What Would You Do?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

A person's right to exercise his conscience in refraining from an objectionable act does not and should not depend on whether that objection of conscience is reasonable to the majority or the instituting authority.

Attempts to de-legitimize the objection of conscience only serve to justify the state forcing the objectionable act upon the individual.

The idea behind the words, "This is not the big deal they are making it out to be" has been used to attempt to force all kinds of people to violate their consciences.

My point is that if a person's conscience is violated, it is a big deal to them, and the state should not be forcing people to violate their consciences.

Suppose an angler had a problem of conscience killing fish he caught that he did not intend to eat. Should the state make and enforce a law requiring that every specimen of some invasive species (say Northern Pike in some western streams and reservoirs) be killed immediately after it is caught? Should anglers be forced to kill fish they do not intend to eat, even if doing so violates their conscience?

To be sure, killing invasive species is good fisheries management, and I do not understand why someone would object to good fisheries management. But the exercise of free conscience should not depend on the reasonableness of the objection to the majority or to the governmental authority.

I applaud you and your daughter for standing up for what you think is right. We are all entitled to do that, but we also have to face the consequences - i.e. getting an F, or getting fired. To me those decisions can affect you the rest of your life in a much more negative way than reading some book (I don't think the book your daughter was reading was Mein Kampf).

What book was it that your daughter was supposed to read that was worth you and your wife no longer having a job?