Anderson Co. suspends Blue Laws

[upstate29650]

Now we have 2 counties (that I know of) that have suspended Blue Laws for holiday shopping.

If there's a need to suspend them for a period of time...why not year round?

[Spartan]

Baby steps....

[krazeeboi]

Actually, York County IS considering suspending the Blue Laws for an entire year. Being that close to Mecklenburg County, a lot of dollars are spent on Sunday mornings on the other side of the border all the time, not just during the holidays.

Hopefully, actions like these by county councils across the state will force our legislature to do away with these outdated laws once and for all.

[Jerseyman4]

A step in the right direction!

[GSP Tiger]

Is Anderson County also considering year round suspension of "blue laws"?

[upstate29650]

Baby steps....

Baby steps my rear. Our legislators need to spend less time reading the Bible & more time thinking about basic economics.

Yes...I dared to say that.

[Chickenwing]

So all legislative decisions should be based on economics?

[krazeeboi]

Baby steps my rear. Our legislators need to spend less time reading the Bible & more time thinking about basic economics.

Yes...I dared to say that.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Spartan]

Blue laws are a county decision I think, so its up to each county to get rid of them.

[upstate29650]

So all legislative decisions should be based on economics?

Well, in the case of blue laws, yes. Unless it is a county decision (if so, I wasn't aware of that). Most certainly, religion should never be injected into any kind of political decision.

[Chickenwing]

First, I care little about the blue laws. If someone wants to shop or have a beer on Sunday, there are plenty of places/ways to do that.

Second, I hardly think they infringe on anyone's constitutional rights either. I believe that the first amendment only covers that Congress should not make any laws that establish a religion. These laws don't do that. Not everyone believes in God/a god or goes to church on Sunday. (I do realize these are state/local statues, not federal.)

Third, I think we would be having this same discussion if our state had same type of laws but they were governing some other day, like Tuesday. It is about more than religion. People want to do what they want, when they want too.

Most certainly, religion should never be injected into any kind of political decision.

Why? Where would we get our laws that protect individuals right to life, property, etc? Without some sort of religion/faith as basis for morality, there is nothing left to judge. There is only personal morality. What then do we do about murderers, rapists, thiefs? Are they allowed to run free because there are no laws are based on some religious beliefs?

In that case we don't need government at all. It will only serve to opress some, and benefit others economically. Is that any more fair than using a moral compass for our system of laws? How about slavery? Certainly morally wrong, but, for some, it would be of economic benefit. Would we have a welfare system? Child labor laws? Could we still sue, or would large corporations always win because it is better for them economically to win?

If there were no governments, then we would only be left with "Survival of the Fittest", which is little more than which species can reproduce the most. One day the cockroaches will win that battle.

[Spartan]

You assume that religion is the sole provider of morality in this world. The institution of slavery was run by those 'moral' white folks that went to church every Sunday. That said, I do think that this PC thing of removing any hint of a religious influence from this nation's past is asinine.

[Brandon]

You assume that religion is the sole provider of morality in this world. The institution of slavery was run by those 'moral' white folks that went to church every Sunday. That said, I do think that this PC thing of removing any hint of a religious influence from this nation's past is asinine.

I agree...I don't know of any non-Christians who are offended by a "Merry Christmas", nor can I imagine a Christian being offended by a wish of "Happy Hannukah"...each side of the coin seems to take turns going to extremes.

[Chickenwing]

You assume that religion is the sole provider of morality in this world. The institution of slavery was run by those 'moral' white folks that went to church every Sunday. That said, I do think that this PC thing of removing any hint of a religious influence from this nation's past is asinine.

Where else does morality come from then, if not from religion? I ask this as a serious question.

If there is no God (creator, high power, whatever you want to call it), where does the idea of morality, i.e. right and wrong come from? Is it a uniquely human concept, and if so, what makes that particular concept more correct than say the lack of any notion of morality?

