Page 20 of 35 FirstFirst ... 1019202130 ... LastLast
Results 666 to 700 of 1205

Thread: Religion's role

  1. #666
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    14,750

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    You were right when you said elsewhere that we aren't on the same page. Myself, and several others, have been attempting to promote Sound Logic regarding this topic... while you continue to spit in its face with blind Motivated Reasoning. I will point out that it's not just me trying to steer you right... it's a cadre of some of the most respected brains in the bilge. Ponder that when you choose which page to be on...
    I have no clue what you're on about. Really.

    My consistent argument on this thread has been that the Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the USSC, does not allow any laws or policies to be enacted solely for religious reasons. And that right-wing evangelical "Christians" often try to enact laws and policies for religious reasons anyway. And when that happens, the effect is that one set of religious beliefs and values is imposed on others, coercively. (Students must attend public schools. A school policy requiring "creation science" thus imposes religious beliefs on the students attending).

    How in the world is that "spitting" in anyone's face? How is it motivated reasoning? It's just reality. Not even really open to question in rational discussion.

    What's with the random Capital Letters, by the way? A little too much A.A. Milne lately? Do I qualify as one of the Fiercer Animals?

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  2. #667
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    14,750

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    It doesn't matter whether the beliefs come from religion
    The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. So your statement is (still) flatly contradicted by the law of the land.

    Read up on the 3-part Lemon Test, which demands that any legislation must have a legitimate secular purpose:

    If any of these prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    The Lemon Test was pretty much abandoned by the Trumpist Supreme Court in a 2022 decision regarding a football coach's public prayer sessions, but it has not yet been explicitly overruled.

    The dissenting opinion (Sotomayor) in the 2022 case directly described the situation of a coach leading public prayers as "coercion"--i.e. imposing religious beliefs on others:

    Sotomayor also described the implicit coercion from peer pressure that had been demonstrated in the lower courts' proceedings.
    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  3. #668
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    I agree about 90%+, I'd say. But when people succeed in creating policy that has no legitimate secular purpose, I don't see how that isn'tforcing religious beliefs (well, religious behaviors) on others. Public schools are places people are required to attend, by law. And so they are in a situation where they must obey a religious policy that is not relevant to their beliefs. That's pure coercion.

    Tom

    All major religions, with one possible exception, condemn murder. Are laws against murder forcing these religious beliefs on us? Individual laws that may be related to religious beliefs are a long way from a state sponsored religion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #669
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I'm guessing all those I refer to call themselves Christians. I can't be sure.

    Someone calling themselves a Christian doesn’t mean they are calling themselves perfect. Sometimes we all fall short of what we aspire to, Christians or not. You seem intent on condemning all religions and religious people which is certainly your privilege. But let’s just say it doesn’t make you look smart.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #670
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    More of the same grade of bad logic. See... you've skipped a step.

    People who make policy get elected based mostly upon their beliefs, allegiances, and/or character.

    When they vote on policies, they do so with those various bases.

    It doesn't matter whether the beliefs come from religion, a classical education in philosophy, or from long contemplation and introspection in a hermit's cave on a far mountaintop. Same with the origin of their allegiances, or the roots of their character. They vote how they vote based upon a variety of factors. They're no more 'imposing their religion' on you than they are imposing 'the results of classical education' on you. They are as legitimately able to base their votes on religion, atheism, the writings of Yeats, or an epiphany experienced while partaking of LSD.

    The point is not what informs those votes. The point is HOW they vote. If you agree... work to re-elect them. If you don't... then work to get someone elected who is more sympatico, or with allegiances you agree with, or with overall better charter.

    You can have your suspicions, and feelings, about what factors inform that voting... and you can comment about them ("I think....) but you don't get any say in those factors. Your legitimate interest kicks in when there is a vote. Or a pattern of voting.

