Re: Nothing sacred

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Johne Cook wrote:

>>>> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/256814
>>>>
>>>> This explains the belief that is universally held on the Left that 
>>>> the Constitution is an “evolving text,” meaning that it says what 
>>>> anyone (on the Left) wants it to say.
>>>
>> Wow, he sure dodged the question of *amendments*, there, didn't he?
>
> Next up, we debate the expression 'glossed over.' ; )

Heh.  But seriously, the Constitution *does* evolve.  Sometimes it even 
*un*-evolves (the Prohibition era was begun with an amendment, and it was 
ended with an amendment that undid the previous amendment).

It's not like the Bible, where all the different versions can more or less 
be chalked up to honest mistakes or confusion on the part of believers. 
(Why do Protestants follow the Jewish Old Testament and not the Orthodox 
Old Testament?  Because the Catholics who translated the Old Testament 
into Latin didn't know what to do with the books that, at the time of the 
translation, existed only in Greek, rather than Hebrew.  And why had the 
Hebrew copies of those books fallen out of use?  Because different Jewish 
sects honestly regarded different scriptures as canonical and they didn't 
sort it all out until some time *after* the Church got started and the 
Temple was destroyed, which required some major reorganizing.  Etc.)

The Bible may be "above" us in some sense, since we believe at least part 
of it "comes down from God".  But the Constitution is more like a 
networking protocol; it exists on the same plane as the rest of us (or 
should I say, the rest of *you*, since it applies only to Americans), and 
everyone who is part of that network can play a part, big or small, in 
changing the protocol whenever the network thinks one is needed.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot