NationStates Jolt Archive

As I mentioned last night, many bars and nightclubs in Alabama stayed closed during New Year's Eve, since the blue laws there prevent the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Most establishments simply chose to close due to the lack of evening business, and so party people across the state were left high and dry.

Blue laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law), for those that don't know, prohibit the sale of alcohol (and sometimes other goods) on Sundays. They were originally passed in most places to force people to stop working and to go to church on the Sabbath. Since then most of the laws have been repealed, but there are a surprising number of counties and states that still have them in effect, from the deep South all the way to Massachusetts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/20/mass-blue-laws-to-_n_10939.html).

I can't for the life of me figure out why this is so. How can it be constitutional to have a law forcing everyone to stop working on the holy day of one religion? It'd make more sense if it were a single holiday or something, but this closure of commerce happens on a weekly basis.

Also consider that blue laws are inherently discriminatory to other religions. According to George Edner of holysmokes.com (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/blue-law.htm):

Blue laws enable Christian businessmen to suspend their operations on the Christian sabbath with no risk of loss of business to competitors, as all competitors must also close. This is certainly a "peculiar privilege".

Blue laws also enable Christian workers to refrain from working on their sabbath without fear of lose of wages or loss of jobs, because their employers are required to be closed on Sunday anyway. This is also a "peculiar privilege".

Blue laws require non-Christian businessmen who choose to suspend operations on their sabbath to face a loss of business to their Christian competitors who are allowed to do business on the non-Christian sabbath, and it forbids the non-Christian from making up the time he lost by working on the Christian sabbath. This is certainly a "disadvantage or penalty".

And Blue laws requires non-Christian workers to lose wages, or possibly even to risk losing their jobs, if they choose to honor their non-Christian sabbath. Yet Christian workers face no such dilemma when deciding to honor the Christian sabbth or not. This is also certainly a "disadvantage or penalty".

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. And I'm not even a drinker! I mean, why restrict business, dampen people's fun, make last-minute shopping illegal, blatantly discriminate against other faiths, etc., etc., etc., just because of some archaic Puritan edict? Hell, even major retailers are in open revolt (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/11/22/retailers_to_defy_blue_laws/). It's 2007, not 1607.

But according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law#Court_cases), some courts have ruled that the laws have a "legitimate secular purpose" as a general-purpose day of rest that happens to fall on the Sabbath, and thus don't violate the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses. I call BS.

What do you think?

Did you know Sony struck Tennesse as a candidate to build a factory there because the executives who went to see it didn't get beer on sunday. True Story

Yeah, Indiana has that crap too. Can't buy beer on sunday, etc.

But hey, atleast it keeps the baby jesus happy.

How utterly retarded.

Yeah, Indiana has that crap too. Can't buy beer on sunday, etc.

But hey, atleast it keeps the baby jesus happy.

Much as I try, I can't remember baby Jesus (or anyone else in the bible for that matter) ever saying anything against alcohol.... :confused:

Wow, sorry to anyone wholives in Alabama. I was aware that there were still blue laws that had yet to be repealed, butI thought that no one even bothered enforcing the things anymore. They should have just stayed open, theres no way those laws would hold up in a court challenge.

How utterly retarded.

Heh, as if the Irish wouldn't go mental every Easter to stock up on alcohol because all the pubs and off-licenses are closed on Good Friday...

Much as I try, I can't remember baby Jesus (or anyone else in the bible for that matter) ever saying anything against alcohol.... :confused:

I don't think baby Jesus said much in the bible at all ;)

And everyone knows how adult Jesus felt about alcohol. Wine anybody?

Much as I try, I can't remember baby Jesus (or anyone else in the bible for that matter) ever saying anything against alcohol.... :confused:

I know! The damn lush even made it out of water.

Blue laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law), for those that don't know, prohibit the sale of alcohol (and sometimes other goods) on Sundays. They were originally passed in most places to force people to stop working and to go to church on the Sabbath. Thast doesn't make sense; Sabbath isn't on Sunday, it's friday evening to saturday.

bars here are open on sundays but they are closed on other days, like monday or tuesday. but it is different from bar to bar. so i can buy alcohol whenever i like.
other than that i don't think it is that stupid that shops (but not bars apparently) have to close on sundays, otherwise small shops, with only a few employees,wouldn't be able to compete with larger chains.

What's a "Christian sabbath" ?

Thast doesn't make sense; Sabbath isn't on Sunday, it's friday evening to saturday.

The Puritans were just trying to be different.

They were originally passed in most places to force people to stop working and to go to church on the Sabbath.

They are archaic but not necessarily unconstitutional.

By the way, you put a very curious slant on why the laws were passed. Not very accurate and very biased.

back in the day, the husband and i used to travel from wisconsin to newmexico for christmas. we thought it would be fun to be on the train on new years eve--a "trading places" kinda thing. turns out that on the way back from albuquerque to chicago the train passes through Kansas at the time when one would be celebrating. kansas is a dry state, no buying booze. grrrrrr


i would think that it is time to do a new constitutional challenge to these laws. as you say, they make no sense in a country with seperation of church and state.

They are archaic but not necessarily unconstitutional.

By the way, you put a very curious slant on why the laws were passed. Not very accurate and very biased.

Ok, if he's inaccurate and biased, give us the accurate and unbiased reason why blue laws were passed.

Wow, sorry to anyone wholives in Alabama. I was aware that there were still blue laws that had yet to be repealed
Most of the state laws were repealed, IIRC (except in Massachusetts, which I still can't understand), but many live on in a county-by-county basis.

I thought that no one even bothered enforcing the things anymore.
They strike me as kinda like all the other archaic laws, such as the ones against dancing and women wearing pants instead of dresses, that are on the books but never enforced anymore. I believe that in the Massachusetts case, the law was only enforced because one store that chose to adhere to the it complained about the others that did not.

They should have just stayed open, theres no way those laws would hold up in a court challenge.
Actually, stores that defy blue laws face fines and other penalties.

By the way, you put a very curious slant on why the laws were passed. Not very accurate and very biased.

"Southern and mid-western states also passed numerous laws to protect the Sabbath during the mid to late nineteenth century. Laws targeted numerous groups including saloon owners, Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, and non-religious peoples. These Sabbath laws enacted at the state and local levels would sometimes carry penalties for doing non-religious activities on Sunday as part of an effort to enforce religious observance and church attendance. Numerous people were arrested for playing cards, baseball, and even fixing wagon wheels on Sunday. Some of these laws still exist today."

-- Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law#History)

the liquor laws alone in my state are so freaking backwards that I didn't much notice that there wouldn't be liquor last night, until the neighbors came over looking for some........

the liquor stores here are by law closed on Sundays, and they have regulated hours, they can't sell cold beer, and you can't buy anything other than wine coolers anywhere else.

idiots.

I remember when we first moved out west and there was wine in the grocery store :eek: and you could buy it 24 hours a day 7 days a week........:eek: :eek:

oh, and there are still dry counties in my state and also.......counties that are not "liquor by the drink" yet.

Thast doesn't make sense; Sabbath isn't on Sunday, it's friday evening to saturday.
The Jewish Sabbath is friday to saturday. The Christian Sabbath is sunday.
What's a "Christian sabbath" ?
One would assume the Christian day of rest. Since, you know, that is literally what it means. The 10 commandments require a sabbath...it isn't just Jewish.
Most of the state laws were repealed, IIRC (except in Massachusetts, which I still can't understand), but many live on in a county-by-county basis.

Massachusets and Connecticut both still have these laws. CT, alcohol can't be sold on Sunday, and not after 9 PM. Massachusets doesn't allow certain stores to be open on holidays, and forces sales to stop at 11 most days and 8 on sundays

Blue laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law), for those that don't know, prohibit the sale of alcohol (and sometimes other goods) on Sundays.

That's not what makes a Blue Law. A blue law is any law whose reason for existing is gone. The Dry Laws you are talking about might fit into that catagory if no one enforced them, since we now recognize that religious doctrine is not a basis for American law, but it doesn't define the catagory.

Other Blue Laws include New York's laws which prohibit sleeping in ones bathtub or bathing nude on Saturdays, both of which come from a time when several apartments had to share a bathroom. If a landlord rented out the bathroom as a place to sleep, then he was depriving people of a bathroom in the middle of the night and if you bathed nude on Saturday (once upon a time the traditional day of the weekly bath) then the procession of bathers made it so that no one else could use the toilet without walking in on a naked neighbor.. Now housing codes prohibit renting apartments that don't have a private bathroom, so the laws above are pointless. But since no cop would ever take the time to enforce them and most people don't even know they exist, no one bothers to repeal them.

Other such laws would include the laws against married couples having oral sex, but those have all been overturned by those activist judges the Supreme Court.

Ok, if he's inaccurate and biased, give us the accurate and unbiased reason why blue laws were passed.

He did. He said that they were archaic. There was a reason for them, now there isn't. You can't give one reason why all blue laws were passed any more than you can give a reason why all tax laws were passed. They all exist for different reasons.

That's not what makes a Blue Law. A blue law is any law whose reason for existing is gone. The Dry Laws you are talking about might fit into that catagory if no one enforced them, since we now recognize that religious doctrine is not a basis for American law, but it doesn't define the catagory.

Other Blue Laws include New York's laws which prohibit sleeping in ones bathtub or bathing nude on Saturdays, both of which come from a time when several apartments had to share a bathroom. If a landlord rented out the bathroom as a place to sleep, then he was depriving people of a bathroom in the middle of the night and if you bathed nude on Saturday (once upon a time the traditional day of the weekly bath) then the procession of bathers made it so that no one else could use the toilet without walking in on a naked neighbor.. Now housing codes prohibit renting apartments that don't have a private bathroom, so the laws above are pointless. But since no cop would ever take the time to enforce them and most people don't even know they exist, no one bothers to repeal them.

Other such laws would include the laws against married couples having oral sex, but those have all been overturned by those activist judges the Supreme Court.

Au contraire: blue laws were named blue laws not because they are archaic or no longer useful -- http://www.answers.com/topic/blue-law

the liquor laws alone in my state are so freaking backwards that I didn't much notice that there wouldn't be liquor last night, until the neighbors came over looking for some........

the liquor stores here are by law closed on Sundays, and they have regulated hours, they can't sell cold beer, and you can't buy anything other than wine coolers anywhere else.

idiots.

I remember when we first moved out west and there was wine in the grocery store :eek: and you could buy it 24 hours a day 7 days a week........:eek: :eek:

oh, and there are still dry counties in my state and also.......counties that are not "liquor by the drink" yet.

Do blue laws also effect supermarkets?

Do blue laws also effect supermarkets?

don't know there isn't alcohol in the supermarket here, just beer (if you can call it that, basically it's water)

Do blue laws also effect supermarkets?

They do around here...supermarkets have to pull down opaque sheets to hide the alcohol at 8.

Massachusets just rejected allowing supermarkets to sell wine, so no alcohol at all in supermarkets.

It's always weird going to other states and seeing that they sell alcohol in stores..

I wish I could buy booze at the local Wal-Mart.. :(

It's always weird going to other states and seeing that they sell alcohol in stores..

I wish I could buy booze at the local Wal-Mart.. :(

even more strange are drive through liquor stores. Those always entertain me.

Blue laws = teh 5ukx!

even more strange are drive through liquor stores. Those always entertain me.

I want one!

Dear me...

Something most people are too foolish to realize is that "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with "separation of religion and state".

But that's why we have NationStates. So that people can do both or neither, as they please.

So, while we're here, I might make mention of the fact that I turned 21 on the fifteenth of the month previously, and of all seven times I've been out to buy booze I've only been carded once. If I knew it was that easy when I was, say, twenty, I'd have just bought booze and risked the carding because it happens so infrequently.

They do around here...supermarkets have to pull down opaque sheets to hide the alcohol at 8.

Massachusets just rejected allowing supermarkets to sell wine, so no alcohol at all in supermarkets.

That is such a idiotic law.

Dear me...

Something most people are too foolish to realize is that "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with "separation of religion and state".

But that's why we have NationStates. So that people can do both or neither, as they please.

Yes it does.
Or at least, in context it does:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Dear me...

Something most people are too foolish to realize is that "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with "separation of religion and state".

But that's why we have NationStates. So that people can do both or neither, as they please.

But that's exactly it. People can't do as they please. They're being forced by the government to follow the edicts of a religion they do not necessarily share.

Let's say you're a Jew, and you own a small grocery store. You are forced, by law, to not do any business on Sunday because it is the Christian holy day. So, Christians are free to relax on their Sabbath without fear of losing business. However, if you would like to do the same for your own holy day, you risk losing business, because while you are in the tabernacle, your Christian competitors are free to buy and sell as they wish.

Yes it does.
Or at least, in context it does:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

You do know that that line was written into the constitution for the express purpose of keeping the government out of religion, making sure that the government could not establish a state religion for political gain.

There isn't any blue laws where I live but then again Washington State has the least amount of people attending church out of any state. (True Fact)

However to all those who have blue laws in their states, I feel your pain.

Dear me...

Something most people are too foolish to realize is that "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with "separation of religion and state".

But that's why we have NationStates. So that people can do both or neither, as they please.
Actually, yes. It does mean that religion and politics are seperate entities. The word "church" can refer to "religion" as well as the building, etc.

You do know that that line was written into the constitution for the express purpose of keeping the government out of religion, making sure that the government could not establish a state religion for political gain.
And you realize that it functions both ways, yes? If state remains outside of church, church must also remain outside of state.

And you realize that it functions both ways, yes? If state remains outside of church, church must also remain outside of state.

today it does go both ways. but the origional intent was that the goverment could not force people to change the way that they thought while they participated in the government.

i agree that the church as an instution should be kept out of government, but i also think that is is unreasionable to expect people to change what they believe, if they are participating in the government setting.

but i also think that is is unreasionable to expect people to change what they believe, if they are participating in the government setting.
What's unreasonable about that? The government rules over everyone, and so it should not foist the personal beliefs of one segment of the population onto anyone. The government should be a neutral entity, not the agent of some group's religious agenda.

What's unreasonable about that? The government rules over everyone, and so it should not foist the personal beliefs of one segment of the population onto anyone. The government should be a neutral entity, not the agent of some group's religious agenda.

by requiering people to become nuteral how when anything be accomplished and besides creating that nutrality would be equal to setting up a governtment sponsered religion, which is unconstitutional.
by allowing people to matain their own beliefes it insures that the governtment will beable to evolve and change with the socioty that it governts over

Yeah, we have blue laws here in GA, too. I couldn't bring a bottle of wine to my family's Christmas Eve bash because I didn't get to the store the day before and I had to make a special trip to the store on Saturday to get my champagne for New Year's. Bleh.

The funny thing is that I'm not a big drinker, but I tend to make nicer dinners on Sunday - so that's when I'm most likely to want to buy a bottle of wine (and also, of course, the one day of the week I can't). =(

Yes, the laws were passed because of religion. Yes, they're still around because of religion. Yes, this is a pain in my ass and shouldn't be a part of our laws. But, like you said, the states/counties/cities/etc. have argued successfully before the court that they serve a secular purpose. It's bullshit, but it's legally accepted bullshit.

We don't have blue laws here in IA, so ha ha.

by requiering people to become nuteral how when anything be accomplished and besides creating that nutrality would be equal to setting up a governtment sponsered religion, which is unconstitutional.
by allowing people to matain their own beliefes it insures that the governtment will beable to evolve and change with the socioty that it governts over
Regular people can be as biased as they want. But government officers must act neutrally. The government wields much more power than private organizations -- it makes and enforces the law, after all. So, in order to protect the rights of minorities, it cannot act in favor of any particular religion, which means it can't make laws custom-fitted to any particular religious doctrine. The law affects everyone, so it should be as fair and unbiased as possible.

