atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) (05/13/85)
I have a question, which I would like to hear argued by any parties
from all these news groups. I have a very lay understanding of separation
of church and state and would like to see good arguments pro and con on
this particular example, which I feel is in clear violation (and if it isn't,
under current interpretation, I would like to see an new interpretation).
Here is the example. Here in Colorado, it is against the law to sell liquor
(and automobiles) retail on Sunday. Bars and restaurants can sell prepaired
drinks and whatnot, but you can't buy bottles of the stuff in liquor stores.
I presume that this law is motivated by the Christian sabbath, as I can
see no other reason behind it (if this isn't the reason behind it, please
let me know what is).
Assuming this, Is this not a clear violation of the separation of church
and state? Is S of C & S a basis for constitutionality, is it just custom,
or does it only apply to laws which seek to restrict religious practices?
If replies are sent to the net all can follow the argument (assuming
someone other than myself is interested...). If this bothers someone,
sing out and I'll formally request replies to myself via mail rather than
net.
Ever seeking enlightenment...
Brian Atkins ...{attunix, hao, allegra, ucbvax}!nbires!atkins
NBI Inc., P.O. Box 9001, Boulder CO 80301 (303) 444-5710mcb8391@acf4.UUCP (mike b) (05/15/85)
blue laws have been decided on by the Supreme Court. I do not have the name of the case with me right now, however and will get back to you on that. The jist of the decision was, in fact, that blue laws are constitutional. The original law contained religious references (such as references to 'The Lord's Day') and is clearly supportive of religious purposes. However, the court decided to interpret the law in such a manner: there are legitimate purposes for declaring 'a day of rest' as regards doing business on any day of the week, and as long as the state does have these secular purposes in mind, and not religious ones, this kind of legislation is legitimate. This was not one of their more finely reasoned cases, given the obvious religious nature of the law, but what can you do. Mike Bassman
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (05/15/85)
****************************************************************************** > > Here is the example. Here in Colorado, it is against the law to sell liquor > (and automobiles) retail on Sunday. Bars and restaurants can sell prepaired > drinks and whatnot, but you can't buy bottles of the stuff in liquor stores. > > I presume that this law is motivated by the Christian sabbath, as I can > see no other reason behind it (if this isn't the reason behind it, please > let me know what is). > > Assuming this, Is this not a clear violation of the separation of church > and state? Is S of C & S a basis for constitutionality, is it just custom, > or does it only apply to laws which seek to restrict religious practices? > > Brian Atkins ...{attunix, hao, allegra, ucbvax}!nbires!atkins Yes, Separation of Church and State is mandated by the first Amendment to the Constitution. Laws of this sort have been challenged in the past (it seems to me that the last time was sometime in the 1930's--I don't remember which state). They were held to be constitutional under the states' powers to regulate commerce. They also argued (successfully) that the choice of Sunday was not religiously motivated but the choice the would cause the least disruption considering the number of people who don't work on that day anyway. Considering the shifts in the courts' positions over the last 50 years on many topics and especially on the place of the churches in secular society, it would be interesting to see it challenged again. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
benson@dcdwest.UUCP (Peter Benson) (05/16/85)
The restriction against selling liquor on Sunday is a
religious restriction. I have always thought that it would be
appropriate to restrict only those people whose religious day
it was. Thus, Christians might be restricted from buying
things on Sunday, but not atheists. Of course, everyone would
have to carry religious id cards ...
