Something the American gov't has yet to understand...

[Wetmelon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLo5eI109sw

From Wikipedia:

"Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau PC CC CH QC FRSC (usually known as Pierre Trudeau or Pierre Elliott Trudeau) (18 October 1919 28 September 2000), was the fifteenth Prime Minister of Canada from 20 April 1968 to 4 June 1979, and from 3 March 1980 to 30 June 1984. Trudeau was the first Canadian Prime Minister born in the 20th century.

Trudeau was a charismatic figure who, from the late 1960s until the mid-1980s, dominated the Canadian political scene and aroused passionate reactions. "Reason before passion" was his personal motto. "He haunts us still," biographers Christina McCall and Stephen Clarkson wrote in 1990. Admirers praise the force of Trudeau's intellect. They salute his political acumen in preserving national unity and establishing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within Canada's constitution. His detractors accuse him of arrogance, economic mismanagement, and unduly favouring the authority of the federal government in relation to the provinces. Nevertheless, few would dispute that Trudeau was a towering figure who helped redefine Canada.

Trudeau led Canada through some of its most tumultuous times and was often the centre of controversy. Known for his flamboyance, he dated celebrities, was accused of using an obscenity during debate in the House of Commons, and once did a pirouette behind the back of Queen Elizabeth II."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_T...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLo5eI109sw

[Fencergrl]

I am assuming you mean Trudeau's statement "The State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."...

I am also assuming that you're wondering why so many decades later that the USA is still struggling with issues in their law making that they really shouldn't be deciding about at all.

What is that about? Does religion play a stronger role in the US than Canada? I can't help but wonder if in the late '60's (when this statement was made) if this was the case. So why?

[Wetmelon]

Well, since I've lived in both Canada and the United States' "Bible Belt", I would surmise that there is a strict practice of religious intolerance in the rural America, leading to some very strict practices within one's own religion, trying to defend it. This leads to a lot of crossover between Church and State - what the Americans supposedly worked so hard to eliminate...

Also, Trudeau himself may have impacted Canada greatly. He, although being rather religious, seemed to make certain that he was not bringing religion with him to the debate table.

SO glad to be moving back to Canada

[I_luv_saber]

Well, since I've lived in both Canada and the United States' "Bible Belt", I would surmise that there is a strict practice of religious intolerance in the rural America, leading to some very strict practices within one's own religion, trying to defend it.

Intolerance by the State or intolerance by people?

This leads to a lot of crossover between Church and State - what the Americans supposedly worked so hard to eliminate...

I've gotta say I'm pretty confused by what you mean by "a lot of crossover". The only situation I can really see that as the case is the gay marriage issue (which, I might add has a lot of support even outside of religious communities). I agree, it is ridiculous, but that does not equate a lot of crossover.

Supposedly? So you are implying a mass conspiracy to tie the Church and State together secretly?

SO glad to be moving back to Canada

I love when people live in one part of the US and assume it must all be like that...

[lindajdunn]

I live in the Bible belt. Many political activities take place in church. Ministers argue politics and sometimes dictate for whom one should vote. [Vote otherwise and you're risking your soul.] Church groups locally have shut down businesses, petitioned local government to deny licenses, etc. The churches locally have done a good job of electing their own and sometimes it is difficult to see where government stops and church begins. Then again, sometimes it doesn't stop. It's one and the same.

In addition to gay marriage, religion controls and drives the abortion issue (at least in this state), liquor sales, the distribution of Playboy at 7-11s, and a lot of blue laws.

[You still cannot buy cars or liquor in this state on Sunday and that's just two of the more obvious blue laws.]

[I_luv_saber]

I live in the Bible belt. Many political activities take place in church. Ministers argue politics and sometimes dictate for whom one should vote. [Vote otherwise and you're risking your soul.] Church groups locally have shut down businesses, petitioned local government to deny licenses, etc. The churches locally have done a good job of electing their own and sometimes it is difficult to see where government stops and church begins. Then again, sometimes it doesn't stop. It's one and the same.

I don't see how this is a convergence of Church and State. This is people exercising their rights.

What would you pose as an alternative? If you are a part of a religion you can't run for office? Can't petition? We should limit the gathering abilities of these groups?

I don't see any satisfiable solution to this that would still retain freedom.

In addition to gay marriage, religion controls and drives the abortion issue (at least in this state), liquor sales, the distribution of Playboy at 7-11s, and a lot of blue laws.

So if religion has any interest in a subject, it's religion controlling State? Liquor laws, distribution of Playboy's, and even abortion (to a lesser extent, I give you that is a large religion-based stance) have many many more behind them than just religion. For example, many parents groups are what push against Playboys, and many law enforcement agencies press liquor laws. These are far from just religious issues, even if they may have a hand in it.

[Fencergrl]

So if religion has any interest in a subject, it's religion controlling State?

Would you feel the same way if it was a different religion mixing with the lawmaking? What if a lot of Muslims got into power and decided that all women need to wear veils or risk jail time. Or Buddhists making the purchase of meat for food unavailable.*

There are lots of places in the world where religion plays a role in the country's laws. How do you feel about this? Do you still think it's alright to mix religion and lawmaking when the laws don't reflect your own belief structure? Should laws not reflect the belief systems of the majority as opposed to a vocal minority in any country?

