today, my last name is "petty", and my first name is "mean-spirited"

[rone]

Poor, poor Karol:

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if [the movement to allow gay marriage in Europe] is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.

I guess Karol doesn't want a new ideology of evil to impinge on the Catholic Church's old ideology of evil.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican's top doctrinal official... said the Pope "was not trying to put the Holocaust and abortion on the same plane" but only warning that evil lurked everywhere, "even in liberal political systems."

GADZOOKS!  NOT LIBERAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS!  Will our children only be safe in a political system that resists change??

Comments

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

Oh, come on. This is basic middle school social studies stuff. I am astonished you're having so much trouble with it.

Perhaps the problem is the word "government", which I used as more or less a synonym for "political system" and you seem to be interpreting as a synonym for "politicians". (Mis)Interpreted that way, I can see how you'd react negatively.

So let me give you the classic concrete example. Open up your copy of the US Constitution and see what it says about amendment. Does it say, "This Constitution shall be amended whenever a good idea comes along, but may not be amended by a bad idea"? No; nor does it say, "Amendments shall be passed whenever there is a moral imperative to make changes, and may not be passed whenever there is a moral imperative not to change". Political systems -- as opposed to people who live in and/or implement those systems -- know nothing of "good idea" or "moral imperative".

Instead, the Constitution says, "You can amend me any damn way you want, any time you want, as long as you jump through some hoops. First you have to get both houses of Congress to approve. By a two thirds vote. And then you have to get three quarters of the state legislatures to sign on. If you can pull that off, you probably have a worthwhile idea on your hands, so consider it implemented."

There you have it: a political system (a system of government) that resists change, because it cannot in itself evaluate change directly. You and I filter ideas through value judgments. (Well, that's the theory. In the real world, Sheer Greed, The Pastor Said So, and Because Everyone Else Thinks So are depressingly common filters.) Our political system filters ideas by sending them on a quest. It puts up barriers -- two thirds vote of Congress, three quarters of the state legislatures -- and the ideas that have enough support behind them to get past those barriers get implemented.

That's all I meant. Have I made myself a lot more clear than I evidently did previously?

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, don't let the fact that I chose the constitutional amendment process as an illustration of a more general principle lead you into any inference that I believe a constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage is necessary or desireable. I don't, as it happens. I was talking above about political processes, not about gay marriage.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Yes, that much has been understood.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

This is basic middle school social studies stuff.

Well, leaving aside the fact that i wasn't raised in this country... But never mind that. I fully grasp how constitutional amendments work. But the merit of a political system such as ours that you claim resists change by design falls flat when we have people bent on using it to further their petty and narrow moralism, such as banning gay marriage and flag desecration. That these things are not immediately laughed at and dismissed is worrisome.

More so, to return to your "the same electorate that elected Clinton for eight years also voted for eight years of Dumbya" example, the same Congress and states that passed Prohibition also voted for its repeal. Is this only an exception, or is it a notorious symptom that the system that you say discourages change is still as much a victim of public whim as any other part of our republican democracy?

[doctroid.livejournal.com]

But the merit of a political system such as ours that you claim resists change by design falls flat when we have people bent on using it to further their petty and narrow moralism, such as banning gay marriage and flag desecration.

Such people cannot be blamed on the political system's resistance to change; indeed, the political system's resistance to change is one thing that keeps such people from doing more damage than they do.

Prohibition is an illustration that the system's filter against bad ideas is imperfect. Its repeal is an illustration that, contrary to all appearances, the body politic is capable of recognizing its own mistakes once in a while.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I don't see it that way. The fact that the system allowed such a clearly idiotic idea to become canon, only to be quickly reversed later, speaks that if the goal is to resist change, it didn't happen. However, to quickly contradict myself, the next time something harebrained passes as an amendment, i am less hopeful that it will be as easily reversed.