The People have spoken.... But I don't care!
Let me start by saying I hate blue laws. They are unconstitutional by any measure, as they specifically honor the preferences of a certain sects of a single religion over all others. When someone tells me they support blue laws, I generally ask if Christians should be banned from purchasing alcohol in Muslim-majority towns, because they are coming to America fast. As Christians represent an ever-shrinking percentage of America, they will quickly look to the Constitution to defend them from other religious beliefs.
So, why do I bring this up? Any regular visitor to the Nervous Rodent would quickly recognize that I would oppose a law to restrict the sale of alcohol based on a religious belief. I bring it up because there is a bill in the Georgia General Assembly to (finally) partially limit the blue laws so pervasive in the South. Namely,
Senate Bill 26 would allow each county and/or municipality that currently allows the sale of alcohol the option of allowing a referendum in that area to allow the sale of beer and wine (not liquor) on Sundays.
It's hard to be against that, isn't it? It allows each town and/or county to decide for themselves if they want to limit blue laws to hard liquor. It's not a perfect solution, but it's far better than the current law.
As
Crazy for Liberty points out, there is widespread support among both the population and representatives in the government. Somehow the Governor, Sonny Perdue, is against it (
sound clip,
AJC link):
I think it’s going to have a tough time, actually. When you ask people generally if they want the right to vote on anything — what kind of toilet tissue the state ought to use, or anything like that — they’ll typically say yes.
Although they like representative government, they like to have their voices heard. And that’s why we have representative government, where people elect their own legislators to come and make these kinds of decisions.
Some things rise to the level of referendums — such as, I felt, the symbol, the flag that represented Georgia, which I felt rose to that level. But you can’t do government really by referendum. And so, I don’t support that, and I don’t know whether it will pass the Legislature or not, but it’ll have a pretty tough time getting the last vote….
You have to always be attuned to where public opinion is, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you have to follow that. A good leader always leads in a way they think is the right direction for Georgia on significant issues. …
What? Yeah, the people want more freedom and less government intrusion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give it to them? Remember Georgians, you voted for him!
I have to credit Sonny Perdue with one thing, however. He is the first person I've ever heard come up with a valid justification for blue laws that doesn't mention religion -- the government's responsibility to educate the populace:
Think of it this way…It really helps you plan ahead for the rest of your life — buying on Saturday, rather than Sunday. Time management.
Hey, I've got an idea. Let's only sell gasoline on odd days, milk on even days. Condoms should only be sold on prime-numbered days. We'll make everyone plan their entire week around a couple of random proclamations with no justification other than making people's lives harder so they can learn to deal. After all, that's why government exists.
Labels: alcohol, church, personal freedoms
Church Says It Won't Break Laws, But Condemns Those Who Follow Them
Westboro Baptist Church likes to protest at funerals. Pretty disgusting, huh? And what are they protesting? They're protesting against homosexuality. So you'd think they're protesting at the funerals of gay men who've died from AIDS, right? Pretty insensitive, right? No, Westboro Baptist, a small church in Kansas, travels around the country to protest at the funerals of American servicemembers killed in combat.
At least they're going to the funerals of gay servicemembers, right? No! This church is hijacking the funerals of proud servicemembers in order to promote their anti-gay agenda. Specifically, they're praising God for killing servicemembers for defending a country that allows homosexuality. Because you can legally have sex with another man, these people think God is killing our soldiers with IEDs as punishment.
I could talk about how it's not actually illegal to be gay in most countries, and how tenuous the relationship between a bomb placed in Iraq is to God's feelings on two men in San Francisco, but I won't insult anyone's intelligence by pointing out the obvious. Nor will I point out that the United Stated Armed Forces have got to be one of the most homosexual-intolerant institutions in the country.
Instead, I'll just point out a simple piece of advice. If the fact that people are free to live how they want bothers you, move out of our country. Many fine countries have far fewer freedoms and more governmental controls on personal behavior. May I recommend Saudi Arabia or Iran?
