Two questions
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
First, you have to prove the law was in fact prompted as a result of religious beliefs. If you can indeed prove that as undeniable fact, then you might be able to have the law struck as being unconstitutional. Good luck with that... ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
I'll bite. :) Personally, these kinds of laws always bother me, regardless of the basis. Do we close gas stations on Sundays? Can you go to the corner store and buy a loaf of bread on Sunday? Do power generators still operate on Sundays so we can watch football on our TVs? To my mind there is no reason or need to be making a distiction. Commerce is commerce whether it happens on a Friday or a Sunday or any day of the week. If you want to limit or restrict commerce, fine then shut everything down. But trying to draw the line somewhere only results in a big fuzzy grey area that satisfies some and pisses off others. :) Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] When I want privacy, I'll close the bathroom door. [Stan Shannon] BAD DAY FOR: Friendly competition, as Ford Motor Co. declared the employee parking lot at its truck plant in Dearborn, Mich., off limits to vehicles built by rival companies. Workers have to drive a Ford to work, or park across the street. [CNNMoney.com] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
Any law has got to be based on the will of the people in the area. So in this particular case, I suspect you're correct. FTI, in the UK the Sunday licencing and trading laws have been getting less and less restrictive for some time. Licenced premises are free to open, albeit for slightly more restrictive hours than other days of the week. That's good for me as I rather like the fact that we can go out to a restaurant on a Sunday and enjoy a glass of wine with our meal! :-D Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
If the law is based on Protestant values, it should probably be changed to restrict Protestants from buying alcohol on Sunday. As someone observed in a previous thread, whatever happened to "lead us not into temptation"? These laws were all enacted during a primitive period in our country's history, and have steadily been repealed all over the country. Perhaps, one shining day in the future, social evolution and respect for the rights of the individual will find their way to Fulton County. Or not. I've been to Georgia, and I think we'll probably see the Amish on jet skis before we'll see progress in Fulton County.
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
My opinion is that a law enforcing religious practices is flat-out bad law. It's not supposed to be this way (and I grew up and currently live in Atlanta). These laws are stupid, hopelessly naive attempts at legislating morality. They are a total failure. They accomplish exactly nothing. But 1 doesn't conflict with 2, as drinking is not outlawed in and of itself on Sundays - only sale in package stores, as far as I remember. I distinctly remember having a few beers on Sunday at a local restaurant/pub during this last NFL season (Taco Mac in the Highlands)
-
First, you have to prove the law was in fact prompted as a result of religious beliefs. If you can indeed prove that as undeniable fact, then you might be able to have the law struck as being unconstitutional. Be careful though. You could wind up with a "dry county - no booze for sale anywhere at anytime. Good luck with that. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -- modified at 11:51 Monday 6th March, 2006
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
First, you have to prove the law was in fact prompted as a result of religious beliefs.
:) It'd be awefully hard to 'prove' something like that - these laws have been on the books for quite some time, and I'd be willing the bet that the Georgia assembly doesn't have perfect records of all state congressional sessions going back to the early part of this century. (I'm assuming here that the only thing that could 'prove' such a law was made in accordance with religious observations is to find the initial proposal and its defence way back when.) However, I propose an empirical test that will most likely give us some really, really good direction: 1. Have someone explain why 'Sunday' was picked over, let's say, Tuesday. 2. Publicly announce the plan to attempt to repeal the laws. See who squacks loudest. Not a mathematical proof, of course - but then again, this ain't no rocket science.
-
espeir wrote:
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact
But it prevents athiests, bhuddists, and renegade muslims from throwing a spur of the moment Sunday drunk, therefore it discriminates based on religion. If Protestants care, they should just pass up the opportunity to buy on Sunday. They have no need (or right, IMO) to force their prejudices on others who don't share them. They have no need of a law (which applies to non-protestants as well) to practice their belief. This is no different than the Saudi's , who prohibit the sale of liquor and Bibles in their country because they find both offensive... What justification is their for forcing those who do not share your belief's to adhere to their predjudices? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote:
But it prevents athiests, bhuddists, and renegade muslims from throwing a spur of the moment Sunday drunk, therefore it discriminates based on religion.
