Give Imus a break! Really!

[Woody]

The Headlines say that Don Imus is Guilty and Fired.

But also the headlines today say that Don HO is Dead.

I found this very interesting.

[Kountzer]

I appreciate the perspective and writing skills of jason whitlock, and others like Walt Williams, Thomas Sowell, etc. But, where were these right wing apologists during the protests for amadou diallo, and the minions that quote them.? where were they when all sorts of blood, sweat and tears was shed so that they can now do what they do? They weren't on the front lines with Jackson and Sharpton. Whitlock wasn't there when sharpton suffered through an attempted knife attack assasination. He wasn't there when he spent 90 days in jail to protest US naval practice bombing in puerto rico. He wasn't wasn't no where to be seen when innocent and unarmed groom Sean Bell was gunned down by plain clothes nypd for no logical reason.

more than likely was was somewhere greasing on some kansas city pork ribs, and contemplating his next frigging sports column.

brings to mind that noted uncle tom (yeah, I said it) clarence thomas, who matriculated through undergrad and law school, using affirmative action, and then when he got to the supreme court he voted against it.

DB

[olger]

I always appreciate it when thinking people vote against Affirmative Action. Michigan just struck a major blow against it too. That's good stuff.

I am also against abuse, be it sexual, physical, emotional or spiritual.

But enough about me.. Tell me about yourself, DB.

olger

[Kountzer]

The Real Terrorist: On Wit Lost by Jason Whitlock Print

Written by Jarrett Carter

Writer

Sunday, 15 April 2007

Not Tavis, not Reverends Al or Jesse—but a sports reporter from Kansas City will lead Black folk to the promised land.

Or, at the very least, save us from rap music.

Jason Whitlock seems to be an intelligent, thoughtful, and charismatic individual genuinely concerned with the Black American crisis. His platform for reaching the masses isn’t protest or the pulpit—it’s the sports pages.

From playoffs to pregnancies, lewd touchdown celebrations to lewd rap lyrics, Whitlock pretty much has it covered.

But even “Big Sexy” can get ugly.

For awhile now, Whitlock has had a running feud with hip-hop culture. He has referred to rappers as thugs, coons, and bojanglers on a regular basis, and has even gone so far as to refer to specific rap artists as "the Black KKK."

Now he's set his sights on the Don Imus flap, and particularly the involvement of Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson.

In a recent interview on MSNBC, Whitlock referred to Sharpton and Jackson as "terrorists," and accused them of "starting fires and creating divisiveness" with their involvement in the Imus incident and the Duke lacrosse scandal.

Not an outrageous claim, necessarily—but coming from a man who was fired by ESPN after criticizing a fellow African-American broadcaster in Michael Irvin, and a fellow African-American sportswriter in Scoop Jackson...

Well, you know what they say about kettles and that pesky color-complex they can have.

Whitlock has made a career of analyzing and elaborating points that go against the general consensus. Anyone can be a contrarian, but it takes a special talent to make a living off of it.

Now Whitlock’s penchant for playing devil’s advocate has made him a leading voice on America's Racial Problem. Unfortunately, while Whitlock is very good at eliciting thought and emotion with the same column, he has yet to master the art of analyzing his own arguments.

The crux of Whitlock's problem with hip-hop is the lack of responsibility in its misogynistic and violent lyrics. Bitches and hoes, gatts and blow—that’s all a young brother knows in the African-American community, according to Whitlock.

Single moms, delinquent dads? Yep, that's hip-hop's fault. More Black men in jail than in college? Yeah, mixtapes have been known to have adverse effects on decision-making and SAT preparation.

Obviously, Whitlock misses the deeper implications here. They don't call pimping and hoeing the world's oldest professions for nothing. Materialism and greed? American ideals that Black folks just happened to pick up when we didn't have much else going for us between slavery and Ronald Reagan. Broken households, devalued education, a reliance on crime? Institutionalized for much longer than they haven’t been.

Surely no one can expect hundreds of years of injustice to be undone with less than half a century of "equal rights."

Or maybe we're supposed to.

While Whitlock's perspective is easily understood, it's also completely unfounded—and he's smart enough to know that. In his position, with his level of experience, I'm sure he gets that he's vainly railing against symptoms, not actual problems.

Think of it like this: Whitlock wouldn't criticize a quarterback who throws interceptions with a broken wrist for being unable to read coverages. So why would he assign blame for the crisis in Black culture exclusively to hip-hop?

Oh, I know: because hip-hop gets on TV and generates millions of dollars in revenue.

Something I'm sure Whitlock wouldn't mind doing himself.

Could you really blame Whitlock if he found a way to get in on some of that action—particularly if the folks most interested in his views were nervous, conservative white folks willing to pay him to tell them what they wanted to hear?

Interestingly enough, rappers and coons have probably made more money shucking and jiving than Whitlock will ever earn by criticizing them.

Let's face it, Whitlock is capitalizing on his moment in the sun. And I'm not saying his views are totally wrong—in fact, I'm as conservative a brother as there is for someone who uses the term "nigga" and listens to rap music.