Yes, the laws were passed because of religion. Yes, they're still around because of religion. Yes, this is a pain in my ass and shouldn't be a part of our laws. But, like you said, the states/counties/cities/etc. have argued successfully before the court that they serve a secular purpose. It's bullshit, but it's legally accepted bullshit.
So? They can be overturned...

Do blue laws also effect supermarkets?

They do in GA. Most Sundays, they either turn the lighting down in the booze section or do nothing at all, so you might forget and end up at the checkout with some beer or a bottle of wine and be reminded that you can't buy it. Yesterday, they actually had the whole aisle blocked off in my local Kroger, but that's probably because so many people would make that mistake on New Year's Eve (or just try and steal it).

In GA, no stores can sell alcohol at all on Sundays, so liquor stores just have to close down altogether. And bars have to close down as well, unless they are actually like the bar in Applebee's and other fern bars, where the establishment actually makes more money off of food than alcohol.


Dear me...

Something most people are too foolish to realize is that "separation of church and state" has nothing to do with "separation of religion and state".

Really? "Church" doesn't represent religion?

Seriously, it's fairly obvious that enforcing a given religion on those who are not of that religion is government establishment of religion.


You do know that that line was written into the constitution for the express purpose of keeping the government out of religion, making sure that the government could not establish a state religion for political gain.

You don't think enforcing a given religion constitutes establishment of state religion?

What, pray tell, would constitute such an establishment?

i agree that the church as an instution should be kept out of government, but i also think that is is unreasionable to expect people to change what they believe, if they are participating in the government setting.

Nobody is asking anyone to change what they believe. They just have to realize that they have no right to enforce something that is simply their belief upon others. If their belief doesn't have backing other than, "My religion says so," it has no place whatsoever in the law.

So? They can be overturned...

They can, but it is unlikely. These laws are much more likely to be done away with by legislative process than they are by judicial process at this point. Courts tend to frown on overturning precedent. And since most people aren't pushing hard on their legislators on this issue...

Regular people can be as biased as they want. But government officers must act neutrally. The government wields much more power than private organizations -- it makes and enforces the law, after all. So, in order to protect the rights of minorities, it cannot act in favor of any particular religion, which means it can't make laws custom-fitted to any particular religious doctrine. The law affects everyone, so it should be as fair and unbiased as possible.

i think that those in the governtment must act in the intrest of the country not their political aggenda. I dotn however think that it is teh governments place to force this to happen, i see it as more of a common sence thing

You don't think enforcing a given religion constitutes establishment of state religion?

What, pray tell, would constitute such an establishment?



i dont think that the government was enforcing a set religion.

a state religion would be for example the anglican church in the 1700's. it was a chursh whos head was the king.

i dont think that the government was enforcing a set religion.

Really? So enforcing the rules of a religion, simply because they are rules of that religion, is not enforcing a religion?

If our government was majority-Muslim and they decided to ban the sale of pork products for food because Islam bans the eating of pork, that wouldn't be enforcement of a religion?

How interesting.

a state religion would be for example the anglican church in the 1700's. it was a chursh whos head was the king.

I see. So the only possible way to establish a religion is to say you are doing it. You can run your government based on the rulings of the church, but as long as you don't explicitly say you're doing it, it doesn't count.

You should be a lawyer. Really. That's *such* a good argument.

They are pretty archaic but I don't know if I'd go to unconstitutional.

They are pretty archaic but I don't know if I'd go to unconstitutional.

Would it be unconstitutional to ban the sale of pork for food on Jewish and Muslim holy days?

Really? So enforcing the rules of a religion, simply because they are rules of that religion, is not enforcing a religion?

If our government was majority-Muslim and they decided to ban the sale of pork products for food, that wouldn't be enforcement of a religion?

How interesting.

I can tell that you dislike the fact that the majority of governemt officials are religious, especialy christian, and I am ok with that.
The majority of people in our government today are sadly opperating according to personal or party aggendas as apposed to what is truly best for the country. I do not know of spcifics law that enforce a spicsific religions laws. If you do know of some please pass them along,I am more than happy to change my psition if presented with the supporting facts.

you would have to hope that passing a law like that was truely in the best intrest of the country in question.