Labels: church, homosexuality, iraq
Judge Rules Against Religion in School
The closely-watched trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, is finally over -- and hopefully the precedent will carry over to similar trials in Kansas and Georgia. Calling the case an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources," U.S. District Judge John Jones delivered a 139-page opinion that leaves little room for doubt:
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute reacted with this quote: "The judge thinks intelligent design is a supernatural explanation, but it clearly is not. So the entire decision is predicated on a false perception of intelligent design."
American Heritage Dictionary (2000) defines supernatural as:
- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
- Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
- Of or relating to a deity.
- Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
- Of or relating to the miraculous.
A force that cannot be explained by natural laws would be supernatural. A force that "guides" life without using laws of science would be supernatural. An omnipotent being would be a deity, and thus supernatural. Any being with infinite intelligence would wield divine power and be supernatural. And a being, unobservable by any scientific means, that can make things happen in violation of the laws of science, would be miraculous, and -- you guessed it -- supernatural.
Science class is supposed to teach natural science. That's what it's for. Honestly, I don't object to the teaching of religious concepts in a religious elective in public school. Nor would I object to comparative religion being a mandatory class. I only object to the idea that we should accept religion as being "science," when in fact it doesn't follow any established guidelines for science.
And for those who think that the judicial branch is ignoring the will of the people, recall that all but one of the board members who voted to require the teaching of intelligent design were ousted in the subsequent election. The new board has no plans to appeal or attempt to re-implement the policy.
William Buckingham, who introduced the policy before being voted out of office, said "I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state."
He's right. The Constitution does not require a separation between Church and State. It does, however, prohibit the government from establishing an official religion. Not an official sect, but an official religion. Monotheism, which Intelligent Design clearly qualifies as, is a religion. I sure hope Bill Buck is reading this.
Labels: church, intelligent design
Sins of the Court
Despite what you may hear during some of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices, the Supreme Court has one real job. The Court should balance the powers of the Executive and Legislative branches of government, especially when it comes to violations of the Constitution. If someone violates your Constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is your final resort.
Unless, of course, you're a minority.
Which is rather hypocritical for a court that has "Equal Justice for All" emblazoned across the front of the building. But that's the way it is.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court
decided not to hear the case of
Cynthia Simpson, who had been denied the right to give an invocation for the Chesterfield County board meetings. She was denied the right because she is a Wiccan, and therefore not Christian.
Cynthia successfully sued on the basis that the county was giving preference to Christian clergy over other religions. However, the county appealed to the District Court after changing their policy to disallow the mention of "Jesus" during invocations, and the District Court
held that meant that the county was no longer giving one religion preference over another. Since the Supreme Court will not hear the case, the District Court's decision stands.
The county will accept invocations from Jewish, Muslim, and Christian clergy. No other religions are permitted to give invocations. While many may not see a problem with this, try role reversal. Imagine if over the next twenty years, most of the country converts to another religion. Now imagine you are a Christian, and a minority. Would you feel the same way if you were told that Christians could not give invocations at government functions, while other religions could?
Frankly, I don't think a government meeting is the right place for group prayer. If you're going to do it, you're going to have to let every religion do it. Banning all but three religions is nothing less than the establishment of three official religions, and as we all know,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Labels: church, personal freedoms
Nervous Rodent's Manifesto
Last updated: 29 September 2005I figure everyone has the right to know where a blogger is coming from, so I'm posting a manifesto of sorts. This isn't all-encompassing, but it should serve to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from politically.
- The government that governs best, governs least. -- Thomas Jefferson
- Every service provided by the government is paid for out of the coffers of American wealth, e.g., taxes. To endorse spending is to postulate that the government can get more productivity from the wealth than private citizens, corporations, or organizations.
- It is not a crime that hurts none. All laws should exist to protect innocents; any law that does not is superfluous.
- The economy knows best. Only in the most extreme cases should the government interfere with the free working of the economy. Having said that, many problems are caused by government interference, and may require additional action to correct.
- All people have equal rights, and should be treated equally under the law. Giving privledges to one group over another to correct perceived "disadvantages" is insulting and degrading.
