RE: Objective Standards

["Joan Opyr" <auntiestablishment@hotmail.com>]

David Douglas wrote:
>If anything, the constitution lets us "wing it" on a slower time scale, 
>which puts the winging it back to the initial and any subsequent
>constitutional convention, the ammendment process, and the judicial 
>process.  And even then, the legislative and administrative branches >can 
>make laws (for a short time or a life time depending on whether >there is a 
>challenge--and it is sucessful).  How does this solution >keep us from 
>"winging it"?

You're assuming the "it" we don't have to wing is the establishment of an 
ethical system for the nation.  I intended my "it" to refer to the process 
of reconciling contradictory religious perspectives.

The constitution is an evolving document.  If it weren't, it would 
eventually lose its relevance.  The body of laws by which we are governed is 
also constantly changing.  Laws attempt to enforce a particular social 
contract, a contract which changes over time and across generations.  
(Blacks were once held as slaves; women were denied the vote.  Knowing they 
lacked the gift of prophecy, Jefferson and company established an amendment 
process.)  I don't think that's winging it.  Our system of governance is not 
based on an unchanging and eternal document, and for that I am grateful.

In his post, Doug Jones seemed to conflate law and ethics; there's a 
difference between the two.  It might be legal for a CEO to cash out 
millions in stock options as his/her company falls into bankruptcy, but I 
would consider it unethical.  I'd like it to be illegal as well, but for 
that I must turn to the democratic/legislative process.

Auntie E.,
AKA Joan Opyr

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com