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Try bringing up a conversation about the validity of self-evidence to a materialist, or even the idea that our natural unalienable rights could be further investigated. For example, what are some other self-evident unalienable rights which could be discussed in the context of ‘among these’? I agree with you that we are personal, rational, and moral creatures; the combined product of which is, with a conscience. Our personal conscience binds each of us in an obligation toward the well being of self and others. Thus the scripture found in some form or another, common to all world religions and philosophies, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is not merely an order but a declaration of our truest nature. I would like to see the code of inalienable rights expanded, and I would start here: ”No person shall be required to violate an issue of personal conscience in the performance of public or private service to another.” We have some precedents in this area, having worked through the legitimate claims of a conscientious objector to war. However, I see that as only a foot in the door. Often times people find them selves obligated by contract or by social custom to some mode of conduct that they find morally unacceptable. They may have been born into the situation or they may have some form of contract that was entered into from a position of relative ignorance. Not having been fully informed due to lack of education or experience may give one a view of the commitment that is subject to revision when new information becomes available to the primary actor. If freedom of conscience is an unalienable right, then it is never ok to deny it to an individual. I realize that expanding our code in this way would create major shock waves through the established systems under which we are organized, and for that reason I think it is imperative that we explore the topic before outright dismissal of the notion, or red stamping an approval of it.

To: Greg or e who wrote (20452)	6/16/2005 12:43:23 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 28931

”Your raft analogy BTW is not pertinent because most abortions are not done out of a necessity to preserve the lives of the mothers, but simply for convenience.” The voice of the thirteenth man represents the crux of your issue. He called upon the twelve to contemplate his right to life and to make sacrifices in consideration of his well being. All of us who have made it to a child bearing age have likewise been accommodated by those who currently had control of limited worldly resources. He judges correctly that lack of material resources or space is an inhumane argument. When the twelve consider their options, they are able to problem solve and develop a thirteen man strategy for survival. It will involve some sacrifice and some additional struggle on their part. Yet it is the thirteenth man who concludes that consideration for the plight of one still in the water is contradictory to his purposes. The inconsiderate and inhumane comment that he throws over his shoulder is the moral equivalent of aborting rather than engaging in the struggle for another’s life; one dependent on you to make sacrifices and accommodations. The thirteenth man sees himself at risk and is already bailing water and struggling to obtain his own resources, why should he consider the one still in the water when he can just paddle away?