Blue Laws

[SlackMaster]

Do you believe it is your right to legislate to have your religious beliefs enforced as laws, such as the law forbidding the sale of liquor on Sundays in some states.

 

[ralphinal]

The actual problem with the question is that, when push comes to shove, the majority of laws are based on religious codes of some sort. Even if you say that society needs them too much for it to matter, most laws are the imposition of religion on others. Why should murder be illegal? Or beastiality? Or theft? Can we scrap all laws that are based on religious codes?

For the specific question, I have no issue if a local community wants to have these laws. However, I do have an issue if it is forced on everyone without a vote. Here in Alabama, there are some counties where no alcohol can be served at all. There are some where only private clubs can do it. There are some that have a city that can serve it and the county cannot. There is only one that allows Alcohol to be sold on Sunday in a store after 1 (I think). If you are in a dry county, you have to convince the representatives to put it on a ballet and then the whole state votes. It is stupid.

 

[RedGecko]

The actual problem with the question is that, when push comes to shove, the majority of laws are based on religious codes of some sort.

I am not sure that is true. Of the examples you gave, murder and theft are legitimately prohibited because they destabilize society. Bestiality may not destabilize society, but it can be reasonably considered unethical because animals can not consent to sex - it is rape of the animal. Any animal abuse can legitimately be banned for ethical reasons which have nothing to do with religion.

For the specific question, I have no issue if a local community wants to have these laws. However, I do have an issue if it is forced on everyone without a vote.

But if someone moves to a community with such laws or is raised in a community with such laws, they are denied a vote on the matter. Should blue laws be automatically put up for a vote every few years?

 

[graceandglory]

Do you believe it is your right to legislate to have your religious beliefs enforced as laws, such as the law forbidding the sale of liquor on Sundays in some states.

Really? Are liquor stores open on Sundays in other states? What a disgrace!

 

[ralphinal]

I am not sure that is true. Of the examples you gave, murder and theft are legitimately prohibited because they destabilize society. Bestiality may not destabilize society, but it can be reasonably considered unethical because animals can not consent to sex - it is rape of the animal. Any animal abuse can legitimately be banned for ethical reasons which have nothing to do with religion.

But, those are all prohibited by most religions. Yes, you can make the case for most of them as needed, but if you wanted to push the issue, they are mentioned in both the Bible and Qur’an as wrong. Why could someone not argue against them as forced religion?

But if someone moves to a community with such laws or is raised in a community with such laws, they are denied a vote on the matter. Should blue laws be automatically put up for a vote every few years?

Well, the Alabama situation is too crazy to discuss. Basically, most places in Alabama do not have what is known as home rule, so the whole state decides these things for a local community. So, we should leave them out. Personally, I would have no issue with putting it to a vote, say every four years, perhaps when we vote for governer. The ones that bother me are the counties that make it illegal to even possess alcohol.

 

[Chiltepin]

Do you believe it is your right to legislate to have your religious beliefs enforced as laws, such as the law forbidding the sale of liquor on Sundays in some states.

Sometimes our religious beliefs are congruous with good sense! (As mentioned by previous posters with the outlaw of murder etc.)

Communities should get to have their own laws to reflect their values or ideas. Lets say 93 percent of citizens of a town were allergic to peanuts. Seems like it should be ok for that town to outlaw peanuts. If the demographics shift dramatically it should be ok for them to revise this law. I would hate to live in a town without peanuts but I think towns should have that right, religious or goobery.

Do these community laws interfere with the dignity of human life or end a human life? Well then maybe they should be revised or removed.

As to the Sunday alcohol laws, it is an inconvenience, but if you really need to drink right then you’ll learn to stock up.

 

[Eucharisted]

Do not feed the troll.

 

[Corki]

But if someone moves to a community with such laws or is raised in a community with such laws, they are denied a vote on the matter. Should blue laws be automatically put up for a vote every few years?

No. Just like any other law, if you have enough people on your side, get a referendum going and get it on the ballot. If it’s not on the ballot, it is safe to assume that most people like the stutus quo.

Would you want all the laws of a given county/city/state to come up for a vote every few years? That would be pandemonium.

 

[SlackMaster]

(Edited)

---

To get back to the topic…

Personally I don’t think that a majority vote = right. I think democracy works in our country because the majority of people (in most cases) are good. However, it would be scary to think that a town could vote to outlaw helping the homeless or something along those lines. At one point in time the majority were in favor of slavery.

