| padib said: That's your definition of theocracy, and I respect it. It isn't mine at all. I don't think the world could even live in a theocracy, it can't handle living by God's rules. In this case, I never spoke about changing the law if you noticed, I simply said that I was proud of the lady and do not care that the law condemns what she did. And no matter where I'm from (not the US btw), I won't ever abide by rules I disagree with. In a democracy, the law is decided by a majority. It thus follows that a portion may not agree with said law, and may not want to live by it. The law used to forbid same-sex marriage, now it forbids refusing it. So did you like the law before? Did it matter? Back then, to you, of course it did. And in the name of human rights, you would have claimed how aweful the law was. And I could simply brush it off and say "I don't care about your ideals on human rights." The argument goes both ways. |
I apologize for butting in here, but I have to object to this.
Law is flawed, obviously. However it's a reflection of what is best in protecting the freedoms of all peoples. Or at least it is a goal in an ideal secular society. Is it often objectionable? Of course! I often vehemently disagree with it. But the concerted humanist effort is the best thing we can have. It's a constantly (too often, much too slowly) evolving thing and I would argue that its constant change and willingness to admit its faults is what makes it the best system we have.
Absolutism, however, states that we know what is best and anything to state otherwise is wrong out of hand. A convienient but ultimately intolerant and dangerous stance to take. Socarates claimed that the only thing he is certain of is his own ignorance; that wisdom is only derived from the knowledge that we actually know so very little. It's that lack of humility in absolute truths that have me confused that anyone can claim their validity.
