Because there's nothing arrogant about believing that a being powerful enough to create the universe is watching you and reading your mind 24/7 to make sure that you obey a set of
arbitrary laws set down by a specific group of middle - eastern men thousands of years ago, and listening to your prayers so that he can fulfill your requests if he feels like it.
Not exact matches
Say we have a mildly complex
set of physical
laws, a theory of everything — let's call the theory U — that includes a few numerical parameters (let's say those are t, u, v, w, x, y, z) that are fixed at constant values that seem at first somewhat
arbitrary, but also seem «fine tuned» to produce a universe that can support life.
Insurance companies are not in compliance with the
law if they have
arbitrary rules for a
set number of consultations or certain age of the baby.
The whole idea of trying to police a
set of sometimes logical and sometimes
arbitrary laws through a combination of rule
setting, surveillance, «keeping the peace», and punishment gives me the hives.
Supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act may point to the greater accountability and higher standards
set forth in the
law, but opponents may counter with arguments that the
law relies too heavily on testing, is too punitive, and
sets standards that are
arbitrary.
But apart from the (rather fundamental) rule of
law point — that obligations need to have some legal authority for them to be binding — if they do want to impose such an obligation, it should be expressly
set out in the Rules, with a corresponding commentary, so that lawyers know exactly what actions they have to take, or not take, to comply with their obligation (and, crucially, aren't at the whim of
arbitrary diktats from the LSUC).
Any determination of the secretary with regard to any particular troubled asset pursuant to this act shall be final, and shall not be
set aside unless such determination is found to be
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with the
law.