[Tfug] The NET

[Stephen Hooper]

On 10/5/06, Judd Pickell <pickell at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know, some would argue that the American Constitution has had as
> much of an effect on the world as the Bible. Both are very influential world
> wide, although for vary different reasons. The Bible gave the catholic
> church the power it wanted, and the Constituation gave people the freedom
> that they didn't/couldn't have until then. :)
>

You could then argue that the light-bulb has had as much effect on the
world as the Bible, or that toothpaste has had as much effect on the
world as the U.S. Constitution.

They look like reasonable arguments as there are absolutely no good
measurement systems to argue them in.  It is very qualitative.

That said, I think you missed the main point of my thought, which was
that the Bible being a religious document,  is not in the same genus
of documents as the U.S. Constitution.

To imply that the Constitution, and the Bible are therefore somewhat
equivalent, and at the same time hold them up as examples of a
specific set of documents referred to by a previous author as "social
documents", while arbitrarily excluding all other documents that would
also serve as an example of this kind of document was  what I was
endeavouring to make a point about.

As an aside, it also left quite a bad taste in my mouth as it seemed
to me to diminish both the Bible, and the Constitution.

If you believe in the Bible (as being holy), then to imply that the
Constitution is holy would seem to me to be slightly arrogant.

And from the opposite point of view, I like the U.S. Constitution just
as it is:   written by *normal  people* as something akin to a
governmental RFC document.  I think the U.S. is great, but we don't
need a  "we are descendants of  gods" mentality.