ctenidae
Active member
You can't wipe every last taint of religion off of any laws, simply because at base, they're for the same thing- whether laws or scripture, they're a framework for behavior created by society. Work any law down far enough, and you can find some scrupture that covers it. Spiritual religion is, IMO, on its way out. In the next hundred years or so, I think you'll see the vast majority of western religious institutions dry up, as science becomes the new religion. Even then, science will provide a basic behavorial framework. Rule of Law, guided by scientific principles, rather than religious ones. The advantage, in my mind, is a reliance on observable, quantifiable events, rather than articles of faith open to a huge variety of interpretation. We'll see.
As to the argument against arguing about the past- it very much impacts the future. If the federal government continues under the assumption that it can (or should) govern on an individual level, then we're all doomed, no matter if it works on a theocratical or humanistic basis. That's the real problem, as I see it, in the Schiavo case. The Supreme Court failed in its duties when it didn't immediately reject the case and return it to the Appeals Court. Congress failed us when it decided to call hearings on the matter. It's not a Federal issue, and it shouldn't be. Laws are pretty clear on who has authority- a spouse is always considered next-of-kin, unless found mentally incompetent. Case closed, as the Florida courts ruled. You start changing the laws around that, and you open a can of worms. If the spouse isn't responsible, who is? The parents? What if they're dead? It doesn't take long before you decide the state is responsible, even over a competent spouse. If the states have to take responsibility, how big a leap is it for the State to take it? It's a bad precedent to set, and, I fear, not the last we'll see of the issue.
As to the argument against arguing about the past- it very much impacts the future. If the federal government continues under the assumption that it can (or should) govern on an individual level, then we're all doomed, no matter if it works on a theocratical or humanistic basis. That's the real problem, as I see it, in the Schiavo case. The Supreme Court failed in its duties when it didn't immediately reject the case and return it to the Appeals Court. Congress failed us when it decided to call hearings on the matter. It's not a Federal issue, and it shouldn't be. Laws are pretty clear on who has authority- a spouse is always considered next-of-kin, unless found mentally incompetent. Case closed, as the Florida courts ruled. You start changing the laws around that, and you open a can of worms. If the spouse isn't responsible, who is? The parents? What if they're dead? It doesn't take long before you decide the state is responsible, even over a competent spouse. If the states have to take responsibility, how big a leap is it for the State to take it? It's a bad precedent to set, and, I fear, not the last we'll see of the issue.
)