    If you don't agree with the policies, work to get them changed. Quit whining about how elected representatives are not deciding correctly -- and are 'imposing' their philosophy, knowledge of economics, gut feelings about foreign policy, religion, chemically induced insights, or whatever... ON YOU.
    I can't disagree, BUT laws and policies are supposed to be things that in some way protect us, be they speed limits, age limits, requiring a license to do something, or labeling ingredients/prohibiting some ingredients, etc.........
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  6. #671
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by Dikhaut View Post
    All major religions, with one possible exception, condemn murder. Are laws against murder forcing these religious beliefs on us? Individual laws that may be related to religious beliefs are a long way from a state sponsored religion.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So, I hold no religious beliefs and you think I'm FOR murder?

    Murder harms someone. Driving a car and having an accident while not being insured harms someone.

    Ought not laws be based on whether an activity is harmful. to protect the innocent?
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  7. #672
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by Dikhaut View Post
    Someone calling themselves a Christian doesn’t mean they are calling themselves perfect. Sometimes we all fall short of what we aspire to, Christians or not. You seem intent on condemning all religions and religious people which is certainly your privilege. But let’s just say it doesn’t make you look smart.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Then you've misconstrued my posts. I have no problem with people who hold religious beliefs UNTIL they try to force their beliefs on me. That would include coercive tactics.

    Our laws ought not be based on the religious beliefs of some, but be, in some way, for the general welfare of the people.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  8. #673
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    So, I hold no religious beliefs and you think I'm FOR murder?

    Murder harms someone. Driving a car and having an accident while not being insured harms someone.

    Ought not laws be based on whether an activity is harmful. to protect the innocent?

    Suppose an activity is harmful, such as murder. It is also condemned by the Christian faith. Therefore, laws against murder would be forcing the Christian faith on you. At least this seems to be the logic you apply when it suits your agenda.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #674
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by Dikhaut View Post
    Suppose an activity is harmful, such as murder. It is also condemned by the Christian faith. Therefore, laws against murder would be forcing the Christian faith on you. At least this seems to be the logic you apply when it suits your agenda.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    That's just dumb. Christians can support laws based on protecting people. It's when they pass, or try to pass, laws based upon their religious beliefs.

    Suppose an activity is NOT harmful, but it violates one's religion, and that one whose religious beliefs it violates passes, or tries to pass, a law making that activity illegal. You'd support that?

    Apparently, a lot of Christians have no problem with people shooting people, as they appear to vote for politicians who have no problem with this.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  10. #675
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    That's just dumb. Christians can support laws based on protecting people. It's when they pass, or try to pass, laws based upon their religious beliefs.

    Suppose an activity is NOT harmful, but it violates one's religion, and that one whose religious beliefs it violates passes, or tries to pass, a law making that activity illegal. You'd support that?

    Apparently, a lot of Christians have no problem with people shooting people, as they appear to vote for politicians who have no problem with this.

    Are you the judge of what is harmful or not?

    When you vote for a politician does it indicate that you agree with every single thing they say and do? It seems that you believe whatever MSNBC has programmed you to believe.

    You constantly complain about politicians lying. Yet you support Biden, who has a history of lying and cheating that goes back 60 years to when he was in college and law school and continues through today.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #676
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    26,025

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    You were right when you said elsewhere that we aren't on the same page. Myself, and several others, have been attempting to promote Sound Logic regarding this topic... while you continue to spit in its face with blind Motivated Reasoning. I will point out that it's not just me trying to steer you right... it's a cadre of some of the most respected brains in the bilge. Ponder that when you choose which page to be on...
    Has Dikhaut been invited to join your Cadre yet?
    Rick

    Lean and nosey like a ferret

  12. #677
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    85,595

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by RFNK View Post
    Has Dikhaut been invited to join your Cadre yet?
    No membership required. But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day <G>
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  13. #678
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    14,750

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by Dikhaut View Post
    All major religions, with one possible exception, condemn murder. Are laws against murder forcing these religious beliefs on us? Individual laws that may be related to religious beliefs are a long way from a state sponsored religion.
    Read just a bit about the Lemon Test and your questions will be answered. Actually, they've already been answered in my posts if you do a little thinking about what I'm saying, and what I'm not saying.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  14. #679
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    14,750

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Suppose an activity is harmful, such as murder. It is also condemned by the Christian faith. Therefore, laws against murder would be forcing the Christian faith on you. At least this seems to be the logic you apply when it suits your agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    That's just dumb.
    Yes. Yes it is.