But I'm also smart enough to know that nobody wins when you play the blame game.

I won’t make excuses for hip-hop here. But if Italians don't have to worry about Tony Soprano representing them, and Jewish brothers and sisters don't have to worry about Larry David representing them, I'm not tripping off anyone who looks at me and hears "Straight Outta Compton" in his head.

I respect Jason Whitlock's attempt to help our people. Still, you wouldn't walk up to a screaming child and call him a Sambo for being so loud. The problems Whitlock pins on hip-hop are in fact symptomatic of a true American crisis, and his brash and undeveloped approach to the discussion makes him as big a terrorist as Revered Al.

A big, media-sexy terrorist.

Bleacher Report is a community forum. If you've got something to say, let our writers hear it—or register for free to write your own editorial.

[Kountzer]

I wasn't on the front line of any of those protests either. At least I am not kicking back on the 'net throwing rocks at those that were.

[olger]

Have it your way, Pardner.

olger

[Parade Orange]

Olger!

Thats a good question.

What do I think of Hilary.

well..

I am a regestered republican though I am a pure democrat at heart.

I understand their relationship(the Clintons). She stood by him thru all these affairs and he stood by her ambitions not making a public fuss.

I know to aspire to be President of the united States takes 1 part foolishness and 2 parts early ambition and hard work and 2 parts timing and location in history. So Bill became Prez.

I listened to Hannity on the radio a month ago or so and they played her soundbite from Alabama. Right after they played Hilary they played Faye Dunaway doing Joan crawford in the movie 'Mommy Dearest'.." NOOOO More WIRE Hangers EVVVVERRRR!"

I laughed- I got the joke. when Hilary is speaking emphatically she sounds like a B---H to many.

sooo what

Girls diss or feel empowered and some men feel emasculated

when a strong woman takes over.

Bill can handle it.

My opinion of Hilary is she has always been a wound up feminist and she has never felt otherwise. She comes across as a ballbuster and maybe hates how women has to appear weak so not to threaten the men. She fights it.

Probably since she came out of the womb.

She is very smart and very capable of being the PRESIDENT of the USA.

Her and her husband has probly driven over their conscience over and over again to get where they both are at.

I am not terribly enamored with how she comes across. Disengenuouse(about certain things-but she is in politics afterall) and very measured in how she speaks is what my gut says.

She is smart and hasnt lost her cool no matter what the press throws at her.

Dubya gets flustered very easily and plays the" heeyy !!im the PREZ!" card waaaaay too often.

Hilary has decorum. and her Hubby?

He is letting her take charge(cause he is smart also!)

[Parade Orange]

but

prejudices, hate and fears run very deep in peoples hearts.

a black man or woman be a president?

not if many people I know can help it.

The dear christians I know in my area wouldnt hear of it!

[olger]

I agree with the feminist fervor. She seems to be an equal opportunity irritant, posesssing the singular ability to appeal to ultra liberals and the sexually deviant crowd.

I sure wouldn't vote for her, and I don't think America would elect her. I don't see Obama as having all the liabilities that she does.

rejoice always,

olger

[Woody]

but

prejudices, hate and fears run very deep in peoples hearts.

a black man or woman be a president?

not if many people I know can help it.

The dear christians I know in my area wouldnt hear of it!

If you are a conservative SDA ... you would not believe in a woman being in the position of leadership over a man and therefore you could not vote for Hillary. It has nothing to do with her qualifications ... it has to do with a religious dogma.

[David Koot]

I think a Democratic, woman president would be more inclined to usher in a National Sunday Law. The election of one may just speed things along.

Dave

[Parade Orange]

David Koot you must be kidding

LOL

what propaganda have u been reading!!!

the christian conservatives want the Sunday worship Law(republican)-which makes sense if u gave the thought a look!!!!!

not a liberal!

Hilary may be alot of things but i havnt heard her say she was into church!

what on earth ?

u r pulling my leg arnt u?

[Parade Orange]

Redwood prooved my point!

i am surrounded!!!!!!

[Parade Orange]

BTW the national sunday law will go in effect after world calamities hit and a paradigm shift will happen will all people to take away all religious liberty on a global scale- not untill then!

its global!!!

sillies its not all about us americans

we are so arrogant!

[David Koot]

David Koot you must be kidding

LOL

what propaganda have u been reading!!!

Not propaganda. Strategy and Tactics 101. A good read for starters is JFC Fuller's book on the subject. I see the lead-in to the Sunday law as the application of a classic battlefield tactic. Send a diversionary force up the middle, while the main force turns the enemy's flank. IN this case, the Republicans are the diversionary force, viewed as the enemy, the threat. A frontal assault against an entrenched enemy with overlapping fields of fire. A massacre. Meanwhile, IMO satan is laughing all the while as he outflanks them. Democratics are the party of social engineering. The Sunday law will NOT begin as a religious measure. Instead, it will be presented as something needed for the general welfare and domestic tranquility, as religion-neutral. (see, for example, McGowan vs. Maryland, USSC case) Hilary is a good fit for bringing such a thing about.

Dave

[Parade Orange]

stratagy and tactics to implement to some and propaganda to others to swallow hook line and sinker.