I see. So the only possible way to establish a religion is to say you are doing it. You can run your government based on the rulings of the church, but as long as you don't explicitly say you're doing it, it doesn't count.
You should be a lawyer. Really. That's *such* a good argument.[/QUOTE]

I was giving you the text book definition of what a state religion is, teccnicaly you are correct. Welcome to the world of politics :). The reson that the government can get away with such things is because there is no one holding the government accountible of its actions, no one questioning why it is doing what it is and making them give a strait up answer, in short no one is noticing or if they are they dont care.

Would it be unconstitutional to ban the sale of pork for food on Jewish and Muslim holy days?

yes it would be

Its so annoying when stores arent open.

I can tell that you dislike the fact that the majority of governemt officials are religious, especialy christian, and I am ok with that.

That's an awful lot of incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with the fact that most government officials (and, in fact, most people - including myself) are religious. I especially have no problem with Christianity, considering that I am, myself, a Christian.

What I *do* have a problem with is those who think that they should legally enforce their religion upon others, no matter what religion they are a part of. It is not the place of the government to enforce religion. This is true even if I actually agree with the religious precept they are trying to enforce. I believe that adultery is wrong, but I wouldn't advocate throwing people in jail for it. Does that make me less religious? No, it simply means that I recognize that it is my own duty to enforce my own religion upon myself. I don't need or want the government to enforce it. I don't need to enforce my own religious views upon others to try and prove myself correct. And I definitely don't need others' religious views being enforced upon me.

The majority of people in our government today are sadly opperating according to personal or party aggendas as apposed to what is truly best for the country.

Indeed.

I do not know of spcifics law that enforce a spicsific religions laws. If you do know of some please pass them along,I am more than happy to change my psition if presented with the supporting facts.

The blue laws currently under discussion are a prime example. They were put into place specifically to "keep the Sabbath holy." The legislators who wish to keep them will now claim that there is a secular purpose, but it is easy to see through the BS they make up to try and explain it away. The laws are religious, pure and simple.

The bans on same-sex marriage around the country have no backing that is not religious. There is absolutely no reason to deny equal protection to homosexuals. However, because many believe that God wouldn't approve, homosexuals are currently held to second-class citizen status.

The attempts to ban all abortion are invariably based in religious views, usually views of a soul or a given religious statement of when life begins.

Those trying to push religion into the science class - Creationism or ID - (and, in some places, succeeding) are teaching their particular religion by government dictate.

Need I go on?

you would have to hope that passing a law like that was truely in the best intrest of the country in question.

Highly unlikely. If it were a matter of the best interest of the country, you'd have a reason behind it that wasn't, "My religion says so." For instance, Christianity (and Judaism and Islam and most religions, for that matter) view murder as wrong. However, the reason for making murder illegal is not simply the fact that religion says so. Murder clearly causes harm to another human being, and thus falls under the government's purpose of protecting its citizens. Stealing - the same. And so on...

"Don't drink on Sunday," has no such objective purpose. And even those of us who are Christian and want a glass of wine with dinner are inconvenienced by it.

I was giving you the text book definition of what a state religion is, teccnicaly you are correct. Welcome to the world of politics :). The reson that the government can get away with such things is because there is no one holding the government accountible of its actions, no one questioning why it is doing what it is and making them give a strait up answer, in short no one is noticing or if they are they dont care.

Obviously, people are noticing and do care. Hence, the complaints.

However, too many people aren't willing to hold lawmakers accountable by voting their butts out of office, so we get stuck with them.

yes it would be

Then banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays is equally unconstitutional.

The lawmakers can claim to have a secular purpose, just like those that might ban the sale of pork products on Jewish and Muslim holidays could make that claim, but it's pretty obviously BS.

What's a "Christian sabbath" ?

Sort of like Black Sabbath, but they bite the heads from choirboys instead of bats.

