Quote:
Originally Posted by xhenli
I think you are missing something(s), Fiannan.
Alma 30:7-11 (and so forth) goes like this:
"Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God there should be a law which should bring men on unequal grounds . . . . Now if a man desire to serve God, it was his privilage . . . but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him. But if he murdered he was punished unto death . . . and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished. For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man's belief . . ."
I recall a controversary near where I live where some high school children were upset because they were not allowed to wear gang colors while LDS people were allowed to wear CTR rings. I felt everyone in that scenario missed something as well. It is not that a person cannot wear symbolism. It is that gangs commit crimes, and LDS and cheerleaders and French club and international organizations, etc, -- don't. Commit crimes that is.
|
The funny thing is that those kids DO know the difference. I think that in 99% of the cases where something like this occurs, and people attempt to misdirect (ie pointing out that non criminal "special" dress is ok) they know they are wrong. But if they cared that they were wrong they wouldn't perform the acts in the first place. So it's up to us, society, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. It's an obligation.