[Parade Orange]

but really

nothing but fear and greed will drive the world to set up a world wide law that thinks its paying homage to GOD when really Satan is laughing cause it really blasphemes GOD.

both parties pander to their constituents and the rich- u can be sure the very last days it will be the same!

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

what propaganda have u been reading!!!

the christian conservatives want the Sunday worship Law(republican)-which makes sense if u gave the thought a look!!!!!

Many Adventists have used the Religious-Right, scare-propaganda mantra to scare others into voting for secular humanists. When I first got involved in a ministry for gay people, I was told by some of these paranoid Adventists that we shouldn't tell gays there is anything wrong with their lifestyle because someday Sunday laws will be passed and we will be the persecuted ones.

[Parade Orange]

Fear

Fear

Fear

is not of GOD! Nor His religion

Nor should it be named among His children.

I am surrounded by fear and not LOVE

God has so much work to get us to see that!

[David Koot]

Since you seem to suggest that 'propaganda' is somehow influencing what I posted, Parade Orange, I wish, first, to clarify a couple of things and then ask you a few questions.

1) I do not read the 'propaganda' generated by any of the political parties. In fact, I stay out of it. The closest I come to politics is enjoyment of the journals, 'Foreign Affairs' and 'Foreign Policy.'

2) I am not affiliated with any political party. In the surveys I have taken, I show up as an 'agnostic,' that is, I 'don't have a dog in that fight.' Politics as it is currently practiced is not something which I support.

For a bit of history . . .

It was the most activist court in terms of individual rights, in the history of the Supreme Court, that handed down McGowan vs. Maryland--the Warren Court.

It was the Democratic president who accomplished the greatest social engineering in the history of the republic who signed Executive Order 9066, ordering the internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry.

It was a Democratic president, Jimmy Carter, who, in 1979, signed an Executive Order that stores and gas stations should be closed on Sundays, because of the energy crisis.

Familiarity with Consitutional law and Constitutional history indicates that the government will take whatever measures are seen as necessary to 'promote the domestic tranquility' and safeguard against 'a clear and present danger' to the general welfare. That can, and has, included abridgment of fundamental rights guaranteed under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution, as well as other rights.

Now, then, Parade Orange, since you suggest that what I posted was 'propaganda' 'to swallow hook line and sinker,' or influenced by propaganda, please provide support for your position. How would you know? Or, please provide historical support for your statement.

Dave

[Parade Orange]

lol o puleeeze!

[David Koot]

lol o puleeeze!

Not terribly responsive. You said it was propaganda. You should be prepared to back that up,if you are going to say it.

[Kountzer]

Eco issues are just as strong in the Democratic party as some of the right wing issues are to Republicans. So, a sunday law very well could be ushered in with the rationale that a national day off, or family day, probably, or most likely Sunday, would be good for the gas rationing, less pollution, green gas emissions, etc. So yeah, a democrat prez, male or female could bring about sunday laws just as easily as a republican.

[Woody]

I think a Democratic, woman president would be more inclined to usher in a National Sunday Law. The election of one may just speed things along.

Dave

Great .... Bring it on. May the Lord come soon.

I hadn't intended to vote for Hillary but maybe I should.

We have nothing to fear from Sunday laws or any end time events. God will protect His people.

[David Koot]

Eco issues are just as strong in the Democratic party as some of the right wing issues are to Republicans. So, a sunday law very well could be ushered in with the rationale that a national day off, or family day, probably, or most likely Sunday, would be good for the gas rationing, less pollution, green gas emissions, etc. So yeah, a democrat prez, male or female could bring about sunday laws just as easily as a republican.

Indeed. On this point, I here post an excerpt from McGowan vs. Maryland, a landmark case decided in 1960 by the Warren court. While the excerpt is a bit lenghty, the principles would seem important to be aware of. So, do forgive the lengthy post:

"The final questions for decision are whether the Maryland Sunday Closing Laws conflict with the Federal Constitution's provisions for religious liberty.

First, appellants contend here that the statutes applicable to Anne Arundel County violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion in that the statutes' effect is to prohibit the free exercise of religion in contravention of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

5 But appellants allege only economic injury to themselves; they do not allege any infringement of their own religious freedoms due to Sunday closing. In fact, the record is silent as to what appellants' religious beliefs are.

Since the general rule is that "a litigant may only assert his own constitutional rights or immunities," United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22 , we hold that appellants have no standing to raise this contention. 6 Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, 46. Furthermore, since appellants do not specifically allege that the statutes infringe upon the religious beliefs of the department store's present or prospective patrons, we [366 U.S. 420, 430] have no occasion here to consider the standing question of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 -536. Those persons whose religious rights are allegedly impaired by the statutes are not without effective ways to assert these rights. Cf. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 459 -460; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 257. Appellants present no weighty countervailing policies here to cause an exception to our general principles. See United States v. Raines, supra.

Secondly, appellants contend that the statutes violate the guarantee of separation of church and state in that the statutes are laws respecting an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

If the purpose of the "establishment" clause was only to insure protection for the "free exercise" of religion, then what we have said above concerning appellants' standing to raise the "free exercise" contention would appear to be true here.

