Two questions
-
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.
espeir wrote:
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.
Well, good. Obviously it worked, then... ...so, how many shootings elsewhere... ;) ----
Bots don't know when people die. --Paul Watson, RIP
-
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:
I doubt the law was based on religious values.
Oh, a good many of them probably were. There were a lot of laws passed as an effort to enforce morality (and still are for various interpretations of the concept). But the thing is, most of them didn't stick around. I can buy just about anything on a Sunday now, so claiming that the reason these laws still exist is some sort of Puritan Oppression... well, it rings a bit hollow to my ears. The concepts of morality that seem to motivate most such laws now seem to be based more on various superstitious ideas of what's "best" for other people. No buying/selling/using certain drugs. No smoking. No talking on your phone while driving. No raising your children according to your own beliefs. No drinking unpasteurized milk... You get the idea. Old laws stick around, with new motivations behind them... ----
Bots don't know when people die. --Paul Watson, RIP
-
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.
Maybe you should read his response again. Your reply suggests that you agree with what he said: that the founding fathers did not support the idea of religious fiefdoms. 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
-
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?
espeir wrote:
Again, you're applying your sensibilities to another community.
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
espeir wrote:
What do you think about public sex acts? Should they be legal?
As long as I'm involved! :laugh:
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 »
-
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.
espeir wrote:
Well, they passed a "drinking curfew" in Fulton county after a couple of late night shootings in the bar district.
It would make more sense to ban the guns, or maybe even just the bullets. ;P
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 »
-
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:
You stated that protestants are incapable of resisting tempatations. Sounds pretty biggoted to me.
I made no such statement. Here's the logic behind what I did say. Prohibition of drinking on the Sabbath is something of which God disapproves; but, apparently aware that an uncomfortably large number of people don't care that God doesn't want them to drink on Sunday -- or at least are unable, without additional incentive, to resist the temptation of demon rum -- and would go ahead and stock that cooler anyway, they arranged things so that man could enforce "God's law".
espeir wrote:
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.
Not laws inspired by religion. Just laws that enforce religion.
espeir wrote:
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.
Absolutely not true. The practical reasons may have been assumed, but they were there. As opposed to blue laws.
-
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:
dry county
That's a bon jovi song. A good one, too, before they started to suck. Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
restrict Protestants from buying alcohol on Sunday
that would definately make it discriminatory and unconstitutional.
And yet there is nothing wrong with restricting non-Protestants from selling alcohol on the Protestant day of worship.
-
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.
Do you not understand what a fiefdom is?
-
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.
espeir wrote:
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
Not exactly true Buckhead shooting[^] Check your "facts" more closely. 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:
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
Not exactly true Buckhead shooting[^] Check your "facts" more closely. 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
What facts are you disputing?
-
espeir wrote:
Again, you're applying your sensibilities to another community.
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
espeir wrote:
What do you think about public sex acts? Should they be legal?
As long as I'm involved! :laugh:
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:
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
Where did you infer that?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
As long as I'm involved!
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
-
espeir wrote:
You stated that protestants are incapable of resisting tempatations. Sounds pretty biggoted to me.
I made no such statement. Here's the logic behind what I did say. Prohibition of drinking on the Sabbath is something of which God disapproves; but, apparently aware that an uncomfortably large number of people don't care that God doesn't want them to drink on Sunday -- or at least are unable, without additional incentive, to resist the temptation of demon rum -- and would go ahead and stock that cooler anyway, they arranged things so that man could enforce "God's law".
espeir wrote:
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.
Not laws inspired by religion. Just laws that enforce religion.
espeir wrote:
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.
Absolutely not true. The practical reasons may have been assumed, but they were there. As opposed to blue laws.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I made no such statement.
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."
:rolleyes:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Not laws inspired by religion. Just laws that enforce religion.
How does this enforce religion? Prohibition was once a national law.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Absolutely not true. The practical reasons may have been assumed, but they were there. As opposed to blue laws.
The Blue laws are a result of local culture. Just like San Francisco likes local smutshops, we don't want them. That's why we outtlaw them and have the power to do so.
-
And yet there is nothing wrong with restricting non-Protestants from selling alcohol on the Protestant day of worship.
Not as long as it restricts everyone.
-
Do you not understand what a fiefdom is?
I read it as freedoms. :laugh:
-
What facts are you disputing?
espeir wrote:
What facts are you disputing?
That there have been no shootings since the drinking hours have changed. The link is to an article about a shooing that occured this January... I would grant that fewer shootings have occurred, but not that none have, as you stated. It took less than 15 seconds on Google to find that... 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:
What facts are you disputing?
That there have been no shootings since the drinking hours have changed. The link is to an article about a shooing that occured this January... I would grant that fewer shootings have occurred, but not that none have, as you stated. It took less than 15 seconds on Google to find that... 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
Buckhead is a large area. I didn't say "Buckhead" either. I said "Bar district". That's a very small strip of bars in Buckhead. Try and get your facts straight.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
So you're telling me that laws against murder are a bad thing?
Where did you infer that?
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
As long as I'm involved!
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
-
Buckhead is a large area. I didn't say "Buckhead" either. I said "Bar district". That's a very small strip of bars in Buckhead. Try and get your facts straight.
-
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:
at what cost?
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I disagree that the founders supported the idea of religious fiefdoms.
They lived in religious fiefdoms.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
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...
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The founders, including Franklin, did everything possible to construct a form of government that made the principles currently promoted by the left impossible. It has taken 200+ years of tinkering to accomplish, but we finally have a form of government which stands our original constitutional republic on its head. "You get that which you tolerate"