    I think that those who want to defend religion have leaned a bit toward this line of thought. There have been a few posts on this thread trying to make a similar point, and failing in exactly the same way.

    I can understand why people who are sincerely committed to their religion, and find great value in it, tend to get a little defensive about anything that sounds (to them) like a blanket condemnation of religion. But I'm not seeing any blanket condemnations on this thread. What I'm seeing is that John and I and perhaps others think that letting laws be enacted solely for religious reasons is dangerous, and interferes with the rights of others. But it still happens, primarily (in the U.S.) with laws related to right-wing evangelical "Christianity."

    Since numerous court cases can be cited to show that this is, in fact, actually what often happens in the U.S., I find it odd that pointing it out gets such a hostile reaction from some here.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  15. #680
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    35,780

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Nearly all religions espouse similar basic tenets, and these in themselves are fine. Where they fall down is in the add-ons...such as sub humanizing women and treating them as possessions. Treating pedophilia as a sin, rather than a crime. Religions should not have any say in common law, and religious law should not be able to dictate or override common law.
    without freedom of speech, we wouldn't know who the idiots are.

  16. #681
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    50,174

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Laws which were once enacted solely within a religious context have since been grandfathered into a pluralistic society. Laws against theft and murder, or fraud, for instance, derive from religious codes which long predate any notion of the secular state.

    What you're arguing by saying that any law must first and foremost serve a secular purpose in a pluralistic society isn't mistaken, in my view, but consistently ignores those laws' origins even within our society. You're asking for a silent statute of limitations, wherein Laws you like which were first enacted on a religious basis are quietly stripped of that origin story to make them seem acceptable. What I'm calling out is the inherent hypocrisy of that silent position.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  17. #682
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    14,750

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by TomF View Post
    Laws which were once enacted solely within a religious context have since been grandfathered into a pluralistic society. Laws against theft and murder, or fraud, for instance, derive from religious codes which long predate any notion of the secular state.

    What you're arguing by saying that any law must first and foremost serve a secular purpose in a pluralistic society isn't mistaken, in my view, but consistently ignores those laws' origins even within our society. You're asking for a silent statute of limitations, wherein Laws you like which were first enacted on a religious basis are quietly stripped of that origin story to make them seem acceptable. What I'm calling out is the inherent hypocrisy of that silent position.
    Tom,

    I don't agree with you at all that religion is the ultimate source of morality and ethics, and thus the root of modern secular laws. I think it's far more convincing to argue the opposite--that morality and ethics came first, probably for pragmatic reasons--can't have tribal members killing each other because it would be a threat to the entire tribe to lose members with special knowledge and expertise, not to mention simple labor force issues--and then religion was developed later, as a justification for, and as a reinforcement of, of those standards.

    That's purely my own thinking, without doing any digging to see what the consensus might be among those who study this kind of thing. I gots no evidence, in other words.

    Do you?

    Because, when religion steps in to claim that all morality derives from religion, that seems pretty arrogant to me. It seems dismissive of the ethics and morals and values of those, like me, who don't feel a need for religion in their lives to be moral, ethical people (or to try to be, at least).

    If a blanket condemnation of religion as a bad thing gets your goat, be aware that a blanket statement like "all morals and ethics ultimately derive from religion" is probably just as offensive to many non-religious people.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  18. #683
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by Dikhaut View Post
    Are you the judge of what is harmful or not?

    When you vote for a politician does it indicate that you agree with every single thing they say and do? It seems that you believe whatever MSNBC has programmed you to believe.

