Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” I would agree with St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all." Martin Luther King brings up examples of how Christians broke the law when it went against the laws of the church and pertains it to the situation that he is in. Dr. King’s main argument to those who have written to him is that they do not really understand the situation. From their view, it seems as though he is being radical with his actions when he leads demonstrations or sit-ins or other things of that nature. Dr. King explains that they are not there witnessing the injustices that are taking place, not only against him, but also against all people who share his color.
They refused to rely solely on faith as a reason for believing, but sought tangible evidence to justify a belief. The very humanity of man was also called into question during this period. Puritan thinking of the time gave man’s existence no value without the “light of God”. They believed that no good may come from straying away from the strict constraints of Puritanical society. Deists saw man as innately good.
The Pardoner is a prime example of his presentation of humans because he showed that he had good intentions, to help people and to pardon their sins, but he also had his evil side, which was to tell people that they have sinned simply to earn himself a few extra coins. But I ask this, is he really evil, or is he good? Chaucer didn’t think either or. He felt that a person is a person, no matter what they have done or how they think. He didn’t
I believe these conflicts are the 'norm' people's fault because they are the ones who are not accepting others as they are. As well as, some are not standing up to say what should be done about the people who are being evil, and criticizing others, while they are not perfect to begin with, either. Their theories developed from the experiences of Man, particularly from his tribulation. The Waknuk people are insecure about themselves; therefore, they use God as an excuse for their persecution of the deviates. Joseph Strorm is one of these hippocrates who does not believe in the rights of the deviations, who had forced his sister, Harriet, to basically never to come in contact with him because she had a deviation of her own.
Why must we people sin? Sinning is a violation of god’s laws, if we obey his laws in any sort of way he will have consequences. When we sin it shows that we have no respect to our god and that we don’t care ourselves. God brought us into this world to do good deeds not to do wrong and shame our god. For sinning he gives consequences which are most likely being sent to hell, but god gives forgiveness.
Whitman wroted that the governments role was to be "... not of an officious intermeddler in the affairs of men, but of a prudent watchman who prevents outrage," that is strengthened by his underlying logic that "... although government can do little positive good to the people, it may do an immense deal of harm." (Whitman) Simply put, if the governemnt has less has to do with meddling in peoples affairs and rights then society will be better off. Also that the role of the government is to act as a protector of smaller groups and individuals from bigger groups so everyone will be happy. The basis of laissez-faire is that the bigger the government factor, being it’s rights and powers, the worse of the country is. William Graham Sumner was another supporter of the laissez-faire idea.
Homosexuals do not choose to be that way. They do not choose to be ridiculed and made fun of and set apart. God made them that way, and then turns around and says it's wrong; that they'll go to hell. Screw what god says! Is he just a jerk?
When a religious group promotes hate for selected persons it recruits others for a cause clocked in the ways of ‘The Lord’. Religion is supposed to be a positive spiritual motivator, not a tool to attack and banish people. The leaders of such groups are using the words of the Bible to influence others to see homosexuals as filth that needs to be eradicated. They do not see that these homosexuals are just like any average person. Their sexual orientation does not dictate the kind of person they are.
However, the Grand Inquisitor’s rejection that the nature of man has potential to change when we accept Christ as our savior highlights the weak link in his argument. The inability to handle freedom appears to the Grand Inquisitor as one flaw possessed by humans. “… For nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom” (Dostoevski 29). He claims that man is too weak and rebellious to bear the weight of free will and therefore believes our paths should be decided for us. However, as Christians we believe that man should have freedom to choose whether he will follow Christ or not.
While this was true, at the heart of their desire was rebellion. Both the Lord and Samuel were disheartened at the people's request for a king (1Sam.8:6-8[NIV]). In a Theocracy, God is the ultimate king and ultimate judge, and so to reject God’s governance is to reject God Himself. God’s people wanted the king without the judge. Israel did not request another prophet or judge like Samuel because they desired leadership without accountability.