Legal System Not Ruled By Christian Bible

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

EEVans, et. al.

Actually, now we are getting somewhere.  The legal system in the USA is not 
ruled by the Christian Bible.  It is ruled by the US Constitution and 
related documents and related court and legislative decisions.  Therefore 
people who think the Christian Bible should determine law are trying to some 
extent to establish a government run by religion, which is unconstitutional. 
  I know there is disagreement on the separation of church and state as 
expressed in the constitution, but numerous court decisions in the US have 
supported this separation.

Ted


>From: eevans@moscow.com
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, vision2020@moscow.com,   
>eevans@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Legal Nudist Colonies Prove Relative Values Claim: Re: Law Is 
>Objectively Wrong:
>Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:14:21 GMT
>
> >
> > EEvans et, al.
> >
> > Your question could be posed regarding any ethical standard or law when 
>it
> > is compared to a differing standard or law.  And these sorts of 
>questions
> > are difficult to answer.  Some of the greatest thinkers in history have
> > concluded there is no way to prove any ethical standards to be absolute 
>and
> > objective.
> > But back to the real world of the USA in 2002.
> >
> > If we take the US Constitution, its amendments, and The Bill of Rights 
>as a
> > starting point for "objective ethics,"  an assumption that is of course
> > questionable, there are rules indicating equal treatment for citizens 
>under
> > the law.  Therefore the nudity ordinance should have applied to the 
>nipples
> > of both sexes.  This is one reason why it is "objectively wrong."
><snip>
> > My version of a nudity law would first treat the sexes equally under the
> > law, which does not mean the sexes must be defined as "the same" or
> > identical.  This would render it "objective" according the above
> > interpretation of the US Constitution.
><snip>
> > I'm afraid that nudity laws do not lend themselves to easy definitions 
>of
> > ethical absolutes, like laws regarding theft, murder, rape, assault,
> > battery, etc., where there is no disagreement over the wrong being done,
> > just discussions about the details around the edges.  Many people in the 
>USA
> > engage in full nudity in special settings with children and families, 
>and it
> > is hard to argue some social harm is being done by these people.
><snip>
> > The fact that the laws allow nudist colonies is a clear
> > demonstration that the law recognizes that nudity may not be such a bad
> > thing, and is a matter of taste, a (here we go again) "relativistic 
>cultural
> > norm!!!!!!!"
>
>So this is your framework:
><The law> is right because it is consistent with my interpretation of <some
>document>, which is a starting point for objective ethics. Also, <some 
>group of
>people> exist under it with no harm as defined by the opinion of myself and
><some group of people>.
>
>Understand then, that many people who think the nudity ordinance will work 
>as
>it now stands are just as consistent as you are, provided <some document> 
>is
>the Christian Bible.
>
>I think this is appropriate ending for our on-going thread. It's gone on 
>long
>enough and you've answered my original question, which was "Who's objective
>standard?"
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Ed Evans
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.net/
>
>




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