However, the writings of Madison, who was the First Amendment's architect, demonstrate that the establishment of a religion was equally feared because of its tendencies to political tyranny and subversion of civil authority.

7 Thus, in Everson v. Board of Education, supra, the Court permitted a district taxpayer to challenge, on "establishment" grounds, a state statute which authorized district boards of education to reimburse parents for fares paid for the transportation of their children to both public and Catholic schools. Appellants here concededly have suffered direct economic injury, allegedly due to the imposition on them of the tenets of the Christian religion.

8 We find that, in these circumstances, [366 U.S. 420, 431] these appellants have standing to complain that the statutes are laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The essence of appellants' "establishment" argument is that Sunday is the Sabbath day of the predominant Christian sects; that the purpose of the enforced stoppage of labor on that day is to facilitate and encourage church attendance; that the purpose of setting Sunday as a day of universal rest is to induce people with no religion or people with marginal religious beliefs to join the predominant Christian sects; that the purpose of the atmosphere of tranquility created by Sunday closing is to aid the conduct of church services and religious observance of the sacred day.

In substantiating their "establishment" argument, appellants rely on the wording of the present Maryland statutes, on earlier versions of the current Sunday laws and on prior judicial characterizations of these laws by the Maryland Court of Appeals. Although only the constitutionality of 521, the section under which appellants have been convicted, is immediately before us in this litigation, inquiry into the history of Sunday Closing Laws in our country, in addition to an examination of the Maryland Sunday closing statutes in their entirety and of their history, is relevant to the decision of whether the Maryland Sunday law in question is one respecting an establishment of religion.

There is no dispute that the original laws which dealt with Sunday labor were motivated by religious forces. But what we must decide is whether present Sunday legislation, having undergone extensive changes from the earliest forms, still retains its religious character.

Sunday Closing Laws go far back into American history, having been brought to the colonies with a background of English legislation dating to the thirteenth century. In 1237, Henry III forbade the frequenting of markets on [366 U.S. 420, 432] Sunday; the Sunday showing of wools at the staple was banned by Edward III in 1354; in 1409, Henry IV prohibited the playing of unlawful games on Sunday; Henry VI proscribed Sunday fairs in churchyards in 1444 and, four years later, made unlawful all fairs and markets and all showings of any goods or merchandise; Edward VI disallowed Sunday bodily labor by several injunctions in the mid-sixteenth century; various Sunday sports and amusements were restricted in 1625 by Charles I. Lewis, A Critical History of Sunday Legislation, 82-108; Johnson and Yost, Separation of Church and State, 221. The law of the colonies to the time of the Revolution and the basis of the Sunday laws in the States was 29 Charles II, c. 7 (1677). It provided, in part:

"For the better observation and keeping holy the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday: be it enacted . . . that all the laws enacted and in force concerning the observation of the day, and repairing to the church thereon, be carefully put in execution; and that all and every person and persons whatsoever shall upon every Lord's day apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and that no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labor or business or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only excepted); . . . and that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose for sale any wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels, whatsoever, upon the Lord's day, or any part thereof. . . ." 9 [366 U.S. 420, 433]

Observation of the above language, and of that of the prior mandates, reveals clearly that the English Sunday legislation was in aid of the established church.

The American colonial Sunday restrictions arose soon after settlement. Starting in 1650, the Plymouth Colony proscribed servile work, unnecessary travelling, sports, and the sale of alcoholic beverages on the Lord's day and enacted laws concerning church attendance.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony and the Connecticut and New Haven Colonies enacted similar prohibitions, some even earlier in the seventeenth century. The religious orientation of the colonial statutes was equally apparent. For example, a 1629 Massachusetts Bay instruction began, "And to the end the Sabbath may be celebrated in a religious manner. . . ." A 1653 enactment spoke of Sunday activities "which things tend much to the dishonor of God, the reproach of religion, and the profanation of his holy Sabbath, the sanctification whereof is sometimes put for all duties immediately respecting the service of God. . . ." Lewis, op. cit., supra, at pp. 160-195, particularly at 167, 169. 10 These laws persevered after the Revolution and, at about the time of the First Amendment's adoption, each of the colonies had laws of some sort restricting Sunday labor. See note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 729-730, 739-740; Johnson and Yost, op. cit., supra, at pp. 222-223.

But, despite the strongly religious origin of these laws, beginning before the eighteenth century, nonreligious [366 U.S. 420, 434] arguments for Sunday closing began to be heard more distinctly and the statutes began to lose some of their totally religious flavor.

In the middle 1700's, Blackstone wrote, "[T]he keeping one day in the seven holy, as a time of relaxation and refreshment as well as for public worship, is of admirable service to a state considered merely as a civil institution. It humanizes, by the help of conversation and society, the manners of the lower classes; which would otherwise degenerate into a sordid ferocity and savage selfishness of spirit; it enables the industrious workman to pursue his occupation in the ensuing week with health and cheerfulness." 4 Bl. Comm. 63.

