<talking about not being able to buy beer on Sunday morning.
This is just me, I love beer, i would just be like, "oh well I guess I'll wait till noon to buy the beer" I wouldn't really go as far as making a complaint, because waitint gtill noon to buy beer on sunday, vs. having a fit a religious people. Buying beer after noon wins! I mean it's not like I can't vote or have to tip my hat to green women. hehe
<I guess that the whole point I was trying to make is that laws based on
<religious beliefs are, in my opinion, in a grey zone at best. Blue laws
<are, IMHO, a bad thing.
As long as those laws are practical and doesn't really affect anybody (i mean, the real stuff, not stuff like you gotta wait till noon to buy alcohol, but stuff like you gotta be orange and worship X God and dance in a circle to buy alcohol), I'm cool with it.
I'm in the crowd that wants the Pledge of Allegiance in School as it is, not because I'm religious, but because it never really bothered anybody in the first place, except for money hungry lawyers. You can just tolerate it, you can fight against it, or you can be really anal about it. Some people get the last one mixed up with the second one. You're right it's a grey zone you gotta look at it individually. There are some relgious laws I'm against, and some I'm for, and some i dont care about.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ben Doom
To: CF-Community
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Religious oppression in action
brobborb wrote:
> >So it'd be okay to make eating pork illegal, and enforce that when
> >necessary, so long as no one's religion requires the eating of pork?
>
> Well of course, if no one is affected by that law, then why would they
> care. I'm sure there are alot of blue laws here that are weird and
> prolly dumb, but I only know of only 1 or 2 of them because they dont
> really affect met. out of sight out of mind.
But we're not talking about laws that don't affect people. We're
talking about not being able to buy beer on Sunday morning.
> It will be OK in the sense that, hey, if most of the people here feel
> that strongly about it, then you would expect things to turn out that
> way. not saying that it is morally right or wrong.
Hmm. Maybe I demand more of my supposedly-freedom-loving nation than
just the freedoms that apply to the people around me. No, that's not a
dig at you. That's a commentary on my high expectations. The ones that
are repeatedly confounded by my crazier Southern Baptist neighbors. The
ones who vote for this to be a dry county. Not only can't I buy beer on
Sunday, I can't buy it without driving for more than an hour. :-)
<snip />
> That last paragraph was an answer to your question about what
> offensiveness is. I dunno how else to answer it! :\
Right. That't the problem. What's offensive to one group may not be to
others. I'm a big believer in the "do no harm" philosophy of governing.
Write laws to prevent people from doing harm to others. Which, I
admit, is almost as vague.
I guess that the whole point I was trying to make is that laws based on
religious beliefs are, in my opinion, in a grey zone at best. Blue laws
are, IMHO, a bad thing.
--Ben
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