I think that all laws should have a secular purpose. Meaning they should have to appeal to religious and non-religious alike, as in the case of murder. Whether or not you’re religious, being murdered would not be good for you or society. If this happens to overlap with a religious teachings, great.

If instead you create a law that ONLY caters to the religious, I think you have crossed a line. Suppose you lived in a town where the majority were pastafarians and they advocated that you could not sell or consume noodles. I think such a law would just be silly and we shouldn’t waste our tax payer money on creating or enforcing a law that only appeals to a majority’s superstition. I think it equally ridiculous for someone to tell you that if you don’t like it, that you should try and get people to vote differently about it. It should be ruled unconstitutional and removed or never made a law in the first place.

 

[Chiltepin]

Suppose you lived in a town where the majority were pastafarians and they advocated that you could not sell or consume noodles. I think such a law would just be silly and we shouldn’t waste our tax payer money on creating or enforcing a law that only appeals to a majority’s superstition. I think it equally ridiculous for someone to tell you that if you don’t like it, that you should try and get people to vote differently about it. It should be ruled unconstitutional and removed or never made a law in the first place.

See now if I chose to live in a town that was majority Pastafarians, that would obviously be part of its charm and what makes it quaint and quirky. If California can outlaw pet ferrets (just parts or the whole state? I’m not sure) I don’t see why a town shouldn’t be able to outlaw pasta. It would be just another goofy law I get to talk about when I teach my Sociology students about formal social sanctions in the form of laws.

as to your mention of slavery, quote me:

Do these community laws interfere with the dignity of human life or end a human life? Well then maybe they should be revised or removed.

And this, quote of yours will be used against you one day when you leas suspect it. I’m quoting it here as a placeholder for the next time you don’t like something the church is in a minority on.

At one point in time the majority were in favor of slavery.

 

[kalt]

Really? Are liquor stores open on Sundays in other states? What a disgrace!

The law is ridiculous, imo, because it only limits liquor sales at liquor stores. Restaurants are open and can serve liquor, so how is buying liquor at a store different?

It should be one way or the other.

Until recently, you couldn’t sell cars on Sunday here. You could drink in a restaurant, buy a condom and a sex toy, and then go to a strip club where you could drink some more, but you couldn’t buy a car.

The law is a wacky thing.

 

[ralphinal]

(Edited)

---

To get back to the topic…

Personally I don’t think that a majority vote = right. I think democracy works in our country because the majority of people (in most cases) are good. However, it would be scary to think that a town could vote to outlaw helping the homeless or something along those lines. At one point in time the majority were in favor of slavery.

I think that all laws should have a secular purpose. Meaning they should have to appeal to religious and non-religious alike, as in the case of murder. Whether or not you’re religious, being murdered would not be good for you or society. If this happens to overlap with a religious teachings, great.

If instead you create a law that ONLY caters to the religious, I think you have crossed a line. Suppose you lived in a town where the majority were pastafarians and they advocated that you could not sell or consume noodles. I think such a law would just be silly and we shouldn’t waste our tax payer money on creating or enforcing a law that only appeals to a majority’s superstition. I think it equally ridiculous for someone to tell you that if you don’t like it, that you should try and get people to vote differently about it. It should be ruled unconstitutional and removed or never made a law in the first place.

Actually, there is some correlation with limited alcohol sales and reduction of other issues, such as crime. If you really wanted to push the issue, we could bring up gentrification. Why are there more alcohol stores in minority areas? Why is there more alcohol advertizing in minority areas?

 

[kalt]

Actually, there is some correlation with limited alcohol sales and reduction of other issues, such as crime. If you really wanted to push the issue, we could bring up gentrification. Why are there more alcohol stores in minority areas? Why is there more alcohol advertizing in minority areas?

Why are we allowed to buy cigarettes 7 days a week? Why are they allowed to sell them at all?

If laws were always written with the public good in mind, cigarettes would be illegal.

I’m guessing that minority areas are usually urban areas, and urban areas have more advertising of all kinds.

 

[Jestocost]

Blue laws are often enacted for more than just religious reasons. I heard in the news recently that some car dealers were asking that blue laws be re-instated so they could close down due to the economy without worrying about someone else being open that day and taking their business. I suspect a lot of blue laws have motives like that, protecting a business rather than enforcing a religious practice.

