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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23165)	2/19/2012 4:02:29 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

What I was referring to when I said there was no way to convince them was that religious imposition on others is right and proper and that those who resist said imposition are in the wrong Huh? If your talking about the most hardcore religious conservatives they already believe that religious imposition on others is right and proper, and if they didn't you would hardly want to convince them of that. Do you mean there is no way to convince them that it isn't right and proper? If that's what you mean, you may be right. But I don't really see the relevance in terms of the current controversy. If that opinion was key, and it can't be changed, then nothing about this controversy will change it. A more important point would not be the people who already hold it unchangeable, but those who might change. But while convincing someone at the margin to drop, or not take up, such an idea, would be useful I still don't see it as relevant. If it has any relevance at all it would be that to the extent differences are not respected, you would (again in the people at the margin, I'm not talking about the real hardcore here) one way, they will care less about respecting them the other way. Separation of Church and state is not absolute, and not actually part of the constitution (no establishment, and free exercise is, but that's less than general separation), none the less its a good idea to follow as a general rule. But it has to work both ways if its going to be stable (well either that or fanatic secularists and religious fundamentalists have to utterly crush the other, peace through total victory and destruction of your enemies, but not only would that be horrible, its also unrealistic even if we wanted the horror). To the extent the government gets involved in the church, its just inviting more church involvement in the government. That's similar to government involvement in another area (which it traditionally and currently is much more involved in), controlling markets. P. J. O'Rourke said "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." It might not be exactly the same with religion, but a similar effect will occur IMO.