RE: If Only The Romans
December 25, 2014 at 7:31 pm
(This post was last modified: December 25, 2014 at 7:38 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(December 25, 2014 at 7:19 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:(December 25, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
It's hard to expand freedoms by taking them away, as you seem to be arguing.
(December 25, 2014 at 3:08 pm)Chuck Wrote: Freedom of conscience is a but default position taken where there is insufficient information to reliably predict what the so called conscience actually is and what it entails for those others who would seek to be free of the consequences of the likely actions of the conscience holders.
Whether or not we agree with what is being said, all people should be concerned when governments get into the business of regulating thinking.
I'm surprised I have to make such an obvious point.
It is one thing to be concerned. It is another to reflexively deem it wrong based solely on some airy principle that can not be used to accurately or reliably predict each possible consequence of its own implementation.
In the end, if maximizing the practical extent and durability of freedom of conscience is to be set as a goal in itself, then I do not believe that archiving of that goal is in a practical sense is compatible with implementing a reflexive attitude of uncritical tolerance all self-styled "conscience". Freedom of conscience should not be a suicide pact if it were to survive.