 

[ralphinal]

Why are we allowed to buy cigarettes 7 days a week? Why are they allowed to sell them at all?

If laws were always written with the public good in mind, cigarettes would be illegal.

I’m guessing that minority areas are usually urban areas, and urban areas have more advertising of all kinds.

Cigarettes are legal because the tobacco lobby has power and money. Also, many of the states the grow the junk have had long serving senate and house members. That makes these folks head of committees, giving them power of what actually gets voted on.

In the Birmingham Metro area, we have municipalities that are almost all white and some that are almost all African-American. There are billboards in both areas, though there are more in the AA areas. Those billboards all much more likely to show alcohol in the minority areas. The white areas have ads for churches, car lots, and the like. Even so, that does not address why there are more linquor stores in minority areas. If I had one, I would want it in a higher income area for a lot of reasons.

 

[ralphinal]

Blue laws are often enacted for more than just religious reasons. I heard in the news recently that some car dealers were asking that blue laws be re-instated so they could close down due to the economy without worrying about someone else being open that day and taking their business. I suspect a lot of blue laws have motives like that, protecting a business rather than enforcing a religious practice.

Today, yes. In the past, no. In Alabama, a majority of them were written at the urging of the Southern Baptists. Granted, some of them might have had businesses and they wanted to be sure they could be closed without losing money, but that is not always the case.

Chic-fil-a is closed on Sunday even if their competition is not. IT has not hurt them one iota.

 

[chris_molter]

Bestiality may not destabilize society, but it can be reasonably considered unethical because animals can not consent to sex - it is rape of the animal.

Zoophiles argue exactly the opposite of your assertion. Although animal rape incidents get a lot of press, there is a significant subculture of zoophiles who claim to have fully consensual relationships with nonhuman partners (and also simultaneously deplore animal rapists).

It’s much more difficult to argue from the ‘destabilization of society’ standpoint when faced with their objections, and the laws banning interspecies relations become, once again, based on religious mores.

 

[Corki]

Blue laws are often enacted for more than just religious reasons. I heard in the news recently that some car dealers were asking that blue laws be re-instated so they could close down due to the economy without worrying about someone else being open that day and taking their business. I suspect a lot of blue laws have motives like that, protecting a business rather than enforcing a religious practice.

I think usually they are encacted primarily for religious reasons but are often retained for practical ones.

I used to live in Bergen County, NJ, which still has laws against the selling of almost anything on Sundays. It is also the home of some of the biggest shopping malls in NJ.

NJ as a whole had religiously inspired blue laws. Most of the state did away with them but Bergen kept them. The population of the county has repeatedly voted down any attempt to get rid of them. They site the need for all people to have a day of rest, for the residents to have a day free of traffic jams, and for the workers to get a break. There have even been some studies that showed that the stores in the mall, especially the smaller ones, would be worse off economically by being open on Sundays (cost of operation vs. actually increase in revenue).

 

[RedGecko]

Zoophiles argue exactly the opposite of your assertion. Although animal rape incidents get a lot of press, there is a significant subculture of zoophiles who claim to have fully consensual relationships with nonhuman partners (and also simultaneously deplore animal rapists).

I’m not aware of any zoophiles making a philosophical case for why their hobby is ethical. On the other hand, there are ethicists who support the ideas that animals can not give consent.

Thieves sometimes justify their actions with self-centered reasoning. This doesn’t make it right.

 

[Jestocost]

Today, yes. In the past, no. In Alabama, a majority of them were written at the urging of the Southern Baptists. Granted, some of them might have had businesses and they wanted to be sure they could be closed without losing money, but that is not always the case.

Chic-fil-a is closed on Sunday even if their competition is not. IT has not hurt them one iota.

I’m not saying that all or even most of them are enacted due to economic concerns, but I can certainly see situations where an outsider comes into a town where everything is closed on Sunday and opening up shop, then the town passing a law to keep the heathen from stealing the business of the good Christian who is in church on Sunday.

I have a lot of respect for Chic-fil-A’s decision because it does hurt them. Sunday restaurant sales can be lucrative, especially in the shopping districts where most of their stores are located. It was a bold decision and I’m sure many financial advisors counseled against it.