And I wasn't referring just to laws based on morals. I was
thinking of such things as the fact that New York City parking
regulations are written in ways that take account of religious
holidays. On the other hand, I have a relatively non-intrusive
moral code, starting from "an it harm none, do as you will."
>From that viewpoint, it seems obviously intrusive--and based
in religion rather than ethics--to pass laws about consensual
sex between adults, or to require or forbid men to grow beards.
The people who do these things commonly draw less of a
distinction between religion and ethics.
Vicki
----------
From: owner-virus
To: virus
Subject: Re: virus: Re: Virus: Sociological Change
Date: Friday, December 13, 1996 4:50PM
Vicki Rosenzweig <rosenzweig@hq.acm.org> wrote:
> I didn't mean to suggest that non-territorial states work well
> in a world of nation-states, just to suggest them as a possible
> alternative/future structure, which has the advantage of having
> been known to exist and function successfully in the past.
The idea itself of a non-territorial state is definately an interesting
one, if not practical. The problem with this theory, as with
most political ideas, is that in the current world, it is simply
not a viable option. Many theories base assumptions upon human
nature that simply aren't true (Anarchy, Communism), while others
propose states set up from nature, which is long gone, and that
state will never be attained again.
Pity really.
> On the other hand...there's an interesting interaction, in some
> cases, between people's loyalty to a particular religion or
> language and their loyalty to a country.
I agree.
> This shows up, for
> example, in people pressuring their governments to pass
> certain laws for reasons that are essentially religious:
Laws based on morals?
> Vicki, thinking out loud
I can hear you from here :)
Drakir
------------
Richard Jones
jonesr@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com
------------
"We are the New Breed,
We are the Future."
------------