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
Rob Graham wrote:
What justification is their for forcing those who do not share your belief's to adhere to their predjudices?
Because that is the local sensibility. Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs. Therefore restricting such an ordinance based on that belief is in fact forcing others to adhere to your prejudices. Of course that's what self-government is all about. No man is an island and we must adhere to the social definitions of acceptability in our specific communities.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
First, you have to prove the law was in fact prompted as a result of religious beliefs.
:) It'd be awefully hard to 'prove' something like that - these laws have been on the books for quite some time, and I'd be willing the bet that the Georgia assembly doesn't have perfect records of all state congressional sessions going back to the early part of this century. (I'm assuming here that the only thing that could 'prove' such a law was made in accordance with religious observations is to find the initial proposal and its defence way back when.) However, I propose an empirical test that will most likely give us some really, really good direction: 1. Have someone explain why 'Sunday' was picked over, let's say, Tuesday. 2. Publicly announce the plan to attempt to repeal the laws. See who squacks loudest. Not a mathematical proof, of course - but then again, this ain't no rocket science.
Suggesting that laws based on morailty that is based on religion should be outlawed is expressly bigotted against religion. You're just saying that those with religious beliefs contrary to your own should simply be ignored by a secular totalitarian committee.
-
First, you have to prove the law was in fact prompted as a result of religious beliefs. If you can indeed prove that as undeniable fact, then you might be able to have the law struck as being unconstitutional. Be careful though. You could wind up with a "dry county - no booze for sale anywhere at anytime. Good luck with that. ------- sig starts "I've heard some drivers saying, 'We're going too fast here...'. If you're not here to race, go the hell home - don't come here and grumble about going too fast. Why don't you tie a kerosene rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -- modified at 11:51 Monday 6th March, 2006
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Be careful though. You could wind up with a "dry county - no booze for sale anywhere at anytime.
Unlikely since this is a large metropolitan area and people wouldn't want such a law (go figure...people governing themselves). There is no shortage of dry counties in Kentucky, though.
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
All law should ultimately reflect the will of the people. If that will is based upon religious principles it is no more invlid than principles arising from any other set of guiding philosophical principles - including secularism, humanism, or libetarianism. Our founders encourgaed a religious society so that communites could be counted on to do that very thing. They didn't want a federal government that felt compelled, or was empowered, to dictate such principles from "on high". "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Rob Graham wrote:
But it prevents athiests, bhuddists, and renegade muslims from throwing a spur of the moment Sunday drunk, therefore it discriminates based on religion.
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
Rob Graham wrote:
What justification is their for forcing those who do not share your belief's to adhere to their predjudices?
Because that is the local sensibility. Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs. Therefore restricting such an ordinance based on that belief is in fact forcing others to adhere to your prejudices. Of course that's what self-government is all about. No man is an island and we must adhere to the social definitions of acceptability in our specific communities.
espeir wrote:
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
Instead, it's merely saying, "our clergy tells us that our God does not want us to drink alcoholic beverages on Sunday, and we're too weak to resist temptation, so we prohibit you from selling those beverages to us -- or anyone else." That sounds reasonable.
espeir wrote:
Because that is the local sensibility.
"Sensibility" has nothing to do with this insanity. I contend that you are advocating restricting the rights of humanists to restrict the rights of religion to restrict the rights of everyone. Gee, that sounds reasonable, too.
