Re: Nothing sacred

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
> Name one thing you think that 2/3 of both houses would agree on.  And 
> then tell me if you think it is realistic that 3/4 of the states would 
> agree on that.

Once again, Mike, you make a point that [a] is utterly irrelevant and/or 
[b] supports my argument more than it does yours.

To the latter, all I have to do is remind you that I have often brought up 
Prohibition in these debates, and the fact that the Constitution is hard 
to change just makes it all the more remarkable that it was changed one 
way one year and then the other way just 14 years later.

Can you think of any Christian scripture or doctrine that was adopted as 
canonical by the entire Church and then rejected as apocryphal or 
heretical just 14 years later?  No, no you can't.  Ecumenical councils and 
the like *can* add new doctrines to the mix, but only if those doctrines 
are consistent with the ones that came before; we don't go back and change 
things just because we changed our mind.  And that's because we believe 
those things are "sacred".  That's what "sacred" *means* to us.

But the fact that the Constitution can be reversed -- and in such a short 
span of time, despite how difficult it is to do so! -- just proves my 
point, which is that the Constitution is essentially man-made and is thus 
*not* "above" you except to the degree that you all prop it up.

But even more fundamentally, it simply doesn't *matter* how hard it is to 
change the Constitution, because the simple fact is that the Constitution 
*does* change and *does* evolve and *does* reflect the changing moods and 
beliefs of the people (or at least of their lawmakers).  It doesn't 
*matter* whether it takes 14 years or 1400 years to make the Constitution 
say the opposite of what it used to say, because you *can* make the 
Constitution do that, and you already *have* made it do that.

So if Prager wants to pooh-pooh the people who say that the Constitution 
"evolves", and if he wants to mount an argument to the effect that it 
*doesn't* evolve, then he needs to deal with this very significant, and 
very much rooted-in-fact, counter-argument.

But if Prager is simply pandering to the conservative base, then it is 
obviously in his best interests to ignore that can of worms.

That's all I'm saying.

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