I don't. It is the greater society in which we both live that has made that decision.
and why should i be expected to respect the decisions of "the greater society"?
I don't. It is the greater society in which we both live that has made that decision.
You don't have to respect the law at all. But if you violate the law, there will be consequences.and why should i be expected to respect the decisions of "the greater society"?
Um.....because if we allow "I think this is an unjust law" to be a justification to do whatever you want, there's no point in having laws in the first place. :duh:why should i be punished for violating an unjust law?
Is there an ideology called "tolerance"? Because I have never encountered it.
There is an ideology based on the equal freedom, justice, and opportunity for all, which requires that we "tolerate" the equal rights and freedom of others. Is this the ideology you're referring to?
I have never seen any evidence of this, anywhere, in any history book or contemporary news source? And I am quite certain that you are not going to be able to produce any. Because all you're really doing is regurgitating the right-wing hyperbolic nonsense that you've been fed by a whole plethora criminals and ignoramuses with all sorts of personal agendas.
Please explain how you imagine that the ideal of equality under the law, among we fellow humans and citizens, is fundamentally unequal.
I fear you are going to prove too stupid to bother conversing with, here. But we'll see.
History shows that probably the most effective way is to engage in civil disobedience, generate public support for your cause, and eventually translate that support into a change in the law.so how should one, in your opinion, resist an unjust law?
History shows that probably the most effective way is to engage in civil disobedience, generate public support for your cause, and eventually translate that support into a change in the law.
If that's the course you wish to take....have fun. Keep in mind you're likely to fail, since public opinion is strongly trending against you and history shows movement away from discrimination, rather than towards it.
Nope. You're being held to the same legal standards as everyone else.you don't see that you're discriminating against the beliefs of others, do you?
Nope. You're being held to the same legal standards as everyone else.
History shows that probably the most effective way is to engage in civil disobedience, generate public support for your cause, and eventually translate that support into a change in the law.
If that's the course you wish to take....have fun. Keep in mind you're likely to fail, since public opinion is strongly trending against you and history shows movement away from discrimination, rather than towards it.
Only in the same sense that the civil rights era was a period of "moving away from the discrimination of one group towards the discrimination of another group".Correction - moving away from the discrimination of one group towards the discrimination of another group.
Because you're evaluating this in terms of your religious beliefs, rather than logic and law.A proposition I find it hard to believe you would dissent from after reading your signature.
Only in the same sense that the civil rights era was a period of "moving away from the discrimination of one group towards the discrimination of another group".
Because you're evaluating this in terms of your religious beliefs, rather than logic and law.
If those who claim to be tolerant are intolerant of those who they deem to be intolerant, is that not hypocrisy? If those who believe in equality only wish to extend those rights to those who believe how they do to the detriment of those who dissent, is that not hypocrisy?
What are your thoughts?
So, are you defending intolerance or condemning it?
I'm condemning the hypocritical position of claiming to be tolerant while only being tolerant of those who agree with you.