That's an awful lot of incorrect assumptions. I have no problem with the fact that most government officials (and, in fact, most people - including myself) are religious. I especially have no problem with Christianity, considering that I am, myself, a Christian.

What I *do* have a problem with is those who think that they should legally enforce their religion upon others, no matter what religion they are a part of.
I am going to appoligyes for not being clearer in my statement. I agree with you iam not ok with others, especialy,those who are chritians in office today, trying to pass laws that force religion on others.



The blue laws currently under discussion are a prime example. They were put into place specifically to "keep the Sabbath holy." The legislators who wish to keep them will now claim that there is a secular purpose, but it is easy to see through the BS they make up to try and explain it away. The laws are religious, pure and simple.

The bans on same-sex marriage around the country have no backing that is not religious. There is absolutely no reason to deny equal protection to homosexuals. However, because many believe that God wouldn't approve, homosexuals are currently held to second-class citizen status.

The attempts to ban all abortion are invariably based in religious views, usually views of a soul or a given religious statement of when life begins.

Those trying to push religion into the science class - Creationism or ID - (and, in some places, succeeding) are teaching their particular religion by government dictate.

Need I go on?
no,i agree. Whn it comes it ID, i think that becaus it is a scientific thery it should be tought, but not exclusivly, evolution should be tought as well. both should be tought as theory and should be tought with out bias so as to let the students form there own opinions becaues after all that is what shcool is for; to educate but giving teh evidents and lettign the kids draw their own conclution.
Highly unlikely. If it were a matter of the best interest of the country, you'd have a reason behind it that wasn't, "My religion says so." For instance, Christianity (and Judaism and Islam and most religions, for that matter) view murder as wrong. However, the reason for making murder illegal is not simply the fact that religion says so. Murder clearly causes harm to another human being, and thus falls under the government's purpose of protecting its citizens. Stealing - the same. And so on...

"Don't drink on Sunday," has no such objective purpose. And even those of us who are Christian and want a glass of wine with dinner are inconvenienced by it.

today the law makes no sence, but when the law was written it did.


Obviously, people are noticing and do care. Hence, the complaints.

However, too many people aren't willing to hold lawmakers accountable by voting their butts out of office, so we get stuck with them.

exactly, but you can complain all you want and it wont change. what will make it change though if people keep track of the laws that get passed by these people ect. most today vote by what the canidats say what they will do not what they do.

Then banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays is equally unconstitutional.

The lawmakers can claim to have a secular purpose, just like those that might ban the sale of pork products on Jewish and Muslim holidays could make that claim, but it's pretty obviously BS.

this is a bit of a gray area for me. yes i can see how this law is unconstitutional. but it is a bit like backs being closed on national holidays, yes it is an inconvinance, but it is some thing that you work around, you know that there are certian days that you can not bank so you do your banking on other days. you plan a head, the same can be said for liqure sales.
on the other hand we are a capitolist economy so the goverment should have no say in privet busness.


essentualy you and i agree, but we are comming at our view points from differant resons, hence the conflict

snip


no,i agree. Whn it comes it ID, i think that becaus it is a scientific thery it should be tought, but not exclusivly, evolution should be tought as well. both should be tought as theory and should be tought with out bias so as to let the students form there own opinions becaues after all that is what shcool is for; to educate but giving teh evidents and lettign the kids draw their own conclution.


Why? evolution is a theory ... ID is not

Pretty simple why should something that is not a scientific theory be tought as such?

Back when I first started voting one of the items up for vote was on whether Texas should keep some of the blue laws on the book. All non-essential retailers had to close on Sundays. Even though it meant I would have to start working on Sundays, I voted for the repeal. Unfortunately, some blue laws are still in effect. Still can't buy booze on Sundays, though the malls are open.

I am going to appoligyes for not being clearer in my statement. I agree with you iam not ok with others, especialy,those who are chritians in office today, trying to pass laws that force religion on others.

