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 (23460)	3/16/2012 3:18:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

And the state must often intervene to protect the individual from the oppression of illiberal social institutions, particularly religious ones. I agree with that, but I don't agree that its an issue here. When a religious organization can execute you, torture you, lock you up, etc. its a serious and major danger. When it can and does do things like get contraception banned, its still a serious danger, even if on a lesser level than the Spanish Inquisition, or even in modern times murder and executions for insulting Mohammed. But not buying stuff for you simply isn't oppressing you. That's not really a religious point, it also holds for secular organizations and individuals. The Catholic Church is no more oppressing Sandra Fluke by not paying for her coverage than I am for not paying for the same coverage.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23460)	3/16/2012 5:30:50 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Locke said this about the toleration of atheists (in A Letter Concerning Toleration): "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration." Let's see the ACLU or a writer for the Wa Post invoke Locke's view on that.