Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (148260)	10/20/2004 9:57:05 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Supreme Court has upheld blue laws, even though they have a religious origin, since the state has a right to set aside a day of leisure for its citizens. It's a fuzzy wall. I'm sure you recall the panic of the Virginia legislature recently when confronted with the effects of a minor change in the labor laws that inadvertently allowed people to have a day off to observe their religious days. I thought their last minute scramble was an infringement of religious freedom, but it's a fuzzy wall. Similarly, there is a secular purpose to discouraging drinking or banning polygamy. That does not mean, by the way, that there is no residual controversy about how the laws are framed or whether they are prudent. I just mean that they are arguable within a non-sectarian context. A glass of wine with dinner is a healthy decision. What possible secular purpose is there to banning polygamy? If a group of consenting adults decide they all want to be married as a group, how does that affect the well being of society. I just mean that they are arguable within a non-sectarian context. I'm sure it's possible to take many religious aspects and argue them in a non-sectarian context, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the non-sectarian context is valid. Care to speculate on how the USSC is going to rule on the Ten Commandments? jttmab