--
_
Peter Benson | ITT Defense Communications Division
(619)578-3080 | 10060 Carroll Canyon Road
decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!benson | San Diego, CA 92131
ucbvax!sdcsvax!dcdwest!benson | alan@cae780.UUCP (Alan M. Steinberg) (05/16/85)
In article <1192@opus.UUCP> atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) writes: >Here is the example. Here in Colorado, it is against the law to sell liquor >(and automobiles) retail on Sunday. Bars and restaurants can sell prepaired >drinks and whatnot, but you can't buy bottles of the stuff in liquor stores. > >I presume that this law is motivated by the Christian sabbath, as I can >see no other reason behind it (if this isn't the reason behind it, please >let me know what is). > I cannot see any reason about it either, in this century. When blue laws were started, everyone was of the same faith -- religiously Christian. Since these laws bettered everyone spiritually, they may have been a good thing, AT THE TIME!!! But today, there are Jews, Moslems, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Consumers, who regard Sunday as a day to do things like buying cars (and liquor?! :-) ). If a store-keeper wishes to keep his/her store closed during his Sabbath, that is his prerogative. But to have a law about it not just on the books, but enforced, is very archaic and one-sided. In other words, it is a violation of the separation of church and state. Any act which is based on faith, and prevents those of other faiths (or without any faiths) from their normal actions, is a violation of church and state. It follows the addage: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. This principle holds true when there is no vast majority of people following one faith to the same degree, and when the country is declared as being secular. These problems take on a different twist in places like Israel, where the country was set up specifically as a Jewish state. The Great Debate there centers around this principle. How Jewish? The majority of the people, though Jewish, are not religous. Should they then be prevented from going to the beach on the Jewish Sabbath? Or should the very religious have to see people violate the laws which, to them, define Judaism? These are problems inherent in a country which defines itself as being of a certain religion. The U.S., however, was founded on the principle of religious freedom for all, without bias towards one or another. So why still the blue laws? How can there be laws specifically geared towards a certain segment of the population, but which affect all? A whole bag of worms is probably being opened up now on the net, so get at it. Give your OPINION. Just remember that it is just that, and not the truth according to your specific beliefs. -- __ / 0_____ Alan Steinberg | .\ {ucbvax}!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!alan | )----' / | \ \ "The wind doth taste so bittersweet, | | | \ Like Jaspar Wine and sugar. | |__/ | It must've blown through someone's feet, \_____/ Like those of Caspar Weinberger." |____) -- P. Opus, distinguished flightless water fowl
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (05/16/85)
>Here is the example. Here in Colorado, it is against the law to sell liquor >(and automobiles) retail on Sunday. Bars and restaurants can sell prepaired >drinks and whatnot, but you can't buy bottles of the stuff in liquor stores. > >I presume that this law is motivated by the Christian sabbath, as I can >see no other reason behind it (if this isn't the reason behind it, please >let me know what is). > >Assuming this, Is this not a clear violation of the separation of church >and state? Is S of C & S a basis for constitutionality, is it just custom, >or does it only apply to laws which seek to restrict religious practices? The Constitution states something of the nature that the Government will make no laws respecting an established religion. (Well, something like that, its purpose was to allow religous freedom by avoiding a state religion.) However, it also passes unspecified rights to the state. I would be willing to bet that that law was passed when there was a very strong states rights Supreme Court, and if one of those laws was ever tested, they ruled that it was up to the states to make those decisions. As a person, I do not like it at all, and would like to see those kinds of blue laws overturned. I do not like being told that I can not do something because it is a religous day (I am strongly anti-established religions). By the same token, I do not like being told that I must take Christmas Day off, it is not a holiday for me, I can do productive work then. The only way to challenge this law is to get some vendor to open on Sunday, and when the state tries to close him, take it to court, claiming that the law respects and established church. Get some legal help from the ACLU. PS. I also agree with churches being automatically tax exempt. If they are non-profit, let them prove it, if they are running a profit, let it be taxed like any other corporation. -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa The Boss gave me one of these, ten seconds, he said. Let's see if it works...
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (05/17/85)
In article <188@dcdwest.UUCP> benson@dcdwest.UUCP (Peter benson) writes: || ||The restriction against selling liquor on Sunday is a ||religious restriction. I wish it were so simple. As an observant Jew, I can't shop on Saturdays before sundown, and with most stores closed Sunday I have to shop during the week for many things. Sunday-closing legislation can be based either on religion ("everyone should rest on Sunday") or on the "regulation for the good of society" premise ("employees need a day off, and it's most convenient to let everyone take the same day"). In Canada, the federal Parliament has the right to legislate in criminal matters, while the provincial legislatures can legislate general licensing and trade matters. The federal Lord's Day Act makes it a criminal offense to carry on certain types of business on Sunday. This legislation was, quite properly, struck down a few weeks ago by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court held that the legislation is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, several provinces (including Ontario, where I live) have provincial legislation, such as the Retail Business Holidays Act. This legislation purports to say nothing about religion. However, it regulates the days on which businesses may be open. The argument is that if one supermarket or department store can be open 7 days a week, every other store will have to as well, in order to avoid losing market share. This will lead to a large number of employees being forced to work 7 days a week, which is considered undesirable. Therefore, all stores must close on one day. Since there are (many) more Christians than anything else in the province, that day is Sunday. This also protects observant Christians from being forced to work on Sunday by an employer who isn't willing or able to hire part-time help for a single day. Note: I don't agree with this logic; I'm just explaining it. The Retail Business Holidays Act has been challenged in the courts under the Charter of Rights. So far it has reached the Ontario Court of Appeal; the Supreme Court of Canada will no doubt hear the cases within a year or so. The argument presented by the defendants is that the legislation contravenes the protection in the Charter of every person's freedom of religion. The Court's response to the two cases before it was interesting. Nortown Foods, a store operated by Jews who are Sabbath-observant and which is closed on Saturday, won its case. The Court held that freedom of religion includes not only the right to practise one's religion, but the right not to be financially penalised as a result of doing so. Since the store cannot be open on Saturday, forcing it to close on Sunday violates the Charter. Paul Magder Furs, on the other hand, is open 7 days a week. The Court of Appeal ruled that the provincial legislation's purpose is regulatory rather than religious, and therefore the conviction was upheld. (The store is still open every Sunday, and Magder is dutifully charged every week by Metro Toronto police.) Personally, I hope that the Supreme Court agrees with Paul Magder that the basis of the Retail Business Holidays Act really is religious. But the arguments for the other side can't be discarded without some careful thought. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (05/18/85)
> > Yes, Separation of Church and State is mandated by the first > Amendment to the Constitution. Thats as may be, but ... The fact of the matter, at least here in Texas, is that the Blue Laws are primarily for the protection of specific business interests. The Texas Legistlature is on the verge of repealing the law here in Texas, **Except** for car dealerships. The arguments for retaining it centered only peripherally on religion--the main complaints were from small business persons who claimed their overhead would go up (You figure it out :-)
ix191@sdcc6.UUCP (ix191) (05/20/85)
In article <1192@opus.UUCP> atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) writes:
I'd like to add an interesting tid bit to Brian's discussion
of Curch and State. In an Anthropology class I once took we
studied religion in the U.S., and we noticed that in EVERY
one of the inaugural (sp?) speaches made by past
Presidents, G-d was mentioned. In no way was it ever
offensive, but It was another direct play with the influence
of church and state.
I too would like a discussion of this over the net.
-Debi Cohenteitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (05/20/85)
> This principle holds true when there is no vast majority of people following > one faith to the same degree, and when the country is declared as being > secular. > > These are problems inherent in a country which defines itself as being of > a certain religion. The U.S., however, was founded on the principle of > religious freedom for all, without bias towards one or another. So why > still the blue laws? How can there be laws specifically geared towards a > certain segment of the population, but which affect all? > If this country was set up as non-religious and has laws to prevent mixing of church and state, then even if the entire nation is of one religion certain laws should still not be passed. Blue laws should have never been legal. I guess there was a time that people really didn't care too much about the separation of church and state. Eliyahu Teitz.
rose@sdcsvax.UUCP (Daniel Rose) (05/22/85)
I am originally from Massachusetts, where Blue Laws were in effect until two years ago. There are still some left, for instance a store cannot sell liquor on Sunday. It used to be that most stores couldn't be open at all. Anyway, there was a famous supreme court case (I don't remember the name) in which a kosher market wanted to stay open Sunday, but close Saturday, since that's the Jewish sabbath. The court ruled that they could indeed do this without violating the intent of the blue laws. It still seems like a violation of church and state separation to say, "you have to close on someone's sabbath, even if it's not mine." What if you're an atheist, or your religion has no sabbath, or whatever? Dan Rose sdcsvax!rose
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/23/85)
> I guess there was a time that people really didn't care too much about > the separation of church and state. [Eliyahu Teitz] I think you're referring to the last four years or so, no? ... :-? -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (05/24/85)
