RE: rules, regs. redux
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.