JC> Some of the "founding fathers" were probably in the same quandry many of 
us
  > probably face when we try and deal with issues like capital punishment,
  > abortion, assisted suicide, etc. I just feel that deep down inside some
I think that's true.  Some of their journals showed some of them were
wrestling with the issues.  Even Jefferson, for all his ownership of
slaves, also did some real soul searching on the issue.
And *no* major issue is easy to solve.  When the Quakers got together to
work on the abortion issue, they found finding an agreement hard to
reach.  Two hundred years earlier, they found coming to an agreement on
slavery equally hard, although they *were* the first church to take an
official stand against slavery.  But not until after much debate, and
much soul searching.   I am watching the Quakers and the Mennonites of
the area wrestle with the issue of capital punishment; and, as I watch
their wrestling, I realize these are peace churches, and are closer to
an agreement, and to a common grounds for searching, than most of
society.  And yet, they, too, have trouble dealing with the issues.
They have a better record in their relationships with Indians than most
churches, too; and, even so, their record is not spotless.  But, even
now, they are wrestling with what their relationships should be with the
local Indians.
  > (and quite possibly a majority) of the signers of the Constitution _knew_
  > that slavery was _morally_ wrong, they just simply didn't want to
  > deal with at the _Federal_ level. By NOT even mentioning it, they threw 
the
  > slavery issue back to the individual states to deal with. _Then_ the 
states
Actually, they felt that the compromise of not mentioning slavery had
to be done in order for the constitution to come into being.  There were
jsut too many opposing sides among the delegates, and the states.
JC> Oh that reminds me... The "founding fathers" _did_ have to "fix" the
  > Constitution. The first ten amendments (aka the Bill of Rights) weren't
  > part of the original Constitution but were added and ratified about a 
ear
  > and a half later. So, technically, there was a Constitution but no Bill 
f
  > Rights for about eighteen months. So all the stuff about "freedom of 
speech
  > "bearing arms", etc. was not "Constitutional".
Yep!  Vrtually no individual freedoms in the original write-up.
JC> Oh, whilst I am thinking about it. There are _very_ few crimes 
(particularl
  > individual to individual) that are specifically mentioned in the original
  > Constitution. For example: I don't think you'll find murder, rape, 
burglary
  > assault, extortion, etc. in the original Constitution. Those were 
considere
  > to be violations of "natural law" and a foregone conclusion by the 
"foundin
  > fathers". Why people didn't consider human bondage to be a violation of
  > "natural law" escapes my reasoning ability. I cannot fathom how anyone 
coul
  > even consider such a thing. For example: I can't figure out why we should
  > have to have specific laws against animal abuse (like beating your dog), 
bu
  > we do. :-(
I think some people fail to understand that what we are sometimes
tempted to do when very angry or very tired or very scared can still be
against "natural law". I remember clearly the day I understood child
abuse. Christine was crying.  It felt like she had been crying for
weeks.  Rob was having a temper tantrum.  He had been having it for
months, I'm sure! Something in me snapped.  Luckily, I had enough sense
to put Christine in her crib, Robert in his room; and walk out of the
house. But what if I had been living in a ghetto by myself and it was
midnight. I shudder to think what I might have done.
JC> Kinda sorta like "no one notices the atrocities that are inflicted upon 
the
  > minority by the majority." (BTW, my prof will tell you that the Bill of 
Rig
  > was written to protect the _minority_ FROM the _majority_.)
I am acutely aware of the fact that the bill of rights was made to
protect the minority from the majority.  Tyranny of the majority is a
real, and a terrible, force.
                     Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ A horse may go freely to water but a pencil must be lead.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------