    You constantly complain about politicians lying. Yet you support Biden, who has a history of lying and cheating that goes back 60 years to when he was in college and law school and continues through today.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    There's a difference between, let's say working to get a traffic light at an intersection where accidents are overly frequent, which would be a safety issue, versus working to pass a law requiring everyone to attend church on Sunday.

    I'm neither the judge or jury, but rules, laws, regulations designed to in some way protect the welfare/health of the people are NOT the same as laws based upon the religious beliefs of some group.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  19. #684
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Yes. Yes it is.

    I think that those who want to defend religion have leaned a bit toward this line of thought. There have been a few posts on this thread trying to make a similar point, and failing in exactly the same way.

    I can understand why people who are sincerely committed to their religion, and find great value in it, tend to get a little defensive about anything that sounds (to them) like a blanket condemnation of religion. But I'm not seeing any blanket condemnations on this thread. What I'm seeing is that John and I and perhaps others think that letting laws be enacted solely for religious reasons is dangerous, and interferes with the rights of others. But it still happens, primarily (in the U.S.) with laws related to right-wing evangelical "Christianity."

    Since numerous court cases can be cited to show that this is, in fact, actually what often happens in the U.S., I find it odd that pointing it out gets such a hostile reaction from some here.

    Tom
    Well said. A good explanation of what I've apparently been unable to explain.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  20. #685
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Tom,

    I don't agree with you at all that religion is the ultimate source of morality and ethics, and thus the root of modern secular laws. I think it's far more convincing to argue the opposite--that morality and ethics came first, probably for pragmatic reasons--can't have tribal members killing each other because it would be a threat to the entire tribe to lose members with special knowledge and expertise, not to mention simple labor force issues--and then religion was developed later, as a justification for, and as a reinforcement of, of those standards.

    That's purely my own thinking, without doing any digging to see what the consensus might be among those who study this kind of thing. I gots no evidence, in other words.

    Do you?

    Because, when religion steps in to claim that all morality derives from religion, that seems pretty arrogant to me. It seems dismissive of the ethics and morals and values of those, like me, who don't feel a need for religion in their lives to be moral, ethical people (or to try to be, at least).

    If a blanket condemnation of religion as a bad thing gets your goat, be aware that a blanket statement like "all morals and ethics ultimately derive from religion" is probably just as offensive to many non-religious people.

    Tom
    There is no actual connection between religious beliefs and being a moral person. I'm reminded of the breakfast when all the religious folk realized we were undercharged and were going to keep the money. I, the non believer, shamed them into correcting the math and paying the proper amount. Then there's my neighbor who's car got stolen who suddenly had an expensive set of golf clubs and an expensive camera in the car, when he had neither. Yet, he and his wife insisted his kids do the Sunday school thing, and they went to church fairly regularly.
    Last edited by John Smith; 04-02-2023 at 04:42 PM.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  21. #686
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    I'd suggest, if we look at recent history, that the courts decided the Hobby Lobby thing wrong. We have labor laws in this country, and they should override religious beliefs in a business.

    Ponder the 'line' drawing. Should a religious organization be exempt from paying minimum wage? Or other laws that cover businesses employing people?
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  22. #687
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Fredericton, New Brunswick
    Posts
    50,174

    Default Re: Religion's role

    I haven't the energy today to argue all through this again.
    If I use the word "God," I sure don't mean an old man in the sky who just loves the occasional goat sacrifice. - Anne Lamott

  23. #688
    Join Date
    Sep 2022
    Location
    GA, USA
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    There is no actual connection between religious beliefs and being a moral person. I'm reminded of the breakfast when all the religious folk realized we were undercharged and were going to keep the money. I, the non believable, shamed them into correcting the math and paying the proper amount. Then there's my neighbor who's car got stolen who suddenly had an expensive set of golf clubs and an expensive camera in the car, when he had neither. Yet, he and his wife insisted his kids do the Sunday school thing, and they went to church fairly regularly.

    Was it a Freudian slip calling yourself &ldquo;non believable&rdquo;?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  24. #689
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by Dikhaut View Post
    Was it a Freudian slip calling yourself “non believable”?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    OOPS! Thanks for noticing.

