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 (154046)	1/11/2006 5:48:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793912

Fundamentalism doesn't equal authoritarianism. You can be fundamentalist but be non-political, or be somewhat political but not push the idea that the government should pressure or force people to follow your way. Pluralism and authoritarianism are incompatible. Not really. Any number of kings, emperors, or dictators have allowed religious diversity and other forms of diversity of ideas as long as the authority of the ruler is not attacked or questioned. Perhaps a greater number did not accept pluralism, but authoritarianism and pluralism are not really incompatible, except perhaps if you are only looking at the strongest/most extreme forms of both ideas. The stem cell controversy is another example. The stem cell controversy is rather different then creationism. Creationism is an attempt to say that specific facts and theories are true or false because of religious viewpoints. Those who oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cells aren't challenging scientific theory based on religious belief, they are pushing moral ideas, and philosophical ideas about the proper role of government funding. Those type of issues are not issues that science can reasonable resolve. Tim