"WE THE PEOPLE" is how our Constitution begins.

Some of the people have their life almost as
they wish it, with domestic love in harmony.
Did they all follow the rules?


Some of the people do not have their life as
they wish it, and their domestic love is not
settled and harmonized. Do we speak as God
to Adam and Eve, telling them they have eaten
the forbidden fruit? When are we fair to expose them to "correction?"

These matters are determined by adults in legistlatures, police stations, courts, and influenced by churches.

The supposed public "good" must be weighed against three questions:
1) whose rights are being protected and abridged
2) how honest and well-researched are the reasons
for abridging that person's freedom of expression
3) is there an abuse of power taking place
a) within the expression itself
b) within the regulation, by others, of that expression

In each case, the discussion is about how the group may regulate the private behavior of individuals. Some deny there is any such thing as privacy, but the same
might say "it is none of your business" when their own affairs are scrutinized by someone not of their liking.
For example, if a church insists it may regulate the affairs of non-members, will the same church
open all its own affairs to scrutiny by non-members? Of course, they fear unwanted intrusion and meddling by persons with whom they might not share the same view of life...or religion.

There is reason to suspect that some of our community's enforcement and conventionality of morals about love are motivated by lust for power by the regulators. There are also reasons to be appreciative of those who wade into this area to
protect their fellow persons from abuses of power and "real world" dangers. Ultimately, there is a duty to re-examine this issue, balancing freedom with benefit for individuals and community.
Mike

• That should read.... - quiet - November 17, 2002 - 00:28 UTC