Bobby Lipkin presents an argument that government can be humane, in the
sense of not inflicting suffering or cruelty -- and, would he add, can
recognize something called basic rights? -- without the government
acknowledging that it is "under" some higher moral authority. Perhaps that
is true, but there are also arguments the other way -- for example, that
basic rights are far more likely to be secure, especially in times of
pressure, if they are grounded in government's recognition that it is a
limited institution and is under some higher moral authority. Even if Bobby
raises enough questions to prove that government *need* not rely on this
latter rationale to ground rights, that doesn't prove that the government
*may* not determine to rely on this rationale.
The U.S. government is expressly "under" a higher authority. The Preamble to the Constitution is explicit that the government is "ordained" by the people. That word was not chosen lightly, or with disregard to the view that ordaining is something done religiously.
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration that just governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from God. The Constitution reaffirmed that view.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
