|RE: rules, regs. redux||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: truddick (truddickearthlink.net)|
|Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 05:15:25 -0700 (PDT)|
Message: 1 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:07:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Hammer <thammer302 [at] yahoo.com> Subject: [C-L]_ Re: more perspective on rules and regs "Arguments of legalities and the Constitution are not at all relevant, in my humble opinion." Why not? Especially in the light of: "If someone cannot learn these lessons or has so many feelings brought up by trying to become part of "we" that objectivity and insight about oneself and the group and the importance of its culture are lost, then a gentle goodbye, with grace, is in order that would be initiated as much by the individual or family as by the group." It looks to me like you do not consider the constitution and local laws to be valid agreements for "we" (in the context of wider society) and that smaller groups are welcome to violate their provisions. But the rules and regs of smaller cohousing communities are sacrosanct and must be followed with rigidity. Like community rules, the constitution and the laws are not perfect. But in the hierarchy of ideas, they trump those of cohousing. If someone had posted here complaining that their cohousing community passed rules about how the community got to approve of all marriages before the new spouse moved in-and one new wife was banned because of her ethnicity-would you support the group's violation of US civil rights laws in favor of their own internal restrictive covenants? I'd expect not. ___ ! _ Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick ! !_) Nunquam Vadis Levis! ! \
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.