-
1. In Fulton County, Georgia (my county), there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday. It is based on Protestant values. Should this law not be in effect because of that fact? 2. It is part of Catholic Dogma that you SHOULD drink on Sunday. Therefore, by Catholic Dogma, it would be imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays. Should this law (allowing liquor sales on Sunday) be in effect for Fulton County, Georgia? Well, which is it? Both perspectives are based on religious principes and directly contrast with eachother. My opinion (which is never wrong) is that, despite being Catholic, that the first law should be the one on the books. Why? Because this is an overwhelmingly protestant state and such a law appeals to the protestant sense of decency.
courtesy of Wiki[^] Mike "We ain't stuck on stupid." badass Lt. General Russel Honore **"Remember - live bunnies are a great source of nourishment"**silly-assed cartoon A vegan is someone who never heard a carrot cry! -- modified at 12:53 Monday 6th March, 2006
-
Rob Graham wrote:
But it prevents athiests, bhuddists, and renegade muslims from throwing a spur of the moment Sunday drunk, therefore it discriminates based on religion.
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
Rob Graham wrote:
What justification is their for forcing those who do not share your belief's to adhere to their predjudices?
Because that is the local sensibility. Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs. Therefore restricting such an ordinance based on that belief is in fact forcing others to adhere to your prejudices. Of course that's what self-government is all about. No man is an island and we must adhere to the social definitions of acceptability in our specific communities.
espeir wrote:
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
No, it prevents a non-protestant businessman (retail liquor store owner) from persuing his livelyhood on a day upon which he does not place any special meaning. Plus, it is splitting hairs to say that just because it doesn't prohibit drinking it is non-discrimainatory: it prevents an otherwqise everyday practice (purchase of liquor) for no other reason than that it offends the sensibilities of a particular RELIGEOUS group.
espeir wrote:
Because that is the local sensibility. Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs. Therefore restricting such an ordinance based on that belief is in fact forcing others to adhere to your prejudices. Of course that's what self-government is all about. No man is an island and we must adhere to the social definitions of acceptability in our specific communities
So you believe in tyranny by the majority? How does forcing others to observe your prejudices equate to self-government? Why are Protestants so weak in their faith that they feel compelled to force others to help them avaoid temptation? What difference could it possibly make to you if I chose to buy a bottle of wine (or bourbon) on Sunday? How does this make your world any safer or more pleasant? What gives you the right to prohibit me from doing something I do not find 'sinful', which is otherwise legal, and has absolutely no impact on your life? Your reasoning. carried to a logical conclusion, would justify 50.1% of the people in a community deciding to kill the other 49.9% because they "offended their sensibilities". Your reasoning is absurd. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
All law should ultimately reflect the will of the people. If that will is based upon religious principles it is no more invlid than principles arising from any other set of guiding philosophical principles - including secularism, humanism, or libetarianism. Our founders encourgaed a religious society so that communites could be counted on to do that very thing. They didn't want a federal government that felt compelled, or was empowered, to dictate such principles from "on high". "You get that which you tolerate"
So our founders would be fine with witch burnings (the witches were violating community standards), forced temperance (Ben Franklin said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy"), and the varied and sundry current examples of the God-botherers forcing their arbitrary restrictions on a community? I think not.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
First, you have to prove the law was in fact prompted as a result of religious beliefs.
:) It'd be awefully hard to 'prove' something like that - these laws have been on the books for quite some time, and I'd be willing the bet that the Georgia assembly doesn't have perfect records of all state congressional sessions going back to the early part of this century. (I'm assuming here that the only thing that could 'prove' such a law was made in accordance with religious observations is to find the initial proposal and its defence way back when.) However, I propose an empirical test that will most likely give us some really, really good direction: 1. Have someone explain why 'Sunday' was picked over, let's say, Tuesday. 2. Publicly announce the plan to attempt to repeal the laws. See who squacks loudest. Not a mathematical proof, of course - but then again, this ain't no rocket science.
Russell Morris wrote:
1. Have someone explain why 'Sunday' was picked over, let's say, Tuesday.
Probably the same dumb reason many places prohibit selling liquor or beer after a certain hour of the evening/morning: some misguided do-gooder thinks that cutting off the supply mid-binge is gonna convince the partiers to give up and go home. Sunday being the second day of the customary two-day weekend means that you'd have to buy enough booze on Saturday to last you through both days. Don't get me wrong - i think there's a strong Protestant influence in many of these laws. I just don't think it's as simple as "don't drink on holidays". And sadly, the idea that you can manipulate people into behaving properly by passing bizarre and intrusive laws isn't limited to them either. ----
Bots don't know when people die. --Paul Watson, RIP
-
espeir wrote:
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
Instead, it's merely saying, "our clergy tells us that our God does not want us to drink alcoholic beverages on Sunday, and we're too weak to resist temptation, so we prohibit you from selling those beverages to us -- or anyone else." That sounds reasonable.
espeir wrote:
Because that is the local sensibility.
"Sensibility" has nothing to do with this insanity. I contend that you are advocating restricting the rights of humanists to restrict the rights of religion to restrict the rights of everyone. Gee, that sounds reasonable, too.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Instead, it's merely saying, "our clergy tells us that our God does not want us to drink alcoholic beverages on Sunday, and we're too weak to resist temptation, so we prohibit you from selling those beverages to us -- or anyone else." That sounds reasonable.
That's how you interpret it because you're a bigot and can't see it any other way.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Sensibility" has nothing to do with this insanity. I contend that you are advocating restricting the rights of humanists to restrict the rights of religion to restrict the rights of everyone. Gee, that sounds reasonable, too.
Sensibility has everything to do with it. The populace prefers such a statute so it exists. Humanists want to remove the democratic nature of our government to force their religious beliefs on unwilling people. By forcing the removal of a law, you're simply removing the rights to self government of the people of Fulton (unless they vote it out). Here's another question. In my city (Sandy Springs), which was incorporated just a few months ago, there was a moratorium placed on "adult businesses". There are 2 strip clubs. This was ushered in by our mayor, who is Jewish (despite being a very Christian town). It was not motivated by religion, but rather a "not in my backyard" ideal because we don't want those types of businesses effecting our property values. So, being that this was not inspired by religion but is congruent with how most Christians would view the situation, should this law be overturned? If so, then what rights to we have? If not, then why? Is it because it was not inspired by morality rooted from religion? If that's the case, then why do atheist/humanist values count while theist values do not?
-
Suggesting that laws based on morailty that is based on religion should be outlawed is expressly bigotted against religion. You're just saying that those with religious beliefs contrary to your own should simply be ignored by a secular totalitarian committee.
Not at all. I'm saying others' purely religious ideas cannot be enforced via law. This situation is not similar to commandments against murder, theft, etc... This is a law that says you shouldn't be able to drink on Sunday because it's a holy day. That's bull. It's not holy to me! If you don't want to drink on Sunday because it's holy, then don't!. Forcing that on others who may not share your beliefs is not ok. -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
Rob Graham wrote:
But it prevents athiests, bhuddists, and renegade muslims from throwing a spur of the moment Sunday drunk, therefore it discriminates based on religion.
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
Rob Graham wrote:
What justification is their for forcing those who do not share your belief's to adhere to their predjudices?
Because that is the local sensibility. Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs. Therefore restricting such an ordinance based on that belief is in fact forcing others to adhere to your prejudices. Of course that's what self-government is all about. No man is an island and we must adhere to the social definitions of acceptability in our specific communities.
espeir wrote:
Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs.
That absurd statement deserves a response on it's own. Aside from the fact that it is non-sensical (it is self-contratadictory), what do you base such a statement on? FranKly, I suspect that "Humanists[^]" (whatever group you mean by that - did you intend to say "Secularists[^]", or "Atheists[^]"?) could care less about your beliefs one way or the other. They might care about to what extent you are permitted to use civil law to enforce your beliefs, but they certainly don't give a damn what beliefs you choose to hold privately. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
-
espeir wrote:
The law doesn't say you can't drink on Sunday, it says that you can't purchase liquor in a retail outlet on Sunday. Secondly, it could only be view as discrimination if one group were allowed ot drink and another were not based on their religious views.
No, it prevents a non-protestant businessman (retail liquor store owner) from persuing his livelyhood on a day upon which he does not place any special meaning. Plus, it is splitting hairs to say that just because it doesn't prohibit drinking it is non-discrimainatory: it prevents an otherwqise everyday practice (purchase of liquor) for no other reason than that it offends the sensibilities of a particular RELIGEOUS group.
espeir wrote:
Because that is the local sensibility. Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs. Therefore restricting such an ordinance based on that belief is in fact forcing others to adhere to your prejudices. Of course that's what self-government is all about. No man is an island and we must adhere to the social definitions of acceptability in our specific communities
So you believe in tyranny by the majority? How does forcing others to observe your prejudices equate to self-government? Why are Protestants so weak in their faith that they feel compelled to force others to help them avaoid temptation? What difference could it possibly make to you if I chose to buy a bottle of wine (or bourbon) on Sunday? How does this make your world any safer or more pleasant? What gives you the right to prohibit me from doing something I do not find 'sinful', which is otherwise legal, and has absolutely no impact on your life? Your reasoning. carried to a logical conclusion, would justify 50.1% of the people in a community deciding to kill the other 49.9% because they "offended their sensibilities". Your reasoning is absurd. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote:
Plus, it is splitting hairs to say that just because it doesn't prohibit drinking it is non-discrimainatory: it prevents an otherwqise everyday practice (purchase of liquor) for no other reason than that it offends the sensibilities of a particular RELIGEOUS group.
Not splitting hairs. That's specifically the law. Not just a particular religious group, but the predominant religious group. The area has a sensibility different than yours and you want to force your religious views down our throats even though you don't live here. You want to tell us how to live. Fortunately this is America.
Rob Graham wrote:
So you believe in tyranny by the majority?
This topic was argued in the federalist papers and basically stems from an argument that the people are incapable of governing themselves prudently and must therefore be ruled by a king (which is what you're suggesting). The American People, hoever, have proved you wrong.
Rob Graham wrote:
How does forcing others to observe your prejudices equate to self-government?
Because what we do effects those around us and communities should be able to place regulations on themselves. Since, as I said, people are capable of governing themselves, these laws are overwhelmingly prudent. There are exceptions, but they are rare since those passing the laws must also abide by them.
Rob Graham wrote:
Why are Protestants so weak in their faith that they feel compelled to force others to help them avaoid temptation?
That's just your bigotted interpretation. You should be more open minded to cultures other than your own.
Rob Graham wrote:
What difference could it possibly make to you if I chose to buy a bottle of wine (or bourbon) on Sunday? How does this make your world any safer or more pleasant?
it doesn't really. And I've been annoyed by the law more than once (even trying to buy wine for cooking). If you ask me personally, I would prefer the law not be on the books. However, I respect the right of the people to have such a law on the books if they want it.
Rob Graham wrote:
What gives you the right to prohibit me from doing something I do not find 'sinful', which is otherwise legal, and has absolutely no impact
-
espeir wrote:
Humanists believe that there should be no beliefs.
That absurd statement deserves a response on it's own. Aside from the fact that it is non-sensical (it is self-contratadictory), what do you base such a statement on? FranKly, I suspect that "Humanists[^]" (whatever group you mean by that - did you intend to say "Secularists[^]", or "Atheists[^]"?) could care less about your beliefs one way or the other. They might care about to what extent you are permitted to use civil law to enforce your beliefs, but they certainly don't give a damn what beliefs you choose to hold privately. Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke
Rob Graham wrote:
whatever group you mean by that
I should have specifically said "secular humanists". That's what most militant atheists call themselves these days.
Rob Graham wrote:
They might care about to what extent you are permitted to use civil law to enforce your beliefs, but they certainly don't give a damn what beliefs you choose to hold privately.
Tell that to the ACLU!
