Too easy TK. What I think hawk was trying to say was that you lot take each concept, like religion or homosexuality, or war, and you put it in a inspection chamber all on its own and look it over and you ignore the possibility that it might be connected up to everything else.
not concepts, humans......humans are dynamically and nearly completely interconnected, what is right or wrong at any given time depends upon a lot a variables, to include our relationships. The original idea was to go before a jury of our peers, and if they thought that given all the variables what was done was wrong then the person was guilty. We have replaced that with a system where juries are told (if you think he or she did XYZ then you must find them guilty). We no longer judge the person, we have made juries finders of fact. We have written down a list of things that are not allowed, and if a jury can be convinced that you did one of them the collective will put you away, often for a long time. Who you are, why you did what you did, what we would have done had we faced that situation, is no longer relevant.
The law has become fundamentalist, in the worse possible way. It no longer can see gray, it operated as if all is black or white. The law has become inhumain, because humans are fundamentally not either black or white. The legal establishment works off of a fantasy that deviates from reality, and then it wonders why the law does not seem to be working to solve drug problems, relationship problems, does not tamp down the greed of individuals.