    I was in a bit of a traffic jam this afternoon coming home from a trip to the Raritan Yacht Club (my old sailing port) as a cop was directing traffic as a large church was letting out. Given the number of cars and the number of pedestrians, that officer doing that job was a good thing. She kept some order and, probably saved some injuries. Safety is a good thing.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  25. #690
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    26,571

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Because removing books in response to religious objectionsviolates the Establishment Clause as interpreted through the Lemon Test. Do try to keep up.

    Well, first, they DON'T have the right to remove books for religious reasons.
    Ok, so now you're talking about the Establishment Clause, and you're wrong. The Lemon test has to do with a law that has a religious purpose, not a religious motivation. A religious motivation for a law does not violate the Constitution. People have the right to have religious motivations, and to act on them.

    In Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos (1987) the Supreme Court noted that the purpose prong's requirement of a secular legislative purpose doesn't mean that the law's purpose must be unrelated to religion, because this would amount to a requirement, in the words of Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U. S. 306 (1952), at 314, "that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups." Instead, "Lemon's 'purpose' requirement aims at preventing the relevant governmental decisionmaker here, Congress from abandoning neutrality and acting with the intent of promoting a particular point of view in religious matters."

    -- wikipedia
    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Second, you're stuck in binary thinking as usual. The usual "I'll defend to the death your right to say what you want, even (or perhaps especially) if I find it repugnant or offensive, because if we don't preserve the freedom for you to say whatever you want, all liberty disappears, game over, the republic dies, and liberalism fades away, its grand experiment failed."
    The struggle is perpetual. The battles are won and lost a millimeter at a time.

    Do you understand what a "ruling" is? One of the most binary things there is, and one of the most necessary.

    Constitutional, or not, is a ruling.
    Long live the rights of man.

  26. #691
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wrocław, Poland
    Posts
    14,750

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Ok, so now you're talking about the Establishment Clause, and you're wrong.
    I was always talking about the Establishment Clause. I even used those words. Nice to see you've caught up.

    As for the bolded bit:

    Nope. I'm not. You misread me, or otherwise failed to understand what I'm saying. I'm not surprised. Hint: "legitimate secular purpose."

    Under the current Trumpist USSC, the pendulum appears to be swinging toward accommodating the Free Exercise Clause and ignoring the Establishment Clause, but the Lemon Test has not yet been explicitly overruled.

    Tom
    Ponoszenie konsekwencji!

    www.tompamperin.com

  27. #692
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    26,571

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Tom,

    I don't agree with you at all that religion is the ultimate source of morality and ethics, and thus the root of modern secular laws. I think it's far more convincing to argue the opposite--that morality and ethics came first, probably for pragmatic reasons--can't have tribal members killing each other because it would be a threat to the entire tribe to lose members with special knowledge and expertise, not to mention simple labor force issues--and then religion was developed later, as a justification for, and as a reinforcement of, of those standards.
    Whatever or whenever the origin, much law was made during the religious-rule period. If it was secular, it became religious. Now it can become secular again. Same law, verbatim, down the centuries. It's not invalid for having been law during a period of religious rule. In theory, the USA, in rejecting religion as a basis of sovereignty, laundered all existing law, as it were. English law no longer being the basis, everything had to be re-enacted on the new basis. That was often done wholesale, whole volumes at a time, just change the names. Occasionally a clinker, a holdover, may be found.

    All but one state declared the English common law to be the law of the state unless and until altered by the state. That plainly didn't amount to a re-"establishment" of English rule; and if that law had a religious purpose in England, it wasn't ipso facto a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Reception statutes generally consider the English common law dating prior to independence, as well as the precedents originating from it, as the default law because of the importance of using an extensive and predictable body of law to govern the conduct of citizens and businesses in a new state.

    All US states have either implemented reception statutes or adopted the common law by judicial opinion, but there is a special case of partial reception for Louisiana.

