This is http://www.essayz.com/b0304272.htm         
Previous-Essay      <== This-Essay ==>     Following-Essay
Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words.
{Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.}
==========================================================
 %WHY HOW TRUST POWERFUL DOMINEERING SUPPORTER EVIL+030427
  %STANDARD JUDGE QUALIFICATION CONSERVATIVE JUDGES+030427
    %FUNDAMENTALIST EXTREMISTS TERRORISTS CRUSADERS+030427
   %BEHAVIOR CONDUCT PRIVATE INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS+030427
   %INVASION PROTECTION VULNERABLE VICTIMS SECURITY+030427
  %GRACIOUS OPEN HONEST PUBLIC SANCTUARY RECONCILED 030427
                                                          
     By what standards can we best judge the qualification 
of conservatives/fundamentalists who  seek to enforce what 
they regard as good standards of  conduct  for  people  in 
private relationships?    The  following questions need to 
receive gracious, honest and public consideration:        
                                                          
     1.  Can  domineering  people be  trusted  to  enforce 
standards  of conduct for people in private relationships? 
Why trust,  or  not trust,  domineering  people  with such 
duties?                                                   
                                                          
     2.  How  can  standards for the conduct of people  in 
private  relationships  be  written/articulated  so   that 
vulnerable  people are  not entrapped in a system which in 
effects says  "You  are  guilty,   unless  you  can  prove 
yourself to be innocent."    Or, "Convince us that you are 
not  doing  anything in private,  which we think/feel that 
you might be doing;   but which we DO NOT dare describe in 
public."     Or,   "Convince  us that you  are  not  doing 
anything in private, which we think/feel that you might be 
doing;    and  which we  HAVE described in  general  terms 
only --- in public."                                      
                                                          
     3.  To what extent can public behavior and statements 
be   accepted  as  valid  evidence ---  that  in   private 
other behaviors  which are forbidden (maybe tacitly)   are 
taking  place  away from the public eye?    Why so in  any 
case?                                                     
                                                          
     4.  Is it ever proper for powerful people to  enforce 
rules or regulations which were not clearly articulated in 
documents   published  in appropriate ways ---  in advance 
of  the objected-to-behaviors?   Why so in any case?      
                                                          
     5.  Is  it  ever proper for a non-governmental agency 
to enforce rules or regulations in ways which violate  the 
constitutional rights of those who are accused of improper 
behavior?       Can   citizens   in  any  ways   give   up 
constitutional rights to any  non-governmental  agency; so 
that   no  one   can   bring  charges  against  the   non-
governmental   agency for violating the rights of citizens 
who are said to have given up their constitutional  rights 
in   return   for  some   ostensible benefits offered   by 
the non-governmental agency?  Why so in any case?         
                                                          
                                                                                                                               
                         (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in      
                    (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy)  
                                                                                                                               
==========================================================