A 1788 English statute dealing with chimney sweeps, 28 Geo. III, c. 48, in addition to providing for their Sunday religious affairs, also regulated their hours of work. The preamble to a 1679 Rhode Island enactment stated that the reason for the ban on Sunday employment was that "persons being evill minded, have presumed to employ in servile labor, more than necessity requireth, their servants. . . ."

3 Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 31. The New York law of 1788 omitted the term "Lord's day" and substituted "the first day of the week commonly called Sunday." 2 Laws of N. Y. 1785-1788, 680. Similar changes marked the Maryland statutes, discussed below. With the advent of the First Amendment, the colonial provisions requiring church attendance were soon repealed. Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev., supra, at pp. 729-730.

More recently, further secular justifications have been advanced for making Sunday a day of rest, a day when people may recover from the labors of the week just passed and may physically and mentally prepare for the week's work to come. In England, during the First World War, a committee investigating the health conditions of munitions workers reported that "if the maximum output is to be secured and maintained for any length of time, a weekly period of rest must be allowed. . . . On economic and social grounds alike this weekly period of rest is best provided on Sunday."[366 U.S. 420, 435] 11

The proponents of Sunday closing legislation are no longer exclusively representatives of religious interests. Recent New Jersey Sunday legislation was supported by labor groups and trade associations, Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 730-731; modern English Sunday legislation was promoted by the National Federation of Grocers and supported by the National Chamber of Trade, the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, and the National Union of Shop Assistants. 308 Parliamentary Debates, Commons 2158-2159.

Throughout the years, state legislatures have modified, deleted from and added to their Sunday statutes. As evidenced by the New Jersey laws mentioned above, current changes are commonplace.

Almost every State in our country presently has some type of Sunday regulation and over forty possess a relatively comprehensive system. Note, 73 Harv. L. Rev. 732-733; Note, 12 Rutgers L. Rev. 506. Some of our States now enforce their Sunday legislation through Departments of Labor, e. g., 6 S. C. Code Ann. (1952), 64-5. Thus have Sunday laws evolved from the wholly religious sanctions that originally were enacted.

Moreover, litigation over Sunday closing laws is not novel. Scores of cases may be found in the state appellate courts relating to sundry phases of Sunday enactments. 12 Religious objections have been raised there on numerous occasions but sustained only once, in Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502 (1858); and that decision was overruled three years later, in Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 678. A substantial number of cases in varying postures bearing [366 U.S. 420, 436] on state Sunday legislation have reached this Court. 13 Although none raising the issues now presented have gained plenary hearing, language used in some of these cases further evidences the evolution of Sunday laws as temporal statutes. Mr. Justice Field wrote in Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U.S. 703, at p. 710:

"Laws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are upheld, not from any right of the government to legislate for the promotion of religious observances, but from its right to protect all persons from the physical and moral debasement which comes from uninterrupted labor.

Such laws have always been deemed beneficent and merciful laws, especially to the poor and dependent, to the laborers in our factories and workshops and in the heated rooms of our cities; and their validity has been sustained by the highest courts of the States."

While a member of the California Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Field dissented in Ex parte Newman, supra, at pp. 519-520, 528, saying:

"Its requirement is a cessation from labor. In its enactment, the Legislature has given the sanction of law to a rule of conduct, which the entire civilized world recognizes as essential to the physical and moral well-being of society.

Upon no subject is there such a concurrence of opinion, among philosophers, moralists and statesmen of all nations, as on the necessity of periodical cessations from labor.[366 U.S.437] One day in seven is the rule, founded in experience, and sustained by science. . . . The prohibition of secular business on Sunday is advocated on the ground that by it the general welfare is advanced, labor protected, and the moral and physical well-being of society promoted."

This was quoted with approval by Mr. Justice Harlan in Hennington v. Georgia, supra, who also stated:

"It is none the less a civil regulation because the day on which the running of freight trains is prohibited is kept by many under a sense of religious duty. The legislature having, as will not be disputed, power to enact laws to promote the order and to secure the comfort, happiness and health of the people, it was within its discretion to fix the day when all labor, within the limits of the State, works of necessity and charity excepted, should cease." Id., at 304.

And Mr. Chief Justice Fuller cited both of these passages in Petit v. Minnesota, supra.

Before turning to the Maryland legislation now here under attack, an investigation of what historical position Sunday Closing Laws have occupied with reference to the First Amendment should be undertaken, Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at p. 14.

This Court has considered the happenings surrounding the Virginia General Assembly's enactment of "An act for establishing religious freedom," 12 Hening's Statutes of Virginia 84, written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison, as best reflecting the long and intensive struggle for religious freedom in America, as particularly relevant in the search for the First Amendment's meaning.

See the opinions in Everson v. Board of Education, supra. In 1776, nine years before the bill's [366 U.S. 420, 438] passage, Madison co-authored Virginia's Declaration of Rights which provided, inter alia, that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience. . . ." 9 Hening's Statutes of Virginia 109, 111-112.

Virginia had had Sunday legislation since early in the seventeenth century; in 1776, the laws penalizing "maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever" (emphasis added), were repealed, and all dissenters were freed from the taxes levied for the support of the established church. Id., at 164.

