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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (14701)	11/12/1998 7:17:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

L.R.R. Interesting ideas. I have a question, re: "I would not voluntarily choose citizenship in either place - because I would not want to be placed at a clear disadvantage for dissenting from the state religion." Would you consider it a disadvantage to have to engage in dissent with a state that, through the moral relativism of its leadership, publicly derides the validity of your religious tenets? Mr. K.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (14701)	11/12/1998 7:29:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<>I know the purpose of life.< The danger I see here is that this leads to a logically compelling moral framework You call it a danger I call it the grace of God. <<- but one which does not have an evolutionary provision.>> Not true. It is through the logically compelling moral framework that we are able to see corruption for what it is, injustice for what it is and demand provisions for truth and justice. This is the basis for revolutionary change and social evolution. Show me in history honorable societies not founded on compelling principle. Show me a successful revolution not initiated as a response to injustice. <<(If you know the purpose of life - then all you know, learn, see... must be subordinated to that principle. It is all-consuming. To change the framework, even minutely, is to change the core principle.)>> Yes, thank God. <<I worry that this leads to rigidity >> I worry that you are rigidly applying your negative connotations to defend your fears. Brother, I have never seen such rigidity as in the past decade where so many people are insisting that they must stand behind an obviously flawed and decaying establishment. Often the only rationale given is, they want to be grouped with the non-religious. Example, the most common reason I've seen for not wanting anything to be done to the Liar in the White house, is that somehow that would open the flood gate to the Religious Right. Even though the same argument usually claims they are a small unrepresentative group of extremists. Talk about your irrational fears. Sheesh. As for me, there is a time for patients and a time for action. Revolution please.