From: Tim Griffiths <T.G.Griffiths@exeter.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:24:58 +0800
To: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Subject: Re: Terrorism is a NON-THREAT (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199710311335.HAA24707@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <6d2cb7e147%Tim@tim01.ex.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I wrote:

> >  ...[a]  set of limitations are set down (i.e. the US
> >  Constitution) at some point in time and no new laws should be made that
> >  contradict this set of rules.
> >  By doing this, aren't we putting a dictatorial limit on whatever
> >  democracy we come up with? In effect saying "we're all equal under God,
> >  and God wrote the Constitution"?                            

and Jim Choate (for it is he) replied:
 
> No, that is not the way it works at all. [Geesh]

> [snip prefectly good potted history of birth of a nation etc, and
> correction of me using 'Constitution' rather than 'Dec. of Indep']

>  Further,
> the founding fathers felt those rights were God given because they
> were inherent in being a human being, not something like a drivers license
> you had to prove you were responsible enough for and could be taken away.
> You got those rights... ...because you breath and shit - period.
> Even my being a pantheist, and hence rejecting the concept of divinity,
> allow that we have rights which are inherent in our existance.

 But the bit I'm trying to get at. Doesn't the idea of what those rights
 are change from social group to social group? Furthermore, doesn't having
 a irrefutable set of laws place a fundamental (ist) limit on a 
 democracy that exists under them? Is it possible to have a true
 democracy without the assumption of a 'higher authority'?
 Of course there is the 'go along with it, or go somewhere else'
 arguement, but that's not much of a solution.

Tim G.