I think that if they put church and state together, it might become a dictatorship
As I was saying before the forum went down and I lost my entire post, it would be more of a theocracy than a dictatorship. But while the U.S. may not be as secular as the E.U., we still frown a lot on religious-based discourse in politics. Which is a good thing in my opinion.
Quote from "Stonebreaker" »
who do think will win on the Democrat side?
Eh, it's still fairly open I think. Technically, Clinton has more delegates than Obama, but the California votes are still not all in and there are a significant number of states that still need to do their caucuses.
It DOES say that it's unlawful to practice it anywhere but socials in a school or church building though.
You need to interpret it sentence by sentence. That's how Con law lawyers like to pick this stuff apart.
For the counties that are mentioned, it says that those specific practices are to be prohibited no matter what. You can make a Free Exercise argument here that a government is violating your right to practice your religion.
In the counties that it is allowed in as long as it is an amateur practice in a school or church setting, obviously anyone can claim to be merely an amateur and they could also easily link whatever they were doing to either their church or school.
For example, I've been caught doing some palm reading in my home. My defense? I am practicing palm reading because I would like to try it as a novelty act at my school fair. Or maybe I am a Christian and I need to learn about palm reading so that I may give a lesson at my church about how palm reading is bad.
It clearly states it is only to be in socials that are held in School or Church buildings. That means that if, say, my sister was to move to North Carolina (My sister does Terot cards, not me. Lol...) and to practice such things inside her house, she would be put in jail.
But this is the ambiguity of law that you need to consider. It says what it will not prohibit. But it also doesn't say what it will not allow. And because the law never stated it would not allow your sister to use Tarot cards insider her house, so could she easily make the case that it is well within her right to use Tarot cards in her house. This lack of foresight in the law (intentional or otherwise) would also overlap with privacy rights within the constitution. So if someone were to go as far as raiding your sister's home while she was using her Tarot cards just to arrest her for using the careds, it would be pretty easy to argue that her Constitutional rights had been violated and the federal court would step in and overturn any jurisdiction that the state law felt it had over your sister. But I actually don't believe it would need to go that far. I think even in a state supreme court the law could be picked apart to show that it does not say it will not allow her to use the Tarot cards in the privacy of her own home.
I think this perceived threat some of you have about the government saying you can't practice one religion or another is widely unfounded. When it comes to religious freedom, the U.S. remains one of the most open and liberal states in the world that allows freedom of religion. You could cite the 1st Amendment alone to contest this South Carolina law. But the law is scrapped anyway. So even less the reason to worry, no?
But it also means it would be illegal for personal use as well. If they passed a law about Islam or Judaism or Christianity not even being permitted in your own house, I am sure that opinions wouldn't be the same here.
I don't think that's what it means. With possibly the use of a church setting which is also private, the law makes no other mention for or against these practices in a private setting. Effectively, since it does not prohibit private use, I would interpret that as meaning a person is free to exercise these practices in private.
What Constitutional law attempts to do in regards to religion is to neither officially endorse it, nor prohibit it in any way. It's the best system we've come up with so far, but obviously it runs into snags from time to time.
The reason I find laws like that hypocritical (and maybe that was the wrong word to use) is because America was founded on certain beliefs and freedoms, yet state governments are taking it upon themselves to tell people what they may or may not do as far as religious beliefs are concerned.
States may make whatever laws they like as they do not interfere with the Constitution. Even religious laws can be made as long they do not interfere with the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment. And don't get me wrong; states have often drafted laws that were challenged in a federal court because someone felt those clauses were ineed violated. But the law that Linkx listed there, I think for its time, it actually managed a decent balance between those two clauses. It's saying that yes, one may perform such things, but that it must be in connection with a school or church. But I think even if you were to find something fallible about the wording of the law, proponents of this law could still easily fall back on it being a consumer protection issue. It was reasonable that the law was scrapped, but also reasonable at the time that the law was there. And as I said before, I doubt even when this law was in existence that it was really enforced that much. It just didn't seem likely that the police did raids on phrenologists' offices or palm reading places. Maybe they did though, I don't know. But I believe the intention of the law then was really to protect consumers more than to discriminate. If I wanted to be a palm reader, I doubt I would need a degree in palm reading. I could just come out of nowhere and claim to be a professional palm reader and charge people whatever I wanted for such a service.
