Walt said:
We humans have emotions and are rarely totally dispassionate about decisions. Many people, for example, have the "moral guide" of being loyal to their friends, and it takes quite a bit to overcome that loyalty. I mean something for which they would condemn a stranger, they excuse in their friends. Sometimes people suspect something may be wrong, but they don't want to start a fuss.
It shouldn't happen, but it does. That doesn't invalidate the usefulness of a moral guide.
What "usefulness?" If a moral guide is not followed -- if it is not acted on, then it has no usefulness. It is useless.
There are those on this board who would say that I have no "moral guide." How then does one explain my actions? Was I being immoral when I tried to draw attention to my "reasonable suspicions?" I use the phrase "reasonable suspicions" because that is the phrase used in the state statute regarding mandatory reporting. All a person needs is a "reasonable suspicion." And if a person does not report this activity to a proper legal agent, then that person is in violation of the law and can serve time in prison for failing to act.
This idea that we are putting a smile on God's face by attending Sunday School and preaching and singing praises to him with our hands held high is a load of bunk if we turn a blind eye to our "reasonable suspicions."
So it turns out that in my case, the state law, enacted by a secular government was more useful than any moral guide the so-called God-fearing, church-going "Christians" in my community community.