[net.religion.jewish] Violation of separation church and state????

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

teitz@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.

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

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