- It is better to fight for your country on foreign soil than at home. Like all rational people, I oppose war on principle. But I would rather fight in Iraq and Afghanistan than Maryland and Virginia.
- There is nothing wrong with religion. Except that no government should ever invoke it, for any reason. Government, by definition, has power over people, and the combination is dangerous in the extreme.
- All citizens have the right to argue and petition for change. Our Constitution has an amendment procedure for a reason. Violent action against a government is only justified against governments that do not, and it is especially justified in that situation.
- Debate and discourse of individuals is preferable to news and editorials dictated by major corporations.
- Opinions change, including mine. This manifesto may change with time. That's because I will, too.
The images at the bottom give a bit of a clue. They are courtesy of the
OkCupid politics test. Feel free to take the test, and post your results as a comment so I can see what my readership is like. I'm 71% socially liberal, and 83% economically permissive. The first graph tells me I'm a Libertarian, the second tells me I'm similar to Jefferson, and the third tells me that people who scored similar results to me were split between Bush and Kerry in the last election.
Thanks to
Dave's Not Here for pointing me to this test.
Labels: afghanistan, church, iraq, nanny state, personal freedoms, privacy, racism, state's rights, taxes
Bring Your Bible To School!
In the sweltering summer of 1925, in Dayton Tennessee, the State
brought forth and prosecuted one Mr. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher accused of teaching evolution in the classroom. Be still my beating heart!
For those who forgot that two hour trial, John Scopes was convicted and fined one hundred dollars, later overturned on a technicality (the fine exceeded the amount allowable by law). John Scopes said, after hearing the sentence,
"Your Honor, I feel that I have been convicted of violating an unjust statute. I will continue in the future, as I have in the past, to oppose this law in any way I can. Any other action would be in violation of my ideal of academic freedom, that is, to teach the truth as guaranteed in our Constitution of personal and religious freedom. I think the fine is unjust."
Thirty seven years later, the law forbidding the teaching evolution in Tennessee was finally struck down as a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The same year, John Scopes published a book,
Center of the Storm, in which he said: "The day will come when we will not be bothered by Fundamentalists."
Friends, that day is not today.
Nor is the current legal challenge in the backwaters of Tennessee. Today, this battle is being fought in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The state capital, and only two hours from Washington, DC, this
well-developed city boasts an International Airport, a well-esteemed minor league baseball team, and has been twice-honored as "All America City"(according to the National Civic League) -- and is now offering ringside seats to
The Monkey Trial II.
Eight families in the Dover Area School District are taking the school to federal court, arguing that the government has no right to teach their children "Intelligent Design," or the belief that evolution is bunk and God created everything.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Oh, but it is hard. As recently as 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that States cannot require schools to teach creationism. Yet even our President, George W. Bush,
has stated that schools should teach it. What's the deal here?
It's simple, folks. Teach your kids about religion at home, in church, and in your community. Don't ask the government to do it for you. Don't give me any crap about Intelligent Design not being religious -- it's the belief that a deity created the universe. That's a religion to me. Don't give me crap that it's "all religions," and therefore not in violation of the First Amendment. It clearly violates polytheistic beliefs, atheist beliefs, and the beliefs of many other religions that believe that while god(s) exist, they did not create the universe.
Maybe we should look at this from another point of view. Do you trust your government? Do you trust them enough to want them to teach your children about God?
I didn't think so.
9/27 - Update --
ScrappleFace is now covering this topic. Good to see a little light on the topic.
Labels: church, free speech, intelligent design
So, why do I bring this up? Any regular visitor to the Nervous Rodent would quickly recognize that I would oppose a law to restrict the sale of alcohol based on a religious belief. I bring it up because there is a bill in the Georgia General Assembly to (finally) partially limit the blue laws so pervasive in the South. Namely, Senate Bill 26 would allow each county and/or municipality that currently allows the sale of alcohol the option of allowing a referendum in that area to allow the sale of beer and wine (not liquor) on Sundays.