Good then. =)

no,i agree. Whn it comes it ID, i think that becaus it is a scientific thery it should be tought, but not exclusivly, evolution should be tought as well. both should be tought as theory and should be tought with out bias so as to let the students form there own opinions becaues after all that is what shcool is for; to educate but giving teh evidents and lettign the kids draw their own conclution.

There's a problem here, although much discussion of it would need to be saved for another thread. ID is not, in any way, a scientific theory. It was not arrived at using the scientific method. It is untestable and unfalsifiable. It is a philosophical viewpoint, nothing more, nothing less. It is most often a religious viewpoint.

today the law makes no sence, but when the law was written it did.

Enforcing religion used to be ok, but now it isn't? The reason for the law when it was written was to keep people from drinking on the Christian holy day - the day the lawmakers expected those people to be in church. How did that make any more sense then than it does now?

this is a bit of a gray area for me. yes i can see how this law is unconstitutional. but it is a bit like backs being closed on national holidays, yes it is an inconvinance, but it is some thing that you work around, you know that there are certian days that you can not bank so you do your banking on other days. you plan a head, the same can be said for liqure sales.

The difference is that banks aren't closed because someone's religious views dictated it. They are closed because they have chosen to take a holiday.

If liquor stores chose to be closed on Sunday, I could complain all I want, and it might mean that one stayed open for business to cater to those who want it. The same goes for supermarkets/bars/etc.

A kosher deli may very well choose to be closed on Jewish holidays. That's their business.

But it is an entirely different story when the government forces businesses to close or alter their business for religious reasons - for a religious view that the owners and customers may or may not agree with.

essentualy you and i agree, but we are comming at our view points from differant resons, hence the conflict

Are we? What is your reason?

As much as I wish it was, none of it is unconstitutional. Since the laws are not being enacted by the federal government, they are not violating the constitution. To prove this one would use the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Since nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state can not establish a state religion, one would use the 10th amendment to show that a state is allowed to enact a religion in that respective state.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Even though there is no specific phrase "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution, there is in the New Jersey constitution.

A state is allowed to enact any law that it is not explicitly prohibited from enacting, by the constitution.

As much as I wish it was, none of it is unconstitutional. Since the laws are not being enacted by the federal government, they are not violating the constitution. To prove this one would use the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Since nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state can not establish a state religion, one would use the 10th amendment to show that a state is allowed to enact a religion in that respective state.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Even though there is no specific phrase "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution, there is in the New Jersey constitution.

A state is allowed to enact any law that it is not explicitly prohibited from enacting, by the constitution.

That would be Amendment X, if I don't miss my guess.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The tenth amendment, yes.

As much as I wish it was, none of it is unconstitutional. Since the laws are not being enacted by the federal government, they are not violating the constitution. To prove this one would use the first amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Since nowhere in the constitution does it say that a state can not establish a state religion, one would use the 10th amendment to show that a state is allowed to enact a religion in that respective state.

Of course, once the 14th Amendment was passed, the courts have held time and time again that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well. A state which establishes a religion is abridging the rights of a US citizen, and thus breaking the 14th Amendment.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Even though there is no specific phrase "separation of church and state" in the U.S. Constitution, there is in the New Jersey constitution.

A state is allowed to enact any law that it is not explicitly prohibited from enacting, by the constitution.

That doesn't say "explicitly." It also points out that some rights are reserved to the people. As such, it is very possible that the states can be prohibited from doing something by the Constitution, even if they are not explicitly prohibited.

Welcome to America, where the Christian majority oppreses everyone else while declaring this the only "free" country in the world and at the same time decry anything that works towards equality with other groups as blasphemy and/or anti-Christian.

Blue laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law), for those that don't know, prohibit the sale of alcohol (and sometimes other goods) on Sundays. They were originally passed in most places to force people to stop working and to go to church on the Sabbath. Since then most of the laws have been repealed, but there are a surprising number of counties and states that still have them in effect, from the deep South all the way to Massachusetts (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/20/mass-blue-laws-to-_n_10939.html).

Massachusetts allows the sale of alcohol on Sundays now, thankfully. I hated having to stock up on Saturdays.