Edgar, I don't disagree with you that laws you think are bad should be challenged and if necessary challenged by civil disobedience. In fact I consider that a civic duty. However I do not think those engaging in civil disobedience should be given a 'free pass' just because they are doing so for some cause they believe is just. Civil disobedience should be fully subject to the law. In other words anyone engaging in civil disobedience (like refusing to ride in the back of the bus if that's the law of the land) should be arrested and prosecuted. To do otherwise would be abandoning the rule of law for mob rule.
...Bill! --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > Bill, > > Bad laws should NOT be blindly followed like you suggest. > > Bad laws should be challenged and broken. If bad laws weren't openly > challenged and broken blacks would still be riding in the backs of busses and > using separate drinking fountains and women wouldn't have the vote. > > Edgar > > > On May 26, 2013, at 10:12 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > Edgar and Joe, > > > > I didn't respond to Edgar's comment below when I first read it but in light > > of Joe's response I now will. > > > > The laws regarding consent and age were not made to protect the reputation > > or life of the alleged perpetrator. They were made to protect the alleged > > victim. > > > > There are other laws that do protect the rights of an accused and as far as > > I can tell they are at work here. The prosecutor has supposedly offered > > leniency for a plea that probably includes some penalties. The article says > > the accused has refused these. > > > > The problem as I can see is the accused and many others think the accused > > has done nothing WRONG, or at least nothing so wrong as to warrant a felony > > conviction and all that implies. The issue however is not a right or wrong > > issue, the issue is whether or not the accused has done something ILLEGAL > > and if so how the matter will be adjudicated. > > > > If there is a right or wrong issue here it is whether the law itself is > > right or wrong, but it is should not be an issue as to whether or not the > > law should apply. > > > > This is the same with the Bradley Manning situation. > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > Point well-observed. > > > > > > I'd go a step closer to clarity by suggesting that the Law should not > > > ALLOW it, but that the Law should not criminalize it. Parents would have > > > an easier time hearing my clarified version of the Law's purview. > > > > > > Only guardians of minors can "allow". The State cannot. > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > This is not a one person lesbian issue. There are many people of all > > > > ages and all sexes that are having their lives destroyed by this type > > > > of law. > > > > > > > > The law should allow sex between anyone of any age of any sex so long > > > > as it is CONSENSUAL. That's the only just criterion. > > > > > > > > And with regards Zen that is the proper compassionate approach... > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