*I'm not saying this happens in countries practising Buddhism.

[lindajdunn]

I don't see how this is a convergence of Church and State. This is people exercising their rights.

What would you pose as an alternative? If you are a part of a religion you can't run for office? Can't petition? We should limit the gathering abilities of these groups?

No. I just think they should have to pay taxes and file as PACs.

I don't see any satisfiable solution to this that would still retain freedom.

It's called "separation of church and state". I believe it's in the constitution.

So if religion has any interest in a subject, it's religion controlling State?

No. It's religion controlling the local government when the church, during its services, solicits volunteers to picket the local 7-11, calls upon members to boycott businesses, and uses church funds (not taxed) to hire lobbyists.

Of course, churches have been doing this since the Stone Age, when OOg cast the bones and told Urrg that if he didn't share his kill with the tribe, he would be eaten by a saber tooth tiger. Oog was, of course, the first Socialist.

Liquor laws, distribution of Playboy's, and even abortion (to a lesser extent, I give you that is a large religion-based stance) have many many more behind them than just religion. For example, many parents groups are what push against Playboys, and many law enforcement agencies press liquor laws. These are far from just religious issues, even if they may have a hand in it.

And how many non-religious groups pushed to eliminate car sales on Sunday?

[Fencer X and Y]

And how many non-religious groups pushed to eliminate car sales on Sunday?

The bicycle coalition of America, the green party, etc...(of course those groups push to eliminate the car sales on any day so maybe you shoudl be happy that those groups aren't mainstream in your area).

It's religion controlling the local government when the church, during its services, solicits volunteers to picket the local 7-11, calls upon members to boycott businesses, and uses church funds (not taxed) to hire lobbyists.

There is absolutely ntohing stopping you from writing to the American Atheist and asking them to picket and boycot your local church or your local religious bookstore. As far as I know they are a non-profit and they also don't pay any taxes. They also hire lobbyists (see GAPAC)

It's called "separation of church and state". I believe it's in the constitution.

You have still not made the case that the government somehow endorses one religion over another. The only thing you have shown is in your community religion is important and it is reflected in the officials that you elect and the laws that you pass. When your officials pass a law that says that you have to go church on Sunday or be thrown in jail, pray every morning or pay a fine, or if tithes all of a sudden begin to be taken out of your paycheck, then your complaints will be valid. Cars not being sold on Sunday? If that is the wish of the majority of your community then so be it. Who am I to tell your neighbors how to live?

[Fencergrl]

It's called "separation of church and state". I believe it's in the constitution.

Shhh... he wants to pick and choose which parts of the constitution that matter.

[lindajdunn]

Shhh... he wants to pick and choose which parts of the constitution that matter.

Ohmygosh! You mean that's Dick Cheney? I didn't know he fenced.

[Fencergrl]

After this.... his friends won't let him near guns, so he took up fencing.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...eneynragun.htm

[jeff]

Cars not being sold on Sunday? If that is the wish of the majority of your community then so be it. Who am I to tell your neighbors how to live?

That doesn't follow. If somebody doesn't want to shop for a car on Sunday, and the dealer doesn't want to be open, nobody forces them (however much GM would like that ). What we're talking about is neighbors telling me how to live.

I recently moved from a locale with blue laws, where I could buy gas, alcohol, or groceries on Sunday, but couldn't buy a shirt. If I traveled to the next town in the same county, the rules could be slightly different. It wasn't set by majority opinion - the laws have been on the books for a long time, and a few individuals (like the mayor of Paramus) resisted any attempts to have them repealed. No referendum options were made available in the decade I lived there.

Now I live in an area where I can buy whatever I want on any day of the week. Heck, there's booze in the supermarket, and casinos open on Sunday! Wow, is that ever different.

[Fencergrl]

I kinda liked these ones too... so many to choose from!

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...ngaccident.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...untingbush.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...ilvslawyer.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...ngtrophies.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...hbrokeback.htm

[I_luv_saber]

Would you feel the same way if it was a different religion mixing with the lawmaking? What if a lot of Muslims got into power and decided that all women need to wear veils or risk jail time. Or Buddhists making the purchase of meat for food unavailable.*

That's different because it's infringing on others rights.

In the cases where it is Christian laws infringing, I totally agree, that's BS. Such as the gay marriage case. However, specifying certain times and places for selling alcohol and porn I would hardly call infringement, and not just a religion-based argument.

Now, if it was another religion passing laws that did not affect my rights, then no I would not care if they were in power.

Your rights stop at the tip of my nose, basically.

How do you feel about this? Do you still think it's alright to mix religion and lawmaking when the laws don't reflect your own belief structure? Should laws not reflect the belief systems of the majority as opposed to a vocal minority in any country?

I never said it was right to mix the two, I simply said it is NOT right to prevent people in a religion to exercise their rights. Now, again, if there is a religion-based law affecting someone else's rights, such as the gay marriage issue, than that is not right.

[I_luv_saber]

No. I just think they should have to pay taxes and file as PACs.

I don't necessarily disagree, but that is very tricky territory. Should all religions have to do this (regardless of involvement)? Should religions have to do this even if they simply discuss politics and do not actively participate? There's a lot of questions there on who would/would not be affected and how to decide it.

It's called "separation of church and state". I believe it's in the constitution.

Common misconception. Actually, it's not. I believe it came from Jefferson first, in a letter to a constituent (?). I'm not saying it's not a noble goal, just pointing that out.

And I'm not sure how preventing a group of people from exercising their rights is preserving freedoms or separation of church and state.

No. It's religion controlling the local government when the church, during its services, solicits volunteers to picket the local 7-11, calls upon members to boycott businesses, and uses church funds (not taxed) to hire lobbyists.

Erm, no, that isn't religion controlling government. Religion controlling government would be something like forcing Christian prayer in schools, or mandatory Christian church service. 7-11 not selling alcohol in certain areas is not necessarily that. As I pointed out, it has many other reasons and supporters aside from religion. It's something that affects the community, regardless of your religion, and does not put one religion over another.

Why would this be any different than a regular activist group?

Now, you may have a point with them having an unfair advantage due to the fact they are not taxed, but that is a far shot away from "controlling the government".

And this still doesn't change the fact these are community-based laws and not religion-based laws anyway. Many parents, regardless of religion, are in favor of them.

And how many non-religious groups pushed to eliminate car sales on Sunday?

Truthfully, I think this is not a widespread problem. You may be right in this case, I have no idea.

But I will say that many things that originated in religion, such as not working on Sunday, have carried over into modern life but no longer carry religious connotations.

We expect to have Sundays off, whatever religion you are.

[I_luv_saber]

That doesn't follow. If somebody doesn't want to shop for a car on Sunday, and the dealer doesn't want to be open, nobody forces them (however much GM would like that ). What we're talking about is neighbors telling me how to live.

But it does not show that religion is the only one pushing for it, be it a bad law or not. Again, I can definitely see this as another community law, without religious ties. Especially in smaller towns. It has less to do with religious attitude and more to do with NIMBY attitudes and similar community feelings.

I recently moved from a locale with blue laws, where I could buy gas, alcohol, or groceries on Sunday, but couldn't buy a shirt. If I traveled to the next town in the same county, the rules could be slightly different. It wasn't set by majority opinion - the laws have been on the books for a long time, and a few individuals (like the mayor of Paramus) resisted any attempts to have them repealed. No referendum options were made available in the decade I lived there.

Another thing I was going to point out is that it sounds like one of those decrepit laws like not being able to put your donkey in a bathtub.

[jeff]

I agree. In fact, one of the rationales for the blue laws is that it somehow helps small businesses. Still, it is a restriction on freedom. Where are the libertarians when you actually need 'em?

My donkey's feelings are hurt. He likes his bubble bath very much

[Fencer X and Y]

That doesn't follow. If somebody doesn't want to shop for a car on Sunday, and the dealer doesn't want to be open, nobody forces them (however much GM would like that ). What we're talking about is neighbors telling me how to live.

In the case of the dealership being closed on Sunday I see it as much more of a protection of those that work in the dealership then the evil church telling me what I can and can not buy. If someone wants to have a nice relaxing weekend, and Sunday is their choice of day for that, then the law protects them by saying you don't have to work on that day. Or are you suggesting that all labor laws are unconstitutional and people should be able to work for 14 days straight with no additional restrictions if that's what the employer wants?

And anyway you guys are acting like these types of restrictions are solely the responsibilities of the church, and if there was no religion then you'd be able to buy as much porn and alcohol when you want it and where you want it. I live in California, in an area where I can guarantee you there are no church influences whatsoever. I still can't get alcohol after 2AM in a bar. There are still restrictions on where pron shops are allowed. And guess what if I want to buy a gun I'm SOL and have to drive 50 miles to the nearest dealer. This has nothing to do with religion but with the desires and needs of certain communities. As ILS already pointed out, what you're suggesting is that if something is somehow related to religion then there should be absolutely no government involvement in it, and yet it is written in the bible thou shall not murder. Where do you draw the line that this did originate in the bible but it's a good law, this also originated in the bible but it inconviniences me so I'm going to say the government has no right to enforce this law? I would say the solution is to see what individual communities want. If where Linda lives the majority really want the dealerships closed on Sundays then they should be closed on Sundays. And it does not make it a bad or an unconstitutional law just because a minister came up with it. The constitution offers protection from both the tyranny of the majority (there are no laws that will make Linda go to church) but also the tyranny of the minorities (a few individuals who somehow think that buying a car on Sunday is a right in a community where the majority don't want cars sold on Sundays).

[I_luv_saber]

I agree. In fact, one of the rationales for the blue laws is that it somehow helps small businesses. Still, it is a restriction on freedom. Where are the libertarians when you actually need 'em?

Agreed.

My donkey's feelings are hurt. He likes his bubble bath very much

My favorite was one somewhere up north... something about you cannot push a moose out of an airplaine..... (here's the kicker)..... above 2,000 ft (or something like that).

I wanna see the precedent that made that law necessary!