On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:04:06 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > different people, different morals, different laws. > > if you are part of a moral minority in your community and are outraged at > > the legislative influence of the majority, get used to it - it's the same > > everywhere. > > if you happen to be LDS, and living in Missouri in the 1800s, well, > you better move because the government put out an extermination order, > and by virtue of it being a law, it's completely moral. > > somehow, i don't think it works that way
I'm getting tired of hoping people will notice this, but they're not. So I'm going to have to spell it out. *** Josh isn't claiming that it's moral *** He's stating that that is the "the way things are" regardless of whether we believe it to be moral or not. And per your example, if I'm mormon and living in Missouri in the 1800's I have the following choices: * try and change the law through the political process * resist the law and rebel (fight back) * get out of missouri and fast Now whether the law in Missouri was moral and just or not is irrelevant. The law was there. It was what the morality of the majority dictated. Outrageous? Morally, yes (according to our morality, at least). Logically, politically, socially? Not really. So do I believe that legislating morality is a good idea? It depends. But I agree with Josh's analysis of "the way things are". Questions about whether it's the way things *should be* are completely separate. Jacob Fugal .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