The Sunday labor prohibitions remained; apparently, they were not believed to be inconsistent with the newly enacted Declaration of Rights. Madison had sought also to have the Declaration expressly condemn the existing Virginia establishment. 14 This hope was finally realized when "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" was passed in 1785. In this same year, Madison presented to Virginia legislators "A Bill for Punishing . . . Sabbath Breakers" which provided, in part:

"If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall forfeit the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant, or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence." 15

This became law the following year and remained during the time that Madison fought for the First Amendment in the Congress. It was the law of Virginia, and similar [366 U.S. 420, 439] laws were in force in other States, when Madison stated at the Virginia ratification convention:

"Happily for the states, they enjoy the utmost freedom of religion. . . . Fortunately for this commonwealth, a majority of the people are decidedly against any exclusive establishment. I believe it to be so in the other states. . . . I can appeal to my uniform conduct on this subject, that I have warmly supported religious freedom." 16

In 1799, Virginia pronounced "An act for establishing religious freedom" as "a true exposition of the principles of the bill of rights and constitution," and repealed all subsequently enacted legislation deemed inconsistent with it. 2 Shepherd, Statutes at Large of Virginia, 149. Virginia's statute banning Sunday labor stood. 17

In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 , the Court relied heavily on the history of the Virginia bill. That case concerned a Mormon's attack on a statute making bigamy a crime. The Court said:

"In connection with the case we are now considering, it is a significant fact that on the 8th of December, 1788, after the passage of the act establishing religious freedom, and after the convention of Virginia had recommended as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States the declaration in a bill of rights that `all men have an equal, natural, and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience,' the legislature [366 U.S. 420, 440] of that State substantially enacted the statute of James I., death penalty included, because, as recited in the preamble, `it hath been doubted whether bigamy or poligamy be punishable by the laws of this Commonwealth.' 12 Hening's Stat. 691.

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the face of all of this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life." Id., at 165.

In the case at bar, we find the place of Sunday Closing Laws in the First Amendment's history both enlightening and persuasive.

But in order to dispose of the case before us, we must consider the standards by which the Maryland statutes are to be measured. Here, a brief review of the First Amendment's background proves helpful. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . ." U.S. Const., Amend. I. The Amendment was proposed by James Madison on June 8, 1789, in the House of Representatives. It then read, in part:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." (Emphasis added.) I Annals of Congress 434.

We are told that Madison added the word "national" to meet the scruples of States which then had an established church. 1 Stokes, Church and State in the United [366 U.S. 420, 441] States, 541. After being referred to committee, it was considered by the House, on August 15, 1789, acting as a Committee of the Whole. Some assistance in determining the scope of the Amendment's proscription of establishment may be found in that debate.

n its report to the House, the committee, to which the subject of amendments to the Constitution had been submitted, recommended the insertion of the language, "no religion shall be established by law." I Annals of Congress 729. Mr. Gerry "said it would read better if it was, that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 730.

Mr. Madison "said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. . . . He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform." Id., at 730-731.

The Amendment, as it passed the House of Representatives nine days later, read, in part:

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion. . . ." Records of the United States Senate, 1A-C2 (U.S. Nat. Archives).

It passed the Senate on September 9, 1789, reading, in part:

"Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship. . . ." Ibid.

An early commentator opined that the "real object of the amendment was . . . to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." 3 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 728. But, the First Amendment, in its final form, [366 U.S. 420, 442] did not simply bar a congressional enactment establishing a church; it forbade all laws respecting an establishment of religion.

Thus, this Court has given the Amendment a "broad interpretation . . . in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress. . . ." Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at pp. 14-15. It has found that the First and Fourteenth Amendments afford protection against religious establishment far more extensive than merely to forbid a national or state church. Thus, in McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, the Court held that the action of a board of education, permitting religious instruction during school hours in public school buildings and requiring those children who chose not to attend to remain in their classrooms, to be contrary to the "Establishment" Clause.

However, it is equally true that the "Establishment" Clause does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. In many instances, the Congress or state legislatures conclude that the general welfare of society, wholly apart from any religious considerations, demands such regulation. Thus, for temporal purposes, murder is illegal.

nd the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333; Reynolds v. United States, supra. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc., because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue. (Ten Commandments)

Thus, these broad principles have been set forth by this Court. Those cases dealing with the specific problems arising under the "Establishment" Clause which have reached this Court are few in number. The most extensive discussion of the "Establishment" Clause's latitude [366 U.S. 420, 443] is to be found in Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at pp. 15-16:

"The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.

Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect `a wall of separation between church and State.'"

Under challenge was a statute authorizing repayment to parents of their children's transportation expenses to public and Catholic schools. The Court, speaking through MR. JUSTICE BLACK, recognized that "it is undoubtedly true that children are helped to get to church schools," and "[t]here is even a possibility that some of the children might not be sent to the church schools if the parents were compelled to pay their children's bus fares out of their own pockets when transportation to a public school would have been paid for by the State." Id., at 17.