[MikesLogic]

I think its self awareness that lends us our first sense of morality. We are aware of how things are to us. We automatically apply that to our surroundings. Say if your car hits a pot-hole you cringe a little and go ouch even if it didn't hurt you, your talking for the car. Turning that into wrongs and rights is only to create a basis to judge people by. Obviously ideas or concepts can be applied to morality such as religious texts. The idea of creating a right and wrong(morality) is to foster the continuation of a society, we need rules to follow (anarchy doesn't work.)

[Topher1]

<On-topic>

Personally, I do feel that the blue laws are rediculous and punish both business owners and consumers. I think abolishing them is the obvious move. If an employee of a business does in fact want to use that time on Sunday morning for spiritual purposes, then I do feel that they should still be accomodated (much like businesses tend to accomodate employees of non-Christian faiths), but I'm fairly certain that most businesses won't have any problems finding enough employees to staff their stores on Sunday mornings...

<Off-topic>

Where else does morality come from then, if not from religion? I ask this as a serious question.

If there is no God (creator, high power, whatever you want to call it), where does the idea of morality, i.e. right and wrong come from? Is it a uniquely human concept, and if so, what makes that particular concept more correct than say the lack of any notion of morality?

I question your assertion that morality is a "uniquely human concept." Strictly from an evolutionary sense, I fail to see how any animal group could survive in a non-controlled environment without its own set of "ingrained morals." Most animals know better than to make it a habit of killing its other members (or other animals for that matter, except for food or protection). Many animals understand and exhibit a heirarchical "family" relationship. Yet somehow I doubt that a pack of wolves learned how to live in an orderly society by reading the Bible... If a species didn't live by a solid set of "morals" (or instincts if you prefer), then that species has no chance of surviving...

I'd even go as far as to reverse your statement. I'd say that "immorality" is a uniquely human concept. What other animals kill for sport, or start wars over differing beliefs, or steal to hoard wealth? IMHO, I think it's fair to say that our morality gave rise to religion, NOT the other way around. Religion in turn, hijacked morality and tried to claim it as its own creation, and of course added many of its own taboos which are clearly completely contrary to the way that we were naturally designed.

[Chickenwing]

I think its self awareness that lends us our first sense of morality. We are aware of how things are to us. We automatically apply that to our surroundings. Say if your car hits a pot-hole you cringe a little and go ouch even if it didn't hurt you, your talking for the car. Turning that into wrongs and rights is only to create a basis to judge people by. Obviously ideas or concepts can be applied to morality such as religious texts. The idea of creating a right and wrong(morality) is to foster the continuation of a society, we need rules to follow (anarchy doesn't work.)

How does self awareness give us a sense of morality? Please expand on this. I think you are giving human beings way to much credit. Morality it seems is something that is taught by our parents/caregivers and other people. Where did they get it from?

What would the world look like if more of our predecessors were people like Hitler? I think most of us agree that he had a very skewed sense of right and wrong. But if each of us has our own sense of what is right and wrong, whose moral compass is most correct? What if he was right, and we are wrong? (Please do not think for a moment that I think he was right. I most certainly think he was wrong, and a very evil man. I am only using him as an example for the sake of discussion.)

Certainly we need rules to foster the continuation of a society, but how do we determine which rules are the right ones to live by?! Is there any standard by which we can judge these rules? IF not, then we are just making up whatever feels good to us at the moment. How does that make us any different that any other animal? I would like to think I am here for more than just procreation.

[Chickenwing]

<On-topic>

Personally, I do feel that the blue laws are rediculous and punish both business owners and consumers. I think abolishing them is the obvious move. If an employee of a business does in fact want to use that time on Sunday morning for spiritual purposes, then I do feel that they should still be accomodated (much like businesses tend to accomodate employees of non-Christian faiths), but I'm fairly certain that most businesses won't have any problems finding enough employees to staff their stores on Sunday mornings...