>I am originally from Massachusetts, where Blue Laws were in effect >until two years ago. There are still some left, for instance a >store cannot sell liquor on Sunday. It used to be that most stores >couldn't be open at all. >Anyway, there was a famous supreme court case (I don't remember the >name) in which a kosher market wanted to stay open Sunday, but close >Saturday, since that's the Jewish sabbath. The court ruled that >they could indeed do this without violating the intent of the blue >laws. It still seems like a violation of church and state separation >to say, "you have to close on someone's sabbath, even if it's not >mine." What if you're an atheist, or your religion has no sabbath, >or whatever? >Dan Rose >sdcsvax!rose As has been explained by someone else, blue laws have a benefit to society. That is that they hinder employers from working their employees seven days a week, forcing all competitive businesses to stay open 7 days to remain competitive, etc. The question then becomes, "Why Sunday, or the Sabbath? Why not just say they have to close one day out of the week?" There are problems with this also. If, for religious reasons, one must worship on a particular day, then that one is limited to working for employers that close on that day. This could turn into a tool for discrimination, since an employer that didn't want to hire Jews could insist on Saturday being a work day. In the case of the kosher market there is no problem, since it caters mostly to persons who keep the same day, but the problem becomes more complicated for other businesses. The vast majority of religious people in this country worship on either Saturday or Sunday. Either that, or they have no sabbath or are not bound to a particular day and can just as well worship on the weekend. (I used to live next to and Islamic mosque that had worship on Sunday. I guess this is no problem for them.) Specifying one or two days helps accommodate the importance of religious worship for the people, helps keep the week uniform, and also gives non-religious folk a day off (you've got to mow your lawn sometime don't you? :-)). Hostility toward religion is also a violation of the separation of church and state. Not allowing for a consistent sabbath period at least borders on this. The wall has *two* sides. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (05/25/85)
In article <1632@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: >> The U.S., however, was founded on the principle of >> religious freedom for all, without bias towards one or another. ... > > Blue laws should have never been > legal. I guess there was a time that people really didn't care too much about > the separation of church and state. Most of this debate has centered around a common fallacy, i.e., that there is a complete separation of church & state in the US. In fact, there is not even any clause in the Constitution that prohibits a state from passing laws based on any particular religion. The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government, i.e., Congress, from passing such laws, but even that is quite different than most people think. I don't have a copy of it here in front of me just now, so I will not attempt an analysis of it. Briefly, there are 2 main clauses to it, the Establishment clause, which prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion, & the Freedom clause, which prohibits the Congress from passing laws which restrict the exercise of any religion. A basic principle of Constitutional law is that all powers which are not explicitly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states. The Constitution is silent regarding powers of the states to establish or regulate religion or religious activity. There is ample precedent allowing states to regulate commercial activity in anyway they see fit that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution or allowable Federal law (e.g., the Interstate Commerce Act). Some of the ways states (& cities) see fit to regulate commerce range between silly & insane... -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250 34o3'15" N by 118o14'28" W
neal@denelvx.UUCP (Neal Weidenhofer) (05/26/85)
****************************************************************************** > > A basic principle of Constitutional law is that all powers which are > not explicitly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the > states. The Constitution is silent regarding powers of the states to > establish or regulate religion or religious activity. > > Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} Not quite, the fourteenth amendment (I don't recall the wording) effectively extends the prohibitions upon the federal government--in particular the bill of rights--to the states. What you say was true before the civil war. Can anyone fill in more of the history of this interpretation of the fourteenth amendment? From reading it, I get the impresssion that its original concern was forcing the states to grant full rights of citizenship to blacks. Regards, Neal Weidenhofer "The law is for protection Denelcor, Inc. of the people" <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
jak@talcott.UUCP (Joe Konstan) (05/27/85)
> The First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government, i.e., Congress, > from passing such laws, but even that is quite different than most > people think. I don't have a copy of it here in front of me just now, > so I will not attempt an analysis of it. Briefly, there are 2 main > clauses to it, the Establishment clause, which prohibits Congress from > establishing a state religion, & the Freedom clause, which prohibits > the Congress from passing laws which restrict the exercise of any > religion. > > A basic principle of Constitutional law is that all powers which are > not explicitly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the > states. The Constitution is silent regarding powers of the states to > establish or regulate religion or religious activity. There is ample > precedent allowing states to regulate commercial activity in anyway > they see fit that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution > or allowable Federal law (e.g., the Interstate Commerce Act). Some of > the ways states (& cities) see fit to regulate commerce range between > silly & insane... > > -- Not completely true. All powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to THE PEOPLE or the states. The fourteenth amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as a method of constraining state action so that it is consistent with the bill of rights. No state can deny you freedom of speech, or establish a religion, because of the effect of the 14th amendment. Commerce comes under a separate case (not individual rights) but states are prevented from impairing the obligation of contracts, etc. and do not have complete authority to do anything (due to judicial review, rational relations to a legitimate goal, etc.). They do, however, exercise significant authority, outside of rights-oriented legislation, from the domain of "police powers." Mithrandir jak@talcott