But the Court found that the purpose and effect of the statute in question was general "public welfare legislation," [366 U.S. 420, 444] id., at 16; that it was to protect all school children from the "very real hazards of traffic," id., at 17; that the expenditure of public funds for school transportation, to religious schools or to any others, was like the expenditure of public funds to provide policemen to safeguard these same children or to provide "such general government services as ordinary police and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal, public highways and sidewalks," id., at 17-18. 18

their more or less recent emphasis upon secular considerations, it is not difficult to discern that as presently written and administered, most of them, at least, are of a secular rather than of a religious character, and that presently they bear no relationship to establishment of religion as those words are used in the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout this century and longer, both the federal and state governments have oriented their activities very largely toward improvement of the health, safety, recreation and general well-being of our citizens.

Numerous [366 U.S. 420, 445] laws affecting public health, safety factors in industry, laws affecting hours and conditions of labor of women and children, week-end diversion at parks and beaches, and cultural activities of various kinds, now point the way toward the good life for all. Sunday Closing Laws, like those before us, have become part and parcel of this great governmental concern wholly apart from their original purposes or connotations.

The present purpose and effect of most of them is to provide a uniform day of rest for all citizens; the fact that this day is Sunday, a day of particular significance for the dominant Christian sects, does not bar the State from achieving its secular goals. To say that the States cannot prescribe Sunday as a day of rest for these purposes solely because centuries ago such laws had their genesis in religion would give a constitutional interpretation of hostility to the public welfare rather than one of mere separation of church and State.

We now reach the Maryland statutes under review. The title of the major series of sections of the Maryland Code dealing with Sunday closing - Art. 27, 492-534C - is "Sabbath Breaking"; 492 proscribes work or bodily labor on the "Lord's day," and forbids persons to "profane the Lord's day" by gaming, fishing et cetera; 522 refers to Sunday as the "Sabbath day."

As has been mentioned above, many of the exempted Sunday activities in the various localities of the State may only be conducted during the afternoon and late evening; most Christian church services, of course, are held on Sunday morning and early Sunday evening. Finally, as previously noted, certain localities do not permit the allowed Sunday activities to be carried on within one hundred yards of any church where religious services are being held. This is the totality of the evidence of religious purpose which may be gleaned from the face of the present statute and from its operative effect. [366 U.S. 420, 446]

The predecessors of the existing Maryland Sunday laws are undeniably religious in origin. The first Maryland statute dealing with Sunday activities, enacted in 1649, was entitled "An Act concerning Religion." 1 Archives of Maryland 244-247. It made it criminal to "profane the Sabbath or Lords day called Sunday by frequent swearing, drunkenness or by any uncivil or disorderly recreation, or by working on that day when absolute necessity doth not require it." Id., at 245. A 1692 statute entitled "An Act for the Service of Almighty God and the Establishment of the Protestant Religion within this Province," 13 Archives of Maryland 425-430, after first stating the importance of keeping the Lord's Day holy and sanctified and expressing concern with the breach of its observance throughout the State, then enacted a Sunday labor prohibition which was the obvious precursor of the present 492. 19

There was a re-enactment in 1696 entitled "An Act for Sanctifying & keeping holy the Lord's Day Commonly called Sunday." 19 Archives of Maryland 418-420. By 1723, the Sabbath-breaking section of the statute assumed the present form of 492, omitting the specific prohibition against Sunday swearing and the patently religiously motivated title. Bacon, Laws of Maryland (1723), c. XVI.

There are judicial statements in early Maryland decisions which tend to support appellants' position. In an 1834 case involving a contract calling for delivery on Sunday, [366 U.S. 447] the Maryland Court of Appeals remarked that "Ours is a Christian community, and a day set apart as the day of rest, is the day consecrated by the resurrection of our Saviour, and embraces the twenty-four hours next ensuing the midnight of Saturday." Kilgour v. Miles, 6 Gill and Johnson 268, 274. This language was cited with approval in Judefind v. State, 78 Md. 510, 514, 28 A. 405, 406 (1894). It was also stated there:

"It is undoubtedly true that rest from secular employment on Sunday does have a tendency to foster and encourage the Christian religion - of all sects and denominations that observe that day - as rest from work and ordinary occupation enables many to engage in public worship who probably would not otherwise do so.

But it would scarcely be asked of a Court, in what professes to be a Christian land, to declare a law unconstitutional because it requires rest from bodily labor on Sunday, (except works of necessity and charity,) and thereby promotes the cause of Christianity. If the Christian religion is, incidentially or otherwise, benefited or fostered by having this day of rest, as it undoubtedly is, there is all the more reason for the enforcement of laws that help to preserve it. Whilst Courts have generally sustained Sunday laws as `civil regulations,' their decisions will have no less weight if they are shown to be in accordance with divine law as well as human." Id., at 515-516, 28 A., at 407.

But it should be noted that, throughout the Judefind decision, the Maryland court specifically rejected the contention that the laws interfered with religious liberty and stated that the laws' purpose was to provide the "advantages of having a weekly day of rest, `from a mere physical and political standpoint.'" Id., at 513, 28 A., at 406.