<Off-topic>

I question your assertion that morality is a "uniquely human concept." Strictly from an evolutionary sense, I fail to see how any animal group could survive in a non-controlled environment without its own set of "ingrained morals." Most animals know better than to make it a habit of killing its other members (or other animals for that matter, except for food or protection). Many animals understand and exhibit a heirarchical "family" relationship. Yet somehow I doubt that a pack of wolves learned how to live in an orderly society by reading the Bible... If a species didn't live by a solid set of "morals" (or instincts if you prefer), then that species has no chance of surviving...

I'd even go as far as to reverse your statement. I'd say that "immorality" is a uniquely human concept. What other animals kill for sport, or start wars over differing beliefs, or steal to hoard wealth? IMHO, I think it's fair to say that our morality gave rise to religion, NOT the other way around. Religion in turn, hijacked morality and tried to claim it as its own creation, and of course added many of its own taboos which are clearly completely contrary to the way that we were naturally designed.

Ontopic - For the record, if the blue laws go the way of the dodo, it's ok with me. I do not think they serve any real important purpose. Like I said earlier, how would it be any different if they affected Tuesday instead of Sunday. Well, the only difference is that there would not be any religious arguments.

Off topic -

I disagree that a family relationship means morality. The relationship itself is for survival, and you said that yourself. The animals instincts' are for survival and procreation. This is not morality in the sense that we see morality. Black widows and praying mantises kill their mates.

If you want to call it immorality, that's ok with me. We are still talking about right vs. wrong through human eyes. You say the idea was created by humans. Ok ... whose moral compass do we use?

IMHO, "religion" has hijacked God's plan.

[MikesLogic]

We all have our idea of what is right or wrong, we are aware that physically harming someone or something causes pain and we wouldn't want that on ourselves(for the most part, there are sick people,) the same for emotional situations. All I am saying is that we get morality from the beast that is society, as a whole we come to a consensus on what will be tolerated as right and wrong. Individuals have ideas of what is wrong and right with and without religion, we must balance these to come up with what is right or wrong. There is no right or wrong answer to what is right or wrong, we create a system of rights and wrongs through a consensus to judge people by.

The problem with using religion as a basis for morals is that #1 it's mandated by God, no matter which religion your talking about they are final, who would want to break God's law? #2 whose do we follow if there are two conflicting views? .. I'm being blasphemous in who knows how many religions just stating those two things.

Anyways, On-Topic: Blue laws are just outdated whether they have anything to do with religion or not they just don't make much sense these days and need to be nullified or revised.

[upstate29650]

You assume that religion is the sole provider of morality in this world. The institution of slavery was run by those 'moral' white folks that went to church every Sunday. That said, I do think that this PC thing of removing any hint of a religious influence from this nation's past is asinine.

..and that comment perfectly sums up my position.

Religious beliefs helped shape our nation. It helped to shape our laws. PC is very, very bad.

My whole point is...I firmly believe there are some in seats of power who use their personal religious beliefs to either vote for or against things. Granted, if they hold elected office, it can be somewhat extrapolated that many (most) of those who voted for this person tend to share the same religious beliefs. And that's fine. However, I was always taught that you were to leave your personal beliefs at the door when to comes time to represent the people. All the people in your district..whether they voted for you or not. When it comes time to vote for or against laws, policies, etc. you cast a "yes" vote for the best & highest use that addreses whatever the issue is at hand.

Blue laws are antiquated. They serve no purpose, other than to stifle (certain) growth, and negatively impact tax revenues. Common sense tells me that if you can increase revenues...then do it.

[monsoon]

Where else does morality come from then, if not from religion? I ask this as a serious question.

If there is no God (creator, high power, whatever you want to call it), where does the idea of morality, i.e. right and wrong come from? Is it a uniquely human concept, and if so, what makes that particular concept more correct than say the lack of any notion of morality?