Quote from "Requiem" »
It's like saying that you're allowed to like any color you want, except you can only choose been blue and green
I think you may be overgeneralizing this a bit.
Quote from "Requiem" »
(not the greatest example, but I'm not a very good debater, so bear with me, lol). Maybe 'too restrictive' was the phrase I was looking for.
LOL You're all good. I'm not trying to go after you or anything. I'm just making sure we understand one another.
Quote from "Requiem" »
Again, I probably didn't use a good word to describe what I'd meant by 'mocking.' I'm just imagining a school carnival or fund-raiser that has someone 'reading fortunes' for money, which may anger someone who seriously believes themselves to be psychic and practices as such. Myself, I don't actually believe in any of it, but there are people who take it quite seriously.
I agree that people definitely take it more seriously than others. And one who does take it seriously and does such a thing for a living would expect others to have the same training and qualifications as they do. Albeit, I don't know how official such schooling could possibly be.
In my opinion, a law such as that should never have been allowed to become a law in the first place. I find it extremely hypocritical for a state or federal government, especially in the United States, to tell someone how they may or may not worship.
It's not that it would be hypocritical if the United States were to restrict a religious practice, it's that it would be unconstitutional (as you do go on to say). But I'm not sure you have carefully read the law. The may makes an exception for all those practices mentioned as long as "the amateur practice of phrenology, palmistry, fortune-telling or clairvoyance in connection with school or church socials, provided such socials are held in school or church buildings."
Quote from "Requiem" »
That former law you quoted was, I believe, very unconstitutional and also seemed as if it were mocking those who do practice those beliefs (i.e., you may only do such things for fun in certain places).
I don't think the law was meant to mock those who practice such things. It was more likely drafted to protect people from preying on others with phoney practicies. Even if phrenology or fortune telling had any merits to it, the problem is that anyone can claim to be able to feel the bumps on your head (as phrenologists did) or proclaim your fortune.
Well, first of all, phrenology was dismissed anything but a pseudo-science a long time ago. So whenever people were actively practicing it, you can imagine that law was probably drafted a long time ago. It is even likely that when it was a law that is was barely enforced.
Lots of states have all sorts of zany laws, cities with their crazy ordinances. But hte crazier the laws, the more outdated they are likely to be. The more outdated they are, the less likely they are to be enforced. For example, downtown Ogden has a city ordinance against wearing high heals on 25th Street. This ordinance was initially drafted to combat the prostitution problem that used to be rampant during the late 19th century. They never got rid of the law, but obviously a women is not going to be cited if she is wearing high heels on 25th street today. And if they tried, any lawyer would be willing to contest the practicality of the that law and the city council would realilze that it was a stupid outdated law that was just not scrapped earlier due to lack of oversight..
As with things like phrenology and fortune telling, the people of South Carolina probably just realized one day that people were catching on to these frivolous and false practices so they left it up to the people to decide for themselves whether it was stupid or not. If people wanted to keep paying for such services, that would be up to them. But South Carolina, like many states, merely reevaluated that law as being Draconian and pointless to enforce.
Quote from "Tehstickleman" »
OOH!! Can we talk about water-boarding next? That's a fun topic
Well why don't we first try to have a serious conversation regarding the topic of this thread before you make light of torture. Then you can go on to make non-contributions to that conversation later.
Quote from "Stonebreaker" »
It is scary that maybe next the government will tell us waht to believe.
Actually the government is always telling you what to believe. The government has an opinion too. And they're going to try to convince you of it as much as you would try to convince someone else your opinion. But your statement has little to do with the actual South Carolina law and its subsequent scrapping.