--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > All such documents would be "corrupt" in comparison to > > > > > > > > the "Constitution of the Universe..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...spoken like a true indoctrinated cult member... > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice the "quotes?" > > > > > > > > > > > > A true indoctrinated cult member wouldnt' have used quotes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, so you disagree with the statement that you made? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if there really IS a "Constitution of the > Universe" > > > in > > > > MMY's sense of the phrase. If there is, than any relative > > document > > > > would be corrupt. > > > > > > > > > > That sounds like so much pap. > > > > > > Why "corrupt"? The U.S. Constitution deals with man-made laws > and > > > concerns itself with important issues like freedom of speech and > > > religion, privacy, protection against self-incrimination, the > right > > > of women to vote, who can or can't hold public office. > > > > > > Why would these necessary and practical matters be "corrupt" > simply > > > because it is a relative document if there is a constitution of > the > > > universe? > > > > "Corrupt" as a whole, in the sense of "imperfect," > > perhaps, given that presumably the Constitution of > > the Universe would be perfect, by definition. > > > > One meaning of "corrupt" in my dictionary is > > "adulterated or debased by change from an original > > or correct condition." Assuming there is a higher > > law, presumably current manmade law is an imperfect > > reflection thereof. > > > > And, also presumably, if everyone were governed by > > the Constitution of the Universe (otherwise known > > as living in accord with the Laws of Nature), we would > > spontaneously do what was right with regard to freedom > > of speech and all that stuff, so we would no longer > > need manmade laws. > > > > > yeah, and if my mother had wheels, she'd be a car. > > I appreciate your attempts, Judy, to explain the corrupt comment by, > presumably, MMY, but if we are going to apply this term to the > constitution because -- relative to an enlightened constitution of > the universe -- it is imperfect and therefore corrupt, why stop at > using this description for the constitution? > > Isn't virtually EVERYTHING in our national life therefore corrupt? > Why single out the constitution? >
Because the reference was to the "Constitution of the Universe," as compared to the "Constitution of the United States." ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