    -- wikipedia
    Long live the rights of man.

  28. #693
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    I fear we've wondered a bit.

    Is it so 'off the wall' to think a law requiring a store to close on Sunday because opening violates the religious belief of some, even most, people in that community, is simply wrong? Is that not imposing one's religious views on others?
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  29. #694
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    71,929

    Default Re: Religion's role

    If a store is open every day of the week the employees get no days off, just some hours here and there depending on current industrial rules, or maybe the stores owners.
    Doesn't have to be Sunday……….. but you cannot rely on a business to look after it's employees welfare, in America in particular. Of course family businesses have been a different matter forever, and if you are a subsistence farmer no one get's a day off ever.

  30. #695
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    41,424

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    I fear we've wondered a bit.

    Is it so 'off the wall' to think a law requiring a store to close on Sunday because opening violates the religious belief of some, even most, people in that community, is simply wrong? Is that not imposing one's religious views on others?
    Okay, John, you surprised me. I googled "Blue Laws" and there are still states that have them in effect (mostly hard liquor).

    What's more uncomfortable is that Texas is now considering a law that requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom. This is one topic I can agree with you on although I happen to think that the Ten Commandments are a very good idea to live by.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...8d642d27&ei=43
    "Where you live in the world should not determine whether you live in the world." - Bono

    "Live in such a way that you would not be ashamed to sell your parrot to the town gossip." - Will Rogers

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx

  31. #696
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Port Stephens
    Posts
    26,025

    Default Re: Religion's role

    There's a world beyond ...

    Religious interference extends well beyond banning books and picketing theatres. Taking action also often requires a lot more than voting.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.tim...sh-school/amp/

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-...rael/102153654
    Last edited by RFNK; 04-03-2023 at 07:12 PM.
    Rick

    Lean and nosey like a ferret

  32. #697
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    35,780

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    No membership required. But even a stopped clock can be right twice a day <G>
    without freedom of speech, we wouldn't know who the idiots are.

  33. #698
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    If a store is open every day of the week the employees get no days off, just some hours here and there depending on current industrial rules, or maybe the stores owners.
    Doesn't have to be Sunday……….. but you cannot rely on a business to look after it's employees welfare, in America in particular. Of course family businesses have been a different matter forever, and if you are a subsistence farmer no one get's a day off ever.
    Lot of assumptions in there, including the country worrying about labor as the minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour.

    I get, from your post, that you, based on your religion, have the right to tell me when I can open or close my store.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  34. #699
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by CWSmith View Post
    Okay, John, you surprised me. I googled "Blue Laws" and there are still states that have them in effect (mostly hard liquor).

    What's more uncomfortable is that Texas is now considering a law that requires the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom. This is one topic I can agree with you on although I happen to think that the Ten Commandments are a very good idea to live by.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...8d642d27&ei=43
    Unless it's changed recently, Bergen County in NJ still has blue laws. Used to be pretty wide spread. One could buy a record on Sunday, but not a pair of shoes.

    That said, these laws were/are based on the religious beliefs of, I suppose, the majority of the people in Bergen County. I also suppose those people drive to other counties to shop on Sunday.

    To me, it's kind of basic: You own a store and you have the right to open it whenever you wish. I'm sure your customers will decide what the best times are.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

  35. #700
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    45,463

    Default Re: Religion's role

    Quote Originally Posted by WX View Post
    That was quite cute. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. The way I learned it was our right to express our opinions is protected speech. Some speech is not protected; fraud, libel, slander, or inciting violence. The line is often fuzzy, but a car dealer to misrepresents a used car in some meaningful way, such as how many miles are on it, had violated the law. Inciting violence (Beat the hell out of him. I'll pay your legal fees) is not free speech.

    We give politicians and "news" some kind of unwritten exemption, and we do so at our peril.
    "Banning books in spite of the 1st amendment, but refusing to regulate guns in spite of "well regulated militia' being in the 2nd amendment makes no sense. Can't think of anyone ever shot by a book

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •