RE: Objective Standards

[John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.com>]

Hello Joan Opyr,

Addressing a few issues here:

1) there isn't anything in the constitution regarding "separation of church
and state"; the current understanding by the general public is a fallacy;

2) the constitution DOES NOT address murder, rape, theft, etc; according to
the 10th Amendment, the federal government IS NOT supposed to be involved
in those issues;

3) recognizing that the constitution has been bastardized such that the 
general public and the media both desire that the constitution no longer
be held valid and the "public servants" more than happy to comply, where does 
this leave us? Without law - where the constitution is just a piece of paper
without any real meaning, or justice.

Living In His Great And Glorious Kingdom,
John Harrell



--- Joan Opyr <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Doug Jones writes:
> 
> >But this is like trying to make the telephone book into a biology text.
> >The Constitution aims to set some minimal Federal constraints, but it
> >wasn't intended to be an interpersonal ethical code. For example, the
> >Constitution nowhere prohibits murder, rape, theft, or speeding. If it
> >is "the only standard" then every community in the U.S. is in gross
> >violation of it.
> 
> Not exactly.  We have laws, which must pass constitutional muster, that 
> address murder, rape, theft, etc.  As for ethical codes, yours, mine, and 
> the CEO of Enron's are not and will not be one and the same.  I'm afraid 
> we'll have to determine our ethics individually within the boundaries 
> constructed by an ever-changing body of law.  Not especially comforting (and 
> far from certain), but there is no monolithic culture of ethics.
> 
> JO/AE
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com