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/28/85)
Many court cases have been brought and heard on this subject, some by Jews who wanted to have their Sabbath (Friday night to Saturday night) recognized in some communities insetad, etc etc. As far as I know, the courts have generally held that this, like some other customs -- opening Congress and state legislatures, city councils, etc. with a prayer, etc etc -- is in a category of usages which do not amount to re-establishing a specific religion (which is really all that was prohibited by the Bill of Rights), and that especially in the case of recognizing Sunday, the whole community needs some one day "off" anyway... so it might as well be the one started with the originally religious Sunday. Where the usage has been obviously with a directly and purely religious implication (such as New England's "blue laws") without redeeming other values, the courts have generally held that the practice was unconstitutional and thrown it out.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (05/29/85)
> .... is in a category of usages which do > not amount to re-establishing a specific religion (which is really all > that was prohibited by the Bill of Rights) This is a common misconception. The following quotation is from the majority Supreme Court opinion in McGowan v. Maryland, 366 US 420 (1961) -- a decision which, incidentally, upheld a Sunday closing law. But, the First Amendment, in its final form, did not simply bar a congressional enactment *establishing a church* [italics in the original]; it forbade all laws *respecting an establishment of religion*. Thus, this Court has given the Amendment a "broad interpretation" ... "in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress...." ... It has found that the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford protection against religious establishment far more extensive than merely to forbid a national or state church. Their interpretation was based largely on the legislative history of the First Amendment; for example, the original wording, as proposed by James Madison, read: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed. The opinion notes that the word "national" was apparently included to spare the official religions in a number of states.... --Steve Bellovin
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (05/29/85)
> > > In article <1192@opus.UUCP> atkins@opus.UUCP (Brian Atkins) writes: > > I'd like to add an interesting tid bit to Brian's discussion > of Curch and State. In an Anthropology class I once took we > studied religion in the U.S., and we noticed that in EVERY > one of the inaugural (sp?) speaches made by past > Presidents, G-d was mentioned. In no way was it ever > offensive, but It was another direct play with the influence > of church and state. > > I too would like a discussion of this over the net. > Let's not get involved in the 'in G-D we trust' on our money, as we did a few months ago. Eliyahu Teitz.
rcj@burl.UUCP (R. Curtis Jackson) (06/04/85)
> I am originally from Massachusetts, where Blue Laws were in effect > until two years ago. There are still some left, for instance a > store cannot sell liquor on Sunday. It used to be that most stores > couldn't be open at all. I just have to add these two gems: I graduated from college in 1982, and as of when I left Oxford, MS (University of Mississippi is next door to the town), you could not purchase any alcohol in any form on Sunday, nor could you purchase playing cards, dice, or anything else that might lead to gambling. I'll never forget my culture shock when we wanted to play Canasta one night and were denied the purchase of two decks of cards at the local convenience store. Also, one may purchase hard liquor from liquor stores (NOT state-run, surprisingly), and you can purchase liquor-by-the-drink, wine, and beer in bars, but you CANNOT purchase COLD beer in stores; it must be at room temperature!! This was done by the upstanding citizenry of the town to prevent their young folk from riding around in their cars and drinking beer; so the young folk now have to drive about thirty minutes away to cross the county line to get cold beer and, because enforcement is so stiff in their home county, they must swill it all down while riding out to the local reservoir before they come swerving their way back home. Wonderful. P.S.: When I said no alcohol 'on Sunday', I should have clarified it to mean 'between midnight Saturday and 8:00am Monday'. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (06/08/85)
There are obvious dimensions of community customs and of social
values outside of religion (employees need a common day of rest, etc)
in connection with store closings. Also, no one is placed at serious
disadvantage, or at least not to a degree disproportionate to the
minority status of the faith) in this kind of practice. In contrast,
where teachers lead children in common prayer, we have a state
official (the teacher) and thus a person who from the child's view is
very powerful encouraging a majority exercise with specific religious
(sometimes specific sect) implications, and the child at great
disadvantage even if (because it's supposedly "voluntary") it may have
been told that it can ask to be excused.
This is what I mean by "disadvantage" -- nothing of this sort is
perpetrated on anyone by common closing days, even if they are those
of a majority group as in the case of Sunday. Where such disadvantages
have been imposed by people even through the practice of the Sunday
(for example, Christian employer refusing to give Jewish employees the
Sabbath as day off), generally the courts have protected the
individual's right to practice his or her religion wherever possible.