Christopher Browne wrote:
> jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote:
>>>>No that would be illegal.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hmm? In what way would that be "illegal"?
>>>
>>>I can't think of how they could compel such an assignment against your
>>>will.
>>>
>> Exactly, so if they tried, or represented the fact that they
>> could... it would be illegal.
>
> No, if they represented that they could, that would be _dishonest_.
> Which isn't quite the same thing as "illegal."
>
> In places organized as a "theocracy" or some other form of "religious
> state," things considered 'immoral' are enacted into law as being
> 'illegal,' such that 'immoral' and 'illegal' have a tendancy to be
> synonymous. In places where there has been a "separation of church
> and state," lots of things likely to be regarded as immoral are
> definitely _not illegal_. Dishonesty may be immoral, but it's not
> necessarily illegal.
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight
for a black cat that isn't there.
- Robert A. Heinlein
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
