Give Imus a break! Really!

[Woody]

Are we actually suppose to read all of that?

[David Koot]

I do understand, Redwood. However, for those who may be interested in seeing firsthand the potential basis for Sunday legislation, as held by the USSC, here it is, including an excellent historical review. Note how the Court sidesteps the issue of religion.

Dave

[Woody]

I would like to see a synopsis of what is there rather than me and feeble mind trying to understand all the legal aspects. Could you explain to me what is there in a short manner? I would be interested.

[David Koot]

I would be glad to. Right now, I need to head out the door for a bit. Looking for a skilsaw to borrow to cut backing strips for the frames in my rowing dory, and I cannot one so far. I will revisit this later on today sometime. The case is absolutely astounding, and I am still in a state of shock that the Warren Court would actually hand down such a decision. It's all there--the legal and judicial framework for a national Sunday law.

Dave

[Woody]

Thank you David.

[David Koot]

A request has been made for a synopsis or summary of the McGowan case. It had been my preference to post the excerpt dealing with religious freedom in its entirety, so that the reader could have the benefit of reviewing the whole argument on that point. (I did not include the arguments regarding Equal Protection, for example) However, I should be glad to post here a few paragraphs which especially stand out, pertinent to secular justification for Sunday closing laws.

The court cites no less an authority than the venerable Blackstone. Blackstone, no less!!! Note:

"[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.

Notice, again:

"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."

Notice, also, this citation with approval from a California SC case:

"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."

And finally, this:

"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."

As I read this, I experience cold chills. Here it is, in technicolor, so to speak. Here we see how the labor unions, environmental groups, energy conservation advocates, family values proponents and others may easily unite to help bring about Sunday legislation, WITHOUT REFERENCE to religion. Of course, the evangelicals will be gleefully supporting all of that, but behind the scenes, so as not to arouse concern. THAT, I propose, is how it could easily happen. AND, the DEMOCRATS would be prime candidates to bring it about--labor unions, environmental concerns, energy conservation, family values, you name it, all together now!

Dave

[Amelia]

Quote:

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.

Now there is a senario I can see happening. Thank you brother Bishop.

[Parade Orange]

David Koot,

Back it up?

what?

I dont have to 'back it up'.

I thought u have been emersed in propaganda from the 'christian right' like so many people I know.

Back it up?

give me a break.

my back up is my first thought when I read your riduculouse post

how is that for 'backing it up'!

so In your thinking I have to have stats and data and maybe an infectious little anadote from Readers Digest?

its easy for the republicans to say democrats are gonna do it

and visa versa.

The WORLD will Follow after the beast not just democrats following Hilary.

eee gads!

I am not gonna play 'posting footsie' like others here with u.

The fact that I ask or challenge your notions is in it self backing it up for me.

and I appreciate you using stats and data and maybe a blurb from Readers Digest to back up what u say

but long dreary posts tend to become a big blurb to my eyes.

and it ussually dont hold my attention

unless its a topic that enrapures and delights my soul.

God bless

Dont hate me cause I am not into it like u are!

[Parade Orange]

David Koot,

I mean no disrespect in my posts to u.

I dont come to CA for the battle of the wits or see it as a job to gather up evidenses to proove my point.

This is for entertainment, leisure, and maybe to receive a blessing.

I dont see this as u do. Its ok.

The only back up that is compelling for me is scripture.

we all can twist and turn politics anyway we want.

[David Koot]

I dont come to CA for the battle of the wits or see it as a job to gather up evidenses to proove my point. This is for entertainment, leisure, and maybe to receive a blessing.

[David Koot]

I dont have to 'back it up'.

[Woody]

Quote:

The only back up that is compelling for me is scripture.

This is interesting. I find that scripture is usually slaughtered here. I usually prefer to not see how scripture is twisted. I don't mind seeing opinion or politics twisted. But I value scripture too much to see IT twisted.

[lazarus]

I'm salivating

http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/16/fairness_doctrine/index_np.html

[David Koot]

I'm salivating

Aww, cmon Laz, gotta hear both sides! The media is a liberal stronghold as it is.

Dave

[lazarus]

lol, I know....but producing saliva is a reflex action!

[Bravus]

It's interesting: the whole 'liberal media' meme might be true, but it is also incredibly convenient for conservatives who want to disregard anything they hear or read that is inconvenient for their worldview.

[David Koot]

Ha! I can see it now! As the media hounds close in on Rush for the kill (and I am NO fan of Rush Limbaugh! I could see him as another Goebbels) we may just hear Laz and Bravus shouting, 'Tally ho!'

[Bravus]

I think I'm consistent: Imus deserved to go for what he said, and if Rush says something similar he deserves to go too. Restoring some level of civility to the media is a worthwhile goal... and one that would seem to fit pretty neatly with conservatism's core values.

[David Koot]

:) Oh, I just had to give you guys a hard time!

[Bravus]

[Parade Orange]

O David what can I say to your arguments!

I am not that into it.

Sorry.

and I still stand by my words!

I dont have to back it up!

everything u say and everything I say is basically sharing our perspectives on these matters.

If u want to Share Jesus and what He has done for u(on other threads of course) I may not get so bleary eyed. And respond with more substantial back-up with my responses to u.

I get wound up when it comes to republicans but not to testimonies.

[David Koot]

It's interesting: the whole 'liberal media' meme might be true, but it is also incredibly convenient for conservatives who want to disregard anything they hear or read that is inconvenient for their worldview.

But Bravus, the same thing happens with liberals! Indeed, I have read it and watched it. Personally, I am pretty much ambivalent--'don't have a dog in that fight'--so my vantage point is that of a spectator. I see the mudslinging back and forth, demonizing the other side. Hmmmmm . . . there IS one difference I have noticed, however. The liberal establishment really does seem to want to shut down, to silence conservative commentators. I haven't noticed as much of that from conservatives, against liberals. Perhaps that is because liberals are so strongly entrenched in the media. I don't know for sure. And, to be honest, I don't follow the hue and cry that much. What I get is from the internet and occasional journals.

Dave

[Parade Orange]

Ok David Koot,

I did riducule your statements and it was wrong.

I read and pondered your words to me and I was wrong.

I apologize for my mean spirited and arrogant response to u.

I like you and like seeing what u say to various topics.

There are some posts that I get more bleary eyed with than u.

I dont agree with right wing politics but I do believe in that in this fair country all sides have to be heard.

and I do listen to different ideas than mine constantly on talk radio and TV.

I dont believe the Dmocrates have the answers. Sometimes I am very embarrassed with the stuff they do and say.

The world will get worst before HE comes in the clouds of Glory and mankind will indeed not look to each other for answers anymore cause the problems will be so perplexing and overwhelming. Thats One of the reasons why they will look to the supernatural(antichrist) and its minions for answers.

If Hilary does become prez(doubt it) and helps move the Sunday laws into effect it will only mean that Jesus WILL come Very Very Soon shortly after that and we can be rid of this mess and See HIM as HE is.

then we can pal around on the new earth as buddies!!!!

[Parade Orange]

ok maybe I went to far with my last line!

but I am very sorry for attacking you

[David Koot]

Why thank you, Parade, and I appreciate and gladly accept your apology. I like you too and enjoy reading your posts. And, yes I would be glad to pal around with you on the New Earth. May that day come soon, and may we all be ready. God bless you!

Dave