From: Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: Re: Sunday Liquor Sales
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:45:33 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

Wayne Aiken <NETOPRWA@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu> writes:

>In article <sbuckley.714430363@sfu.ca>
>Stephen Buckley <sbuckley@sfu.ca> writes:
>>Robert Krawitz writes:
>>
>>>You already have the right to try to influence people not to work on
>>>Sunday, so what's the problem?
>>
>>  well, generally, yes, except when people listen to my opinions and
>>then say to me that i'm not allowed to have an opinions because
>>we separated church and state.  that is where this thread began.  by
>>people incorrectly invoking the separation of church and state to keep
>>me from expressing a religious opinion, my rights are being restricted.
> 
>Be honest- is that what they're really telling you?  That you're not allowed
>to express your opinion?  Or that you're not allowed to *enforce* your
>opinion?

  were you around when this thread began?  at that time i expressed my
opinion about prefering to keep the sabbath and prefering our whole culture 
would as well. then someone said i have no right to say that because
it's based on a religious reason, then s/he proceed to mis-quote the
separation of church and state for credibility.  otherwise, people don't
usually oppress my rights to speak out on things from a spiritual root,
they merely laugh me off as a religious nut.  and no one's ever objected
to me enforcing my opinion on others because i have never forced anyone
to do what i think they should do.  if i did, i'd be the most hated person
on the net and in more people's kill files than anyone else.

>>> Prohibiting work on Sunday is something
>>>quite different.  An example of the first is saying "Robert, it is wrong
>>>to work on Sunday".  An example of the second is saying "Robert, if you
>>>work on Sunday you will be subject to fines and/or imprisonment".  The
>>>first is simply stating your opinion; the second is backing it up with
>>>the force of the state.  Which of these alternatives are you advocating
>>>(or is there something else here I'm missing)?  You seem to be
>>>contradicting yourself.
>>
>>  again, i don't want to come out and prohibit sunday work.  this is how i
>>see it.  i'd like to first be able to express an opinion, give good reasons
>>why i feel we should not work on sunday and hope enough people in our culture
>>will agree and change the rules and laws.  democracy, flawed, but it can
>                           -----     ----
>>work and i have no intention of circumventing it.  if in influencing
>>society to not work on sunday and not enough people agree to change the
>>rules, i will accept that decision--as i have with as working on sunday is
> -----
>>a reality now.  i don't believe in backing up my opinion with force, but
>                 ---------------------------------------------------
>>i wish for most people to agree with that opinion to democratically change
>>the rules.  is this clearer or is there an area i still need to elaborate on?
>     -----
> 
>Do you see the contradiction?  I think you need to elaborate on precisely what
>you consider the nature and function of "rules and laws" to be.  If your
>arguments against Sunday work are compelling, then people would voluntarily
>not work, without any need for such a thing to be codified into law.  Also
>note that we are *not* a majoritarian democracy; we are a republic which
>(ideally) respects individual rights, thus a person should be able to do
>whatever they want as long as they don't interfere with others.

  the rules and laws in my community, probly just like in yours, indicate
whether people are allowed to open stores on sunday--usually municipal by-laws
take care of this.  if most people didn't want to work on sundays we'd be
electing politicians who would reflect that desire.  but you're wrong
in thinking that society is based on people's freedom to do anything "as
long as they don't interfere with others."  it's more like as long
as they don't contravene the laws that society sanctions.  
  
>Do you see the difference between influencing society by arguments and speech,
>versus advocating changes in the law, which inevitably involves force at some
>point?

  and you're missing my point that i am not going to force people to believe
what i want them to.  i can influence people and if the majority don't want
work on sundays, laws will reflect that from a societal basis and society
will enforce its law, not mine.  there's a real propensity to make my
argument out to be totalitarian, but i think you're just over-reacting.