Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • The quotes seem reasonable. The application is reasonable - for both sides.

    A person has a responsibility to oppose immoral laws, but of course, there may be consequences is that opposition includes breaking the laws in question.

    The archbishop being quoted obviously feels that the law is immoral and must be opposed.

    The people who passed the law, I'm sure, feel that the rights of the children to get accurate information that the children want and have requested and which could vitally affect the rest of that child's life is a moral responsibility to fill and is more important than the "parent's law" - the parent's choice to deny the child such information.

    Society clearly needs to be able to help children whose future is being imperiled by their family. The only question is whether this issue involves an appropriate amount of peril, and people will decide that question based on how strongly they believe that life-affecting religious beliefs of the parents must be followed by their children.

    • The archbishop being quoted obviously feels that the law is immoral and must be opposed.

      I guess this is the part I have a problem with.

      It is alright, apparently, for the church to advocate breaking the law.

      What about those that don't believe in god? Can they also decide, based on their own moral code to break the law?

      What if I'm a Satan worshipper? Can I use the tenets of my religion to guide me in these areas... deciding which laws are "OK" to follow and which not?

      OK... those are actually thought que
      • If the church can advocate breaking the law, any organization should be able to suggest laws it doesn't like and advocate that people ignore them.

        Sure, any organization can advocate breaking the law, but must live with the consequences. Actually breaking the law carries consequences. Conspiracy to break the law carries consequences. Misusing a position of trust or power to induce others to break the law carries consequences. Claiming that a law is immoral and should be ignored may fit into one of thos