Interestingly enough, it is the religions in the world that do not believe in a single all powerful God being which do not get involved in religious wars and crusades, and are relatively crime free compared to the crime ridden Western and Middle Eastern worlds. It is in these places where you can leave packages in your unlocked bicycle and expect to find them both there when you return. Crime is almost non-existant. During my trip to Japan, where Christianity or Islam are virtually unknown, I was constantly amazed at how much people showed each other respect, there are no "bad" parts of town, and where they can put a beer vending machine on the street and not worry about kids because the kids respect the law and don't buy it.

People in Christian and Islamic countries have a lot to learn in this area but both are too stubborn to listen because they have already concluded their's is the only morality that is correct.

--------------

Back to the topic. Blue Law enforcement must be a local decision or the state does nothing about it because Horry, Myrtle Beach, has never enforced those laws. When I was growing up there in the 70s, Sunday morning was considered the last chance to pick any remaining dollars off the departing tourists (known as tour-rons locally haha) and all stores would be open at 8 am if they even closed.

[Spartan]

I think there might be some confusion on what I meant. There is no question on my part that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are rooted in the laws of Christianity. Its common sense. Its very clear to me that the founding fathers did not want another Church of England, wherein the government controlled all aspects of one's life.

On the other side, I take issue with those people who assume that people can't govern themselves without religion. The Japanese example is the one I had in mind when I said that. But on top of that, Chrisianity has not been around that long in the grand scheme of things, and people had laws and such long before its inception. Take the Chinese as an ancient example, or tribal Africa as a modern one.

One could argue that historically men only fought over resources, which are needed for survival. In fact, you could probably still make that argument today. Perhaps you've seen those nature videos where animals fight each other over the last scrap of meat? Over a female to mate with? Over territory? And I'm not talking ahout humans here.

[krazeeboi]

On the other side, I take issue with those people who assume that people can't govern themselves without religion. The Japanese example is the one I had in mind when I said that. But on top of that, Chrisianity has not been around that long in the grand scheme of things, and people had laws and such long before its inception. Take the Chinese as an ancient example, or tribal Africa as a modern one.

I think that more specifically, the Judeo-Christian tradition is what is generally meant when we speak of "Christianity" here, as the "laws of Christianity" more accurately reflect those found in the Torah. Given that, this tradition has been around for some time.

But I do understand your overall point though. However, the question may be better worded "HAVE people ever governed themselves without any type of religious influence?" I can't think of any societies off-hand of which this may have been true.

I don't think Metro's example of Japan totally fits the bill here. Remember Japanese imperialism?

[monsoon]

Remember Japanese imperialism?

I didn't say that war was unknown to these areas, actually quite the opposite. Japan has been attacked numerous times in it's history. I will point out however the Japanese Imperialism began AFTER they were invaded by crusading Christians from the West and had to adopt their methods at the time to survive. Were they to stand by while the British, and the French invaded every one of their neighbors during the late 19th and early 20th century?

I saw a statue in Japan depecting a crusading Christian soldier, holding up a big cross, with a bunch of dead and dying japanese at his feet. They had been killed by the christian's weapons. It is a stark reminder that while some would want to say our laws should be rooted in our predominate religion, that others don't share this opinion.

[Chickenwing]

It is a stark reminder that while some would want to say our laws should be rooted in our predominate religion, that others don't share this opinion.

You bring up an interesting point, and I don't disagree with you. Laws should not compel anyone to believe a certain religion, because as we have seen, it is bad for societies. However, our faith, whether it be God, Allah, multiple gods, nature, or something else, is part of who we are as individual people, and I just do not see how it is possible to turn that off when building a set of laws.

The whole idea ends up being so much more complex than just "we should separate church and state".

What is the alternative --

Do we build a code of laws on what the majority agrees on?

How large does that majority need to be?

What happens to the minority that may be oppressed by these laws?

What happens to the minority when they fight back?