It’s an old debate, the idea whether we should have absolutes governing our lives, like the Ten Commandments or Constitution. I’m one who favors a few absolutes to hang my hat on. I’m not OK with the modernism/relativism running rampant today.
I believe rules, conventions and laws that hold up over time have intrinsic values that may/may not be apparent. Still, they are well-founded and inestimably important, for how we conduct our lives.
Of course, not all rules remain relevant, especially if devised for selfish/anachronistic reasons. Like age barriers, gender restrictions or physical requirements for certain jobs.
Much tougher to resolve – define marriage; embryonic life; commerce clause interpretation; function/legality of executive orders; risking American lives in hot zones; powers reserved to the states; politicizing the Justice Dept; Tough, yes, but easier when rules control that are driven by majority will{MW}.
Where do we find these rules? Are they applicable to every situation? Changeable under certain conditions? Do they need unanimity, super majority or simple majority?
The Constitution gives a good set of rules, especially as amended by the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, and a process exists to add more if the People decide. We have our body of law and the canons/precepts of various religions, many of which overlap & reinforce secular laws and conventions.
I have to ask the question: when is it appropriate to challenge existing law, to facilitate a modern purpose? We’ve been civilized for 5000 years, beliefs/laws coming from those oldest cultures and societies. Plus, they’ve been refined over time to a high state of relevance, assuming humans haven’t changed over the millennia.
Societal structures gave rise to rules and, over time, some stick and some don’t. The Constitution for example. We often argue over original intent, find it hard to understand the old language, ponder how broad or narrow to interpret, and wish we could find stuff to suit our purpose which isn’t there.
But complaints can be resolved through the offices of legal scholars, language experts and historians. They help shed light as to meaning, leaving us to decide if we’re happy/unhappy with their findings. If a large enough majority is unhappy, we change it.
No reasonable person argues women shouldn’t vote, or slavery is an acceptable condition. Or children should work in factories and debtors go to prison. We agree on these issues, most issues in fact. But what about aborting a fetus, what term, and who pays? Requiring/forcing doctors to perform the procedure. Mandating fees they can charge; tax or fine; right or privilege; marriage. These aren’t so easy to resolve, and are become problematic in today’s society.
I suggested earlier if some level of MW has agreed to the rule, it should apply until MW changes it. If we rely on experts to interpret the rules, and MW still agrees with those rules, these become absolutes in daily life. Furthermore, since MW is satisfied they’re good rules and make sense they define the larger society, establishing the parameters of who we are.
Take marriage. We’ve agreed on a definition for thousands of years. The MW of states agree, as do MW of the people. Why then, do we debate? A minority wants it changed to suit their lifestyle, claiming it’s an issue of equality and civil rights, but the Constitution is silent on this, and experts for both sides are unable to find anything persuasive to change the status quo.
It goes back to MW to force a change. No MW exists, not in aggregate. Selective mw’s arise in smaller jurisdictions, but these should not sway legal authorities or larger populations to change, simply due to activism and persistence.
Marriage as a heterosexual contract is fundamental to our Judeo-Christian society. Other arrangements can be of equal import and status, but called by other name so we don’t pull into question the philosophical underpinnings of society itself.
To stay viable, societies must serve the greater good, taken as the harmonious MW. If that is bypassed society morphs into something new, leaving MW to wonder, what happened?
MW can be wrong. So can mw, but these give rise to greater chance for arbitrary, harmful changes disintegrative to society. If someone screams out we tend to listen, the presumption being something is wrong. That’s why calmer heads & sober reflections of MW must work to insure perspective/proportion/facility are all maintained.
Healthcare, eldercare, pensions or quality of life are not founds pecifically in the constitution. Still we debate whether these are rights or privileges. Meanwhile, programs dealing with them have been put forth/introduced slowly over time to make them government’s responsibility, with a minimum/questionable effort at insuring MW. Most recently, MW was bypassed by minority’s will to institute the huge government takeover of healthcare
This abrogation of the fundamental mechanism by which a democratic republic operates is tantamount to a collapse of the society. There are many more benefits and privileges not mentioned here now called entitlements. By precedent they’ve become a rightful expectation of virtually every inhabitant. This can’t be good for the health of our society.
We are a sickly republic and most certainly will die without an immediate return to law, constitution and MW, but today’s MW is yesterday’s mw, blinded by self-interest and unable to see the big picture. It doesn’t understand there are immutable societal laws governing survival. It ignores the lessons of history. It’s not mindful of the wisdom if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
Think about this and the need for absolutes, when you vote in November.
Leave a Reply