From: oaa@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (owen.a.alexander)
Newsgroups: ga.general
Subject: Re: Warning: Religion!
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:47:27 GMT
Distribution: ga
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Alpharetta, GA

Okay, lets step back for a moment.  There are a few different things
being discussed in this topic and I would like to clarify my position.

First, my reason for joining this dicussion was not to say whether I
agree or disagree with the law prohibiting the sale of alchol on Sunday,
but was because of the references to religion as the reason we have that
law and that religion has no place in making laws.  If someone doesn't
feel that a law is valid and states some reasons why (as Shane and
others has more recently), then that's fine.  However the discussion
started with unproven assumptions that because the law mentions Sunday,
then it must be because of someone's religion, the law was passed.  This
is the point that I wanted to challenge.  Someone else asked me what
other reason could it have been? well I don't know the reason, but I
don't think that assumptions should go unchallenged.

With that said, I realize now that the discussion is now about religion,
the constitution, and state laws.


In article <66001@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0418c@prism.gatech.EDU (Shane Wm. McWhorter) writes:
>
>So, therefore, which one of your Constitutional Rights am I violating
>when I sell liquor on a Sunday? This is an important question that
>any resonable response to this must address.
>
>Unless you can show me how the sale of liquor on a Sunday violates
>the US Constitution, there is no legal ground to stand on.

Again, buying liquor is not an individual right, it is a business/trade/
commerce issue, and the constitution and/or federal government does not
regulate what days you can or cannot conduct business within your state.
If you which to pick another topic to argue for your constitutional
rights, fine.  I don't think this is a good example.

>However, I can show you how MY rights are violated. 
>
>If YOU prevent ME from doing something I want, it is ILLEGAL unless
>what I want to do violates the rights of others.
>
>IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

Do you mean ILLEGAL or UNCONSTITIONAL or WRONG.  I know it's semantics,
but each means something different.  Snorting cocaine doesn't violate the
rights of others, but it is illegal.  Why, I think because of the
secondary effects a habitual drug can have on people (ie. crime,
hospitalization, etc).

>We live in America, a country who's existence is based on the fact that it is
>illegal to make laws enforcing anyone's morality.

What law or constitutional article would that be?

>IT IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL TO PASS A LAW THAT ENFORCES A MORAL VIEW.

Slavery was legal in America, was that a moral view?

Also every law has a foundation to support it's enactment.  Many laws
are based on the constitution.  Some say the constitution bas based on
the Magna Carta.  But at somepoint, if you go back far enough, you will
find some moral view behind the law.  Saying it's illegal to murder
based on the Constitution is not sufficient.  That makes an assumption
that the constitutional was formed apart from a moral view.  If you
study history, I think you would not come to that conclusion.  If someone
showed that parts of the constitution was based on the founders
religious/moral view, would that nullify the constitution to you?

Owen Alexander