>>You've touched on one of the founding myths of the U.S. - the weird
>>fetishized sacredness of the Constitution and the wisdom of its Framers.
>
>
>one of the unexamined myths of the left is that sacredness and myth are no
>no`s, indeed, that sacredness and myth can be eradicated from social life.
> it is not clear to me exactly how one can actually do away with either.
>for one, the left has its own myths, heroes, and sacred icons. the
>response to the time survey and the "for what it's worth" thread
>exemplified that!
I have no interest in attempting to dispense with the sacred and mythical, I just have a problem with legal documents being accorded a status which makes them unavailable for interrogation as to their usefulness. There are many instances of sacred literature standing as law and this is only one of them, but unlike most fundamentalists, people who believe the US constitution is clearly right because it is, well, the US constitution, do not tend to see themselves as dealing with the sacred and the mythical.
>...what constitutes human life and why should we care
>about human life/lives? what does it mean to be selfish or unselfish? [cat
>& wojtek] to care for others or not and what are good reasons for doing so?
>[cat, woj, chaz] in what sense do people need recognition from others and
>how is that recognition best offered and received? is it always necessary?
> [cat, kirsten, chuck miller]
I know I've lost track entirely of this and every thread, but I'm not sure how these questions followed from anything I said and thus not sure how to approach them. All I can say is you want theology, and I hope you're not looking to the constitution for that. Any further than that -- can you legislate ethics? no probably not I guess not, but you can avoid legislating in the interests of unethical behaviour I think.
Catherine