Considering the language and operative effect of the current statutes, we no longer find the blanket prohibition [366 U.S. 420, 448] against Sunday work or bodily labor. To the contrary, we find that 521 of Art. 27, the section which appellants violated, permits the Sunday sale of tobaccos and sweets and a long list of sundry articles which we have enumerated above; we find that 509 of Art. 27 permits the Sunday operation of bathing beaches, amusement parks and similar facilities; we find that Art. 2B, 28, permits the Sunday sale of alcoholic beverages, products strictly forbidden by predecessor statutes; we are told that Anne Arundel County allows Sunday bingo and the Sunday playing of pinball machines and slot machines, activities generally condemned by prior Maryland Sunday legislation.

20 Certainly, these are not works of charity or necessity. Section 521's current stipulation that shops with only one employee may remain open on Sunday does not coincide with a religious purpose. These provisions, along with those which permit various sports and entertainments on Sunday, seem clearly to be fashioned for the purpose of providing a Sunday atmosphere of recreation, cheerfulness, repose and enjoyment. Coupled with the general proscription against other types of work, we believe that the air of the day is one of relaxation rather than one of religion.

The existing Maryland Sunday laws are not simply verbatim re-enactments of their religiously oriented antecedents. Only 492 retains the appellation of "Lord's day" and even that section no longer makes recitation of religious purpose. It does talk in terms of "profan[ing] the Lord's day," but other sections permit the activities [366 U.S. 420, 449] previously thought to be profane. Prior denunciation of Sunday drunkenness is now gone. Contemporary concern with these statutes is evidenced by the dozen changes made in 1959 and by the recent enactment of a majority of the exceptions.

Finally, the relevant pronouncements of the Maryland Court of Appeals dispel any argument that the statutes' announced purpose is religious. In Hiller v. Maryland, 124 Md. 385, 92 A. 842 (1914), the court had before it a Baltimore ordinance prohibiting Sunday baseball. The court said:

"What the eminent chief judge said with respect to police enactments which deal with the protection of the public health, morals and safety apply with equal force to those which are concerned with the peace, order and quiet of the community on Sunday, for these social conditions are well recognized heads of the police power. Can the Court say that this ordinance has no real and substantial relation to the peace and order and quiet of Sunday, as a day of rest, in the City of Baltimore?" Id., at 393, 92 A., at 844. See also Levering v. Williams, 134 Md. 48, 54-59, 106 A. 176, 178-179 (1919).

And the Maryland court declared in its decision in the instant case: "The legislative plan is plain. It is to compel a day of rest from work, permitting only activities which are necessary or recreational." McGowan v. State, supra, at p. 123, 151 A. 2d, at 159. After engaging in the close scrutiny demanded of us when First Amendment liberties are at issue, we accept the State Supreme Court's determination that the statutes' present purpose and effect is not to aid religion but to set aside a day of rest and recreation.

But this does not answer all of appellants' contentions. We are told that the State has other means at its disposal [366 U.S. 420, 450] to accomplish its secular purpose, other courses that would not even remotely or incidentally give state aid to religion. On this basis, we are asked to hold these statutes invalid on the ground that the State's power to regulate conduct in the public interest may only be executed in a way that does not unduly or unnecessarily infringe upon the religious provisions of the First Amendment. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, at pp. 304-305. However relevant this argument may be, we believe that the factual basis on which it rests is not supportable. It is true that if the State's interest were simply to provide for its citizens a periodic respite from work, a regulation demanding that everyone rest one day in seven, leaving the choice of the day to the individual, would suffice.

However, the State's purpose is not merely to provide a one-day-in-seven work stoppage. In addition to this, the State seeks to set one day apart from all others as a day of rest, repose, recreation and tranquility - a day which all members of the family and community have the opportunity to spend and enjoy together, a day on which there exists relative quiet and disassociation from the everyday intensity of commercial activities, a day on which people may visit friends and relatives who are not available during working days. 21 [366 U.S. 420, 451]

Obviously, a State is empowered to determine that a rest-one-day-in-seven statute would not accomplish this purpose; that it would not provide for a general cessation of activity, a special atmosphere of tranquility, a day which all members of the family or friends and relatives might spend together. Furthermore, it seems plain that the problems involved in enforcing such a provision would be exceedingly more difficult than those in enforcing a common-day-of-rest provision.

Moreover, it is common knowledge that the first day of the week has come to have special significance as a rest day in this country. People of all religions and people with no religion regard Sunday as a time for family activity, for visiting friends and relatives, for late sleeping, for passive and active entertainments, for dining out, and the like. " [366 U.S. 420, 452]

Vast masses of our people, in fact, literally millions, go out into the countryside on fine Sunday afternoons in the Summer. . . ." 308 Parliamentary Debates, Commons 2159. Sunday is a day apart from all others. 22 The cause is irrelevant; the fact exists. It would seem unrealistic for enforcement purposes and perhaps detrimental to the general welfare to require a State to choose a common day of rest other than that which most persons would select of their own accord. For these reasons, we hold that the Maryland statutes are not laws respecting an establishment of religion."