Two questions
-
So on the one hand, you say that "Christians aren't opposed to drinking," while in your original post, you said the restriction was "based on Protestant values." Which is it? Or are you just trolling? (I think I already know the answer to this question.)
Catholics are not opposed to drinking. Aren't they Christian? I think Protestants are opposed to overdrinking and drinking on Sunday (hence the law).
-
espeir wrote:
there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday
The solution is obviously to get blindingly drunk on Saturday and you'll be glad you can't drink on Sunday... ;)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
I prefer Friday. Keeps me through the weekend. :) But you're allowed to drink on Sunday (even in restaurants). You just can't buy liquor from a retail establishment on Sunday.
-
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.
espeir wrote:
based on Protestant values
I doubt the law was based on religious values. It was based way back on the fact that a lot of misbehaviour resulted from bars' patrons over-drinking. This is misbehaviour due to drunken brawls, drunken driving, drunk-induced raping, drunken-induced property damage, etc. These things effect everyone. So, in order to preserve the peace for at least ONE day per weekend, laws were passed to prohibit the SALE (not the drinking) of alcohol on ONE day per weekend. Sunday was chosen due to the fact that most of the people weren't in the bars anyway. Which choice least negatively impacted the bars economically.
espeir wrote:
SHOULD drink on Sunday
espeir wrote:
imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays
they can by their wine on Saturday. there is no law restricting the drinking of alcohol on Sunday.
-
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.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
restrict Protestants from buying alcohol on Sunday
that would definately make it discriminatory and unconstitutional.
-
You're saying that laws against murder are valid because you agree that they are prudent (despite being based on the commandments). Then (quite amazingly) in the same breath you claim that a law prohibiting the sale of liquor (it doesn't prohibit drinking, btw) is not valid because you don't find it prudent. And yet you believe that the people are entitled to make the former but not the latter into law...merely because of YOUR personal beliefs. Do you endorse totalitarianism?
espeir wrote:
You're saying that laws against murder are valid because you agree that they are prudent (despite being based on the commandments).
Equating the driving force behind laws against murder and laws saying you can't buy booze on the Christian holy day of the week is inappropriate. In no way, shape, or form is the Judeo-Christian commandment against murder unique. A law against murder cannot be said to be 'Christian' anymore than it could be 'Hindu', 'Native American', etc... Laws against murder are the norm for just about any religion or organized society. The idea did not originate in Christianity, nor is it unique to Christianity. Thusly, it is not a proper counter-example to the blue-book laws we've been arguing about. A law that says nobody is allowed to buy booze on Sunday (because it's the Christian holy day) is an example of law that is meant to enforce behavior highly unique to a specific religious sect. It's not ok.
espeir wrote:
Do you endorse totalitarianism?
Have you stopped beating your wife :rolleyes: -- Russell Morris "So, broccoli, mother says you're good for me... but I'm afraid I'm no good for you!" - Stewy
-
espeir wrote:
there is a law prohibiting the sale of alcohol in retail outlets on Sunday
The solution is obviously to get blindingly drunk on Saturday and you'll be glad you can't drink on Sunday... ;)
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
The Baptists perfected that strategy several generations ago. "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.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So our founders would be fine with witch burnings
I think the founders would point out that people at the local level resolved that issue without interference from a centralized federal authority.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
forced temperance (Ben Franklin said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy")
The left really abuses poor ol' Ben. Franklin lived in a society, and (literally) signed off on a form of government, which gave local citizenry the power to do that very thing.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and the varied and sundry current examples of the God-botherers forcing their arbitrary restrictions on a community? I think not.
Which indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 14:11 Monday 6th March, 2006
-
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
from Wikipedia "Blue Law"[^] The Supreme Court of the United States held in McGowan v. Maryland (1961) that Maryland's blue laws violated neither the Free Exercise Clause nor the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. While such laws originated to encourage attendance at Christian churches, the contemporary Maryland laws were intended to promote the secular values of "health, safety, recreation, and general well-being" through a common day of rest. That this day coincides with the Christian Sabbath neither reduces its effectiveness for secular purposes nor prevents adherents of other religions from observing their own holy days. The status of blue laws vis-à-vis the Free Exercise Clause conceivably would have to be re-evaluated if challenged by an adherent of a religion which required the conduct of commerce on Sunday.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So our founders would be fine with witch burnings
I think the founders would point out that people at the local level resolved that issue without interference from a centralized federal authority.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
forced temperance (Ben Franklin said, "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy")
The left really abuses poor ol' Ben. Franklin lived in a society, and (literally) signed off on a form of government, which gave local citizenry the power to do that very thing.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and the varied and sundry current examples of the God-botherers forcing their arbitrary restrictions on a community? I think not.
Which indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 14:11 Monday 6th March, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the founders would point out that people at the local level resolved that issue without interference from a centralized federal authority.
Eventually, and at what cost?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left really abuses poor ol' Ben. Franklin lived in a society, and (literally) signed off on a form of government, which gave local citizenry the power to do that very thing.
No, the left actually agrees with Ben. I disagree that the founders supported the idea of religious fiefdoms.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have.
And everything you have said indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have. And on it goes...
-
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:
That's just your bigotted interpretation. You should be more open minded to cultures other than your own.
Where's the bigotry? It's a reasonable question, IMO. And I am talking about my own culture, being of protestant upbringing and living in the Atlanta suburbs...Also, my family has lived in this country since before the Revolutionary War (no they weren't Torries either). You should be a bit more circumspect before leaping to conclusions. Instead of simply hurling ill considered epithets, you might try refuting the argument.
espeir wrote:
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).
No, it stems from the argument that a pure democracy quickly degenerates into tyranny by majority. It was the success of this argument that caused the founding fathers to opt for a republic, rather than a pure democracy. It is the rationale behind the electoral college and lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. (Have you even read the Federalist Papers?) And please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I have never sugested that monarchy, dictatorship, or any other form of government would be superior to what we have. With all its flaws, there is no better form of goverment than ours.
espeir wrote:
Well...I thought the argument arose because it was not legal.
You're being deliberately thick-headed, I think,: the 'otherwise' is significant, i.e legal any other day.
espeir wrote:
My reasoning depends on a reasonable populace. As I said, America proved that we are capable of self government long ago. Sure, if we lived in Germany we might have to be worried about something like that, but this is America.
A reasonable populace does not need to enact laws to force the minority to observe majority preferences. A reasonable populace tolerates variation in belief (or non-belief) as long as it does not trample the rights of one in order to favor the views of another. And what is "overwhelmingly prudent" about prohibiting the sale of alchohol on one specific day of the week? Especially when it is coupled with allowing it as long as food is served at the same premises, and the alcohol is
-
You're saying that laws against murder are valid because you agree that they are prudent (despite being based on the commandments). Then (quite amazingly) in the same breath you claim that a law prohibiting the sale of liquor (it doesn't prohibit drinking, btw) is not valid because you don't find it prudent. And yet you believe that the people are entitled to make the former but not the latter into law...merely because of YOUR personal beliefs. Do you endorse totalitarianism?
espeir wrote:
laws against murder are valid because you agree that they are prudent
Laws against murder are valid because they protect people from harm.
espeir wrote:
a law prohibiting the sale of liquor (it doesn't prohibit drinking, btw) is not valid because you don't find it prudent
They're not valid because they don't protect anyone from harm. Sure, someone could drink and drive and kill another person, but 1) it's still the killing that's wrong and we have a law against that already 2) you can buy enough beer on Saturday to keep you going on Sunday anyway.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Catholics are not opposed to drinking. Aren't they Christian? I think Protestants are opposed to overdrinking and drinking on Sunday (hence the law).
Overdrinking -- specifically, public drunkenness, including drunk driving -- has negative effects that a consensus of reasonable people can see, agree upon, and quantify, and therefore justify restricting the behavior. Drinking on Sunday? Explain the negative effects, please. It is an arbitrary restriction, based on a specific set of religious beliefs, and would be served just as well by churchgoers agreeing not to drink on Sunday.
-
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!
espeir wrote:
I should have specifically said "secular humanists". That's what most militant atheists call themselves these days.
Being neither, I wouldn't know. I suspect, however, that "militant athiests" call themselves just that.
espeir wrote:
Tell that to the ACLU!
I'll be glad to tell Bob Barr, the next time I run into him, athough I don't see how that pertains to the argument at hand. 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:
That's just your bigotted interpretation. You should be more open minded to cultures other than your own.
Where's the bigotry? It's a reasonable question, IMO. And I am talking about my own culture, being of protestant upbringing and living in the Atlanta suburbs...Also, my family has lived in this country since before the Revolutionary War (no they weren't Torries either). You should be a bit more circumspect before leaping to conclusions. Instead of simply hurling ill considered epithets, you might try refuting the argument.
espeir wrote:
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).
No, it stems from the argument that a pure democracy quickly degenerates into tyranny by majority. It was the success of this argument that caused the founding fathers to opt for a republic, rather than a pure democracy. It is the rationale behind the electoral college and lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. (Have you even read the Federalist Papers?) And please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I have never sugested that monarchy, dictatorship, or any other form of government would be superior to what we have. With all its flaws, there is no better form of goverment than ours.
espeir wrote:
Well...I thought the argument arose because it was not legal.
You're being deliberately thick-headed, I think,: the 'otherwise' is significant, i.e legal any other day.
espeir wrote:
My reasoning depends on a reasonable populace. As I said, America proved that we are capable of self government long ago. Sure, if we lived in Germany we might have to be worried about something like that, but this is America.
A reasonable populace does not need to enact laws to force the minority to observe majority preferences. A reasonable populace tolerates variation in belief (or non-belief) as long as it does not trample the rights of one in order to favor the views of another. And what is "overwhelmingly prudent" about prohibiting the sale of alchohol on one specific day of the week? Especially when it is coupled with allowing it as long as food is served at the same premises, and the alcohol is
while I don't see anything particularly wrong with the law (even though it may have been originally based on religious beliefs -- a fact I think is in question), I like the reasoned way you responded. I also like your reasoning and knowledge of history and facts. You got my five.
-
espeir wrote:
based on Protestant values
I doubt the law was based on religious values. It was based way back on the fact that a lot of misbehaviour resulted from bars' patrons over-drinking. This is misbehaviour due to drunken brawls, drunken driving, drunk-induced raping, drunken-induced property damage, etc. These things effect everyone. So, in order to preserve the peace for at least ONE day per weekend, laws were passed to prohibit the SALE (not the drinking) of alcohol on ONE day per weekend. Sunday was chosen due to the fact that most of the people weren't in the bars anyway. Which choice least negatively impacted the bars economically.
espeir wrote:
SHOULD drink on Sunday
espeir wrote:
imprudent to illegalize the selling of wine on Sundays
they can by their wine on Saturday. there is no law restricting the drinking of alcohol on Sunday.
ahz wrote:
they can by their wine on Saturday. there is no law restricting the drinking of alcohol on Sunday.
But what about when they forget to buy it on saturday??
-
espeir wrote:
That's how you interpret it because you're a bigot and can't see it any other way.
I don't see how that statement shows bigotry; but since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag.
espeir wrote:
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).
Humanists don't want to force religious beliefs on anybody, you thick-headed waste of breathable atmosphere. Removing restrictions is not forcing anything. You are still free not to buy alcohol on Sunday. Free. Not restricted. Free. One way, you can either buy or not. The other, only the "not" part. Get it?
espeir wrote:
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?
Adult businesses bring down property values. This is a quantifiable, secular reason for zoning ordinances. This is restriction because of something that would negatively affect everyone, regardless of religious beliefs. As opposed to restricting activity because "my God says it's bad."
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't see how that statement shows bigotry
You stated that protestants are incapable of resisting tempatations. Sounds pretty biggoted to me.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Humanists don't want to force religious beliefs on anybody
Again, tell that to the ACLU. Freedom does not equate to anarchy. It does not simply mean you do whatever you want. We have the freedom to govern ourselves and determine what is law and what isn't. By restricting laws merely because they were inspired by religion is overt discrimination against the religious.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Adult businesses bring down property values. This is a quantifiable, secular reason for zoning ordinances. This is restriction because of something that would negatively affect everyone, regardless of religious beliefs. As opposed to restricting activity because "my God says it's bad."
But in my community, no such reason was stated nor implied. Quite simply, our community does not want them there, regardless of the property value. I find it odd that you would commit to defending this case simply because you cannot find a religious basis. That's extremely discriminatory.
-
espeir wrote:
laws against murder are valid because you agree that they are prudent
Laws against murder are valid because they protect people from harm.
espeir wrote:
a law prohibiting the sale of liquor (it doesn't prohibit drinking, btw) is not valid because you don't find it prudent
They're not valid because they don't protect anyone from harm. Sure, someone could drink and drive and kill another person, but 1) it's still the killing that's wrong and we have a law against that already 2) you can buy enough beer on Saturday to keep you going on Sunday anyway.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
Laws against murder are valid because they protect people from harm.
Again, you're applying your sensibilities to another community.
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
They're not valid because they don't protect anyone from harm. Sure, someone could drink and drive and kill another person, but 1) it's still the killing that's wrong and we have a law against that already 2) you can buy enough beer on Saturday to keep you going on Sunday anyway.
What do you think about public sex acts? Should they be legal?
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the founders would point out that people at the local level resolved that issue without interference from a centralized federal authority.
Eventually, and at what cost?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The left really abuses poor ol' Ben. Franklin lived in a society, and (literally) signed off on a form of government, which gave local citizenry the power to do that very thing.
No, the left actually agrees with Ben. I disagree that the founders supported the idea of religious fiefdoms.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have.
And everything you have said indicates precisely how little undertanding you have of the form of government we were supposed to have. And on it goes...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I disagree that the founders supported the idea of religious fiefdoms.
:omg: And you claim to have an understanding of our government?? Why, then, did they make the very first amendment in the Bill Of Rights state that the government won't establish one?? Wow.
-
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
Well, they passed a "drinking curfew" in Fulton county after a couple of late night shootings in the bar district. There hasn't been any since.
-
ahz wrote:
they can by their wine on Saturday. there is no law restricting the drinking of alcohol on Sunday.
But what about when they forget to buy it on saturday??
espeir wrote:
forget to buy it on saturday
they can borrow from their neighbor. or go without.
