Both Moral and Constitutional: Re: Legal System Not Ruled By Christian Bible

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

Hi Brian and others:

Constitutional issues can also be moral issues.  Everyone would agree that 
the death penalty, for example, is both a moral and a constitutional issue.  
Or that abortion is both a constitutional and moral issue.  And on and on 
with all sorts of legal issues being both moral and constitutional.  This is 
so obvious I feel silly pointing it out.

150 years ago women could not vote and slavery was practiced in the USA.  Is 
it a sign of the times that this has changed?  I hope so, and that there are 
more court and legislative decisions that give women more rights as human 
beings to be treated fairly.  The ERA has never been ratified by the minimum 
38 states required.

I think a good case could be made based on Christian ethics that in some 
situations topless women in public are NOT IMMORAL.  It is only from a 
certain interpretation of Christian ethics that display of the female breast 
is deemed "immoral."

And what makes your interpretation true and other interpretations false?

Ted


>From: Brian Gibbs <canorder@moscow.com>
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Legal System Not Ruled By Christian Bible
>Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:49:18 -0700
>
>Hi Ted,
>From my perspective, this is not really a constitutional issue. It is a 
>moral issue. Why does every one want to make it a legal issue? What is 
>wrong with looking at it from a moral view point? Is it because folks think 
>that some group is going to legislate morality? Why is it okay today to go 
>topless but 100 years, no 50 years ago, this behavior was totally, 
>socially, morally unacceptable? Signs of the times? Shame on us....
>Brian
>
>At 11:33 PM 7/25/02 +0000, you wrote:
>
>>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




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx