Two questions
-
You have to look at the reason as well as the restriction.
Why? So that you can explicitely exclude anything that might have some association to somebody's religious beliefs? That's discrimination.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
I agree there is an "ideal size" of government. If government power is at a larger level (federal), then it tends to impose the will of a distant majority. This was the case in 1787, when the North had a large population and differing world views than the South. Hence the two houses...one based on population and the other by state. On the other hand, as government gets smaller it more accurately represents the desires of the people but will eventually become anarchy if taken to the individual level. At that point, then an individual could pile garbage on his front lawn and his neighbor would have no recourse.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
There is specifically an amendment that says the government can't make such laws. Additionally, each state has such an amendment to ensure state and local governments can't make such laws. But if you actually read the text, it says that congress won't make a law. That doesn't mean that people's practices need to be restricted to their bedrooms. On the contrary, it means that the government can't restrict their practices because by doing so, they are establishing a national religion.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I was generalizing
You were making a negative generalization about a religious group of people. That's bigotry. I'll let it slide if you bend to my will and agree with my clearly superior logic!
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Now you're just being a tool. National prohibition was not limited to any one religion's day of worship. Also, while its root motivation may have been religious (hence the repeal), the public reasoning and the implementation were both secular.
Neither is this law limited to one religion's day of worship. This law was implemented by Protestants, and Protestantism is in direct opposition to Catholicism, yet they share the same day. Your reasoning suggests that the law is invalid merely because the day chosen has religious significance. That is discriminatory towards Christians (who we already know you have bigotted feelings towards). Further, I have no problem with Jewish communities outlawing the sale of ham in their neighborhoods. I find that to be perfectly valid. If I moved to such a community, I would expect to respect such a law.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Blue laws are a result of religious fear and intolerance -- also strong shapers of local culture -- and are kept on the books by a mix of religious intimidation and local apathy. They have disappeared from most of the country -- usually coincident with the appearance of a more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace -- and maybe someday will be gone forever.
Ironic, since you're advocating their removal over fear and intolerance of the religious. I wonder when they "more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace" will stop harboring bigotted attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them. I thought tolerance was one of the cornerstones of the "enlightened".
espeir wrote:
You were making a negative generalization about a religious group of people. That's bigotry. I'll let it slide if you bend to my will and agree with my clearly superior logic!
And, as usual, you're not addressing the issue. I would suggest a logic suppository -- it may reach your brain faster by virtue of proximity.
espeir wrote:
Neither is this law limited to one religion's day of worship. This law was implemented by Protestants, and Protestantism is in direct opposition to Catholicism, yet they share the same day. Your reasoning suggests that the law is invalid merely because the day chosen has religious significance. That is discriminatory towards Christians (who we already know you have bigotted feelings towards).
Yes, Sunday is one religion's day of worship. It may belong to others as well, but the people who enacted this law did so because it was their day of worship. You're also making quite an assumption that I'm not a Christian.
espeir wrote:
Further, I have no problem with Jewish communities outlawing the sale of ham in their neighborhoods. I find that to be perfectly valid. If I moved to such a community, I would expect to respect such a law.
If you truly have no problem with this, then you're insane and it's been interesting chatting with you. Religious ghettos, tyranny of the majority, these seem to be acceptable principles to you.
espeir wrote:
Ironic, since you're advocating their removal over fear and intolerance of the religious. I wonder when they "more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace" will stop harboring bigotted attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them. I thought tolerance was one of the cornerstones of the "enlightened".
I don't fear the religious. Again, you are incorrect to presume I'm not religious. I just don't want to have to follow someone else's arbitrary (to me) religious laws. And, since it looks like this conversation is almost wrapped up, I've got to say that, if you're going to accuse someone of being bigoted, you should at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
-
Why? So that you can explicitely exclude anything that might have some association to somebody's religious beliefs? That's discrimination.
No, so that you can exclude anything based solely on one group's (or sub-group's) religious beliefs, that offers no practical benefit to society, and that can be considered discriminatory to people of other faiths.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
I agree there is an "ideal size" of government. If government power is at a larger level (federal), then it tends to impose the will of a distant majority. This was the case in 1787, when the North had a large population and differing world views than the South. Hence the two houses...one based on population and the other by state. On the other hand, as government gets smaller it more accurately represents the desires of the people but will eventually become anarchy if taken to the individual level. At that point, then an individual could pile garbage on his front lawn and his neighbor would have no recourse.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
There is specifically an amendment that says the government can't make such laws. Additionally, each state has such an amendment to ensure state and local governments can't make such laws. But if you actually read the text, it says that congress won't make a law. That doesn't mean that people's practices need to be restricted to their bedrooms. On the contrary, it means that the government can't restrict their practices because by doing so, they are establishing a national religion.
espeir wrote:
There is specifically an amendment that says the government can't make such laws. Additionally, each state has such an amendment to ensure state and local governments can't make such laws. But if you actually read the text, it says that congress won't make a law. That doesn't mean that people's practices need to be restricted to their bedrooms. On the contrary, it means that the government can't restrict their practices because by doing so, they are establishing a national religion.
And we're back to religious ghettos/fiefdoms.
-
espeir wrote:
You were making a negative generalization about a religious group of people. That's bigotry. I'll let it slide if you bend to my will and agree with my clearly superior logic!
And, as usual, you're not addressing the issue. I would suggest a logic suppository -- it may reach your brain faster by virtue of proximity.
espeir wrote:
Neither is this law limited to one religion's day of worship. This law was implemented by Protestants, and Protestantism is in direct opposition to Catholicism, yet they share the same day. Your reasoning suggests that the law is invalid merely because the day chosen has religious significance. That is discriminatory towards Christians (who we already know you have bigotted feelings towards).
Yes, Sunday is one religion's day of worship. It may belong to others as well, but the people who enacted this law did so because it was their day of worship. You're also making quite an assumption that I'm not a Christian.
espeir wrote:
Further, I have no problem with Jewish communities outlawing the sale of ham in their neighborhoods. I find that to be perfectly valid. If I moved to such a community, I would expect to respect such a law.
If you truly have no problem with this, then you're insane and it's been interesting chatting with you. Religious ghettos, tyranny of the majority, these seem to be acceptable principles to you.
espeir wrote:
Ironic, since you're advocating their removal over fear and intolerance of the religious. I wonder when they "more educated, enlightened, and upwardly mobile populace" will stop harboring bigotted attitudes towards anyone who disagrees with them. I thought tolerance was one of the cornerstones of the "enlightened".
I don't fear the religious. Again, you are incorrect to presume I'm not religious. I just don't want to have to follow someone else's arbitrary (to me) religious laws. And, since it looks like this conversation is almost wrapped up, I've got to say that, if you're going to accuse someone of being bigoted, you should at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And, as usual, you're not addressing the issue.
What issue? The one I've clearly explained numerous times?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, Sunday is one religion's day of worship. It may belong to others as well, but the people who enacted this law did so because it was their day of worship. You're also making quite an assumption that I'm not a Christian.
Unless you're particularly self-loathing, I would venture to guess that you're not Christian. Few Christians hate Christians as much as you seem to.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you truly have no problem with this, then you're insane and it's been interesting chatting with you. Religious ghettos, tyranny of the majority, these seem to be acceptable principles to you.
How is that insane? It's called culture and some of us still have and respect it. It's not tyrannous, and I challenge you to explain how. The religious ghetto argument is obviously flawed because this country is over 200 years old and these laws have worked wonderfully.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't fear the religious. Again, you are incorrect to presume I'm not religious. I just don't want to have to follow someone else's arbitrary (to me) religious laws.
Liar. What religion are you?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And, since it looks like this conversation is almost wrapped up, I've got to say that, if you're going to accuse someone of being bigoted, you should at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
I guess that means I win the argument when you point out spelling mistakes! :-D
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And, as usual, you're not addressing the issue.
What issue? The one I've clearly explained numerous times?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Yes, Sunday is one religion's day of worship. It may belong to others as well, but the people who enacted this law did so because it was their day of worship. You're also making quite an assumption that I'm not a Christian.
Unless you're particularly self-loathing, I would venture to guess that you're not Christian. Few Christians hate Christians as much as you seem to.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If you truly have no problem with this, then you're insane and it's been interesting chatting with you. Religious ghettos, tyranny of the majority, these seem to be acceptable principles to you.
How is that insane? It's called culture and some of us still have and respect it. It's not tyrannous, and I challenge you to explain how. The religious ghetto argument is obviously flawed because this country is over 200 years old and these laws have worked wonderfully.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I don't fear the religious. Again, you are incorrect to presume I'm not religious. I just don't want to have to follow someone else's arbitrary (to me) religious laws.
Liar. What religion are you?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
And, since it looks like this conversation is almost wrapped up, I've got to say that, if you're going to accuse someone of being bigoted, you should at least learn how to spell the word correctly.
I guess that means I win the argument when you point out spelling mistakes! :-D
espeir wrote:
What issue? The one I've clearly explained numerous times?
No, the one you keep dodging.
espeir wrote:
Unless you're particularly self-loathing, I would venture to guess that you're not Christian. Few Christians hate Christians as much as you seem to.
I don't like people not of my faith telling me I have to live by their rules.
espeir wrote:
Liar. What religion are you?
Pound sand, jackass. It's none of your business, and that's part of the problem. Which you apparently still don't get.
espeir wrote:
I guess that means I win the argument when you point out spelling mistakes!
Kind of pulled that rule out of your ass, didn't you? I read English, so it bugs me. Thought you might find it useful in the future. Guess not.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
A republic with strictly contained federal authority.
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"? Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
No, as a matter of fact we wouldn't. For exactly the same reason we no longer have slavery. The original federal constitution allowed overtly amending the constitution for dealing with such contingencies. The federal government was perfectly within its constitutional authority to admend the constitution to outlaw slavery, and it would have been well within its constitutional authority to overtly outlaw witch burning.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"?
As that is precisely how this nation was governed for at least 75% or so of its history, than yes it is obviously safe to conclude that they were fine with it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
No it doesn't go on. You're wrong, end of story. This nation was not established as some kind of fucking secular-humanist utopia, and no matter how much revisionism you spew, that is simply the way it is. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 16:52 Monday 6th March, 2006
-
You have to look at the reason as well as the restriction.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You have to look at the reason as well as the restriction.
Not really. See Wikipedia on "Blue Laws"[^] 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:
You have to look at the reason as well as the restriction.
Not really. See Wikipedia on "Blue Laws"[^] 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.
As the anti-choice crowd will affirm, people don't always agree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court. It also should be noted that, in this case, the decision was not unanimous, and Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion is also an interesting read.
-
I notice that no secular humanists want to address this question. :)
espeir wrote:
I notice that no secular humanists want to address this question
Perhaps there are none here. The appropriate answer, however, is that switching the arguement from religiously based prohibitions on certain type of commerce on Sunday to Public sex acts is quite a strawman tactic. The two are not really comparable, and laws against public sex acts are justified as protecting young children from being exposed to behavior they would not understand (hell, I wouldn't understand 80 year old hoboes making it in public. The mental image alternates between appalingly comical and nauseating) and that the vast majority of people would find objectionable on grounds that have no particular religeous basis. The argument is not whether laws that restrict public behavior are wrong in themselves, but whether one can justify them purely on the basis of a majority religious inclination. It happens that what is for the general public good often overlaps the instructions common to many religions. 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
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear. My point was that, with federal authority limited as strictly as you advocate, we could still have communities that burned witches.
No, as a matter of fact we wouldn't. For exactly the same reason we no longer have slavery. The original federal constitution allowed overtly amending the constitution for dealing with such contingencies. The federal government was perfectly within its constitutional authority to admend the constitution to outlaw slavery, and it would have been well within its constitutional authority to overtly outlaw witch burning.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
So the founders would have been fine with, "you're free to worship, just not here"?
As that is precisely how this nation was governed for at least 75% or so of its history, than yes it is obviously safe to conclude that they were fine with it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sorry, but you are simply wrong. And on it goes...
No it doesn't go on. You're wrong, end of story. This nation was not established as some kind of fucking secular-humanist utopia, and no matter how much revisionism you spew, that is simply the way it is. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 16:52 Monday 6th March, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
No it doesn't go on. You're wrong, end of story. This nation was not established as some kind of f***ing secular-humanist utopia, and no matter how much revisionism you spew, that is simply the way it is.
Nations grow and change -- the founders planned for that, and I think their ideals are still mostly well-represented -- and no matter how much anti-secular-humanist, hyper-conservative interpretive history you spew, it'll never be 1700 again. That is simply the way it is.
-
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:
Where did you infer that?
I inferred that when you said I was applying my sensibilites to the community by saying a law against murder is just. Part of the reasoning behind a law against murder is that it both restricts and protects everyone equally. A law against selling liquor in Sunday only restricts people who want to buy or sell liquor, but it benefits nobody because poeple can still possess and drink liquor. So, it's not my sensibilities that I'm trying to enforce here - that's what the liquor law is.
espeir wrote:
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
I guess it depends. I certainly wouldn't want to watch, but I'm not being forced to. If the hobos are hiding in some trees and it's mutually consentual, then whatever. If they're on a street corner, I'd object. I don't think we need a law unless it harms someone though. Sure, someone will say, "What about the children," but what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
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 »
-
As the anti-choice crowd will affirm, people don't always agree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court. It also should be noted that, in this case, the decision was not unanimous, and Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion is also an interesting read.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
people don't always agree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court
that's true. but that is irrelevant.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion is also an interesting read
i'll go read it.
-
espeir wrote:
Where did you infer that?
I inferred that when you said I was applying my sensibilites to the community by saying a law against murder is just. Part of the reasoning behind a law against murder is that it both restricts and protects everyone equally. A law against selling liquor in Sunday only restricts people who want to buy or sell liquor, but it benefits nobody because poeple can still possess and drink liquor. So, it's not my sensibilities that I'm trying to enforce here - that's what the liquor law is.
espeir wrote:
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
I guess it depends. I certainly wouldn't want to watch, but I'm not being forced to. If the hobos are hiding in some trees and it's mutually consentual, then whatever. If they're on a street corner, I'd object. I don't think we need a law unless it harms someone though. Sure, someone will say, "What about the children," but what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
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:
write a law to stop monkies too
LOL
-
espeir wrote:
Where did you infer that?
I inferred that when you said I was applying my sensibilites to the community by saying a law against murder is just. Part of the reasoning behind a law against murder is that it both restricts and protects everyone equally. A law against selling liquor in Sunday only restricts people who want to buy or sell liquor, but it benefits nobody because poeple can still possess and drink liquor. So, it's not my sensibilities that I'm trying to enforce here - that's what the liquor law is.
espeir wrote:
Seriously? You would have no problem if 80 year old hobos would do the nasty in your local public park?
I guess it depends. I certainly wouldn't want to watch, but I'm not being forced to. If the hobos are hiding in some trees and it's mutually consentual, then whatever. If they're on a street corner, I'd object. I don't think we need a law unless it harms someone though. Sure, someone will say, "What about the children," but what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
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:
what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
With monkies, parents can maintain the pretense that somehow humans have a more artisic or nobel means of expressing their affection. We remain at liberty to categorize the monkey behavior as subhuman, or at least inappropriate for humans. When humans are involved, the explanations are more difficult... Besides, even atheists can recognize inappropriate public behavior when they see it. 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
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No it doesn't go on. You're wrong, end of story. This nation was not established as some kind of f***ing secular-humanist utopia, and no matter how much revisionism you spew, that is simply the way it is.
Nations grow and change -- the founders planned for that, and I think their ideals are still mostly well-represented -- and no matter how much anti-secular-humanist, hyper-conservative interpretive history you spew, it'll never be 1700 again. That is simply the way it is.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
the founders planned for that
Absolutely they planned for it - by a strictly defined mechanism, amending the constitution not by interpreting it for the benefit of one paticular philosophy. The kind of country we are today is what the founders were most concerned that we might become and tried most diligently to protect us from becoming. Unlike yourself, the founders were wise enough to understand that any central government that could dictate one set of principles to the people had the power to dictate any set of principles to them. The irony is that the only reason we are threatened by religious extremism today is because of the very power the federal government has stolen from we the people in order to protect us from religious extremism. These are battles that we the people should be fighting among ourselves, and not giving the government the power to fight them for us. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
people don't always agree with the conclusions of the Supreme Court
that's true. but that is irrelevant.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Justice Douglas' dissenting opinion is also an interesting read
i'll go read it.
ahz wrote:
that's true. but that is irrelevant.
When I questioned whether or not Protestant law being applied to non-Protestants was right, I was thinking about more a personal sense of right and wrong, rather than legally, hence my disagreement with the Supremes. I think my statement is relevant in that context.
-
Daniel R Ferguson wrote:
what about the children who happen to see the monkies at the zoo? Are we going to write a law to stop monkies too?
With monkies, parents can maintain the pretense that somehow humans have a more artisic or nobel means of expressing their affection. We remain at liberty to categorize the monkey behavior as subhuman, or at least inappropriate for humans. When humans are involved, the explanations are more difficult... Besides, even atheists can recognize inappropriate public behavior when they see it. 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:
Besides, even atheists can recognize inappropriate public behavior when they see it.
Aha! Tell that to the "believers". Unless you accept Christ as your saviour, you're nothing but dead meat, going straight to hell, and is incapable of do the right thing.
-
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:
since we've descended to name calling, I'm thinking you're about twenty pounds of troll droppings in a ten pound bag.
:laugh: Oh man, that's great! My sig is due for an upgrade, may I? Alvaro
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. - Theodore Roosevelt