Maybe I was thinking of different blue laws than you were. Where I live most business are still closed on Sunday. (This is NJ)

When I think of blue laws I mean the following;

‘Many remnants of “blue laws” survived into the late twentieth century as seemingly nonsensical patchworks of regulations about which types of businesses could operate on Sundays and what items they could sell. Thus various jurisidictions might have regulations which, on Sundays, prohibited the sale of hammers but not nails, forbade trading in horses while allowing automobile dealerships to remain open, or prohibited the purchase of alcohol at liquor stores but not grocery stores.’

http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/bluelaws.htm

While a little annoying at times, this is hardly the kind of thing I expect the courts to eliminate. As for banning books, I don’t think the practice is terribly effective, especially in the internet age. But just because something is silly or unwise does not mean it is unconstitutional.

As for the domestic social issues, I don’t know what side you are on and did not intend the remarks to apply uniformly to you personally. I see now that it could be taken to imply that you are some sort of drug or porn addict. My apologies if that was how you read it.

I think the issue of what it is we are fighting for is an important one, and one that has been neglected, so I thank you for the discussion. Maybe we’ll have it again sometime.

…and you complain about your expressive skills? I think not.

You are correct that I have not studied the Declaration as theological argument. “Laws of Nature and of Natures God” and “Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.” Those are the only mentions of theological inspiration that I can see. To my mind the greater body of the Declaration rests on a materialist perspective or “Laws of Nature” as conceived and remonstrated by men. In short, I see no use of theological morality as justification and/or reasoning in the call for Independence. This is of course without the context of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

You are also probably correct in that I should have raised my objections to “any particular theological dogma upon a particular set of circumstances.” in a “Bill of Rights” perspective. More solid ground there.

flenser

I’ll try and address your points, or at least some of them.

“empty boilerplate”

I understand what you are saying, but.. was it boilerplate at the time it was written? I hope not. IMO, at the time that was a fairly radical statement. At the least, it is a statement of hope and inspiration for a life without tyranny.

“theocratic? Americans led by their overtly religious commander in chief.”

If I remember correctly, all of our President’s have either been, or at the least, professed to be overtly religious. And, that doesn’t bother me a bit. Well maybe that’s not entirely true, I would like to see the day when someone of any or even no religious persuasion could be considered qualified and competent for that position. As for theocratic Americans fighting the war.. well are they fighting because they are theocratic or are they fighting in the hopes of spreading some of that life, liberty and happiness around? From experience, it is not necessary to be a ‘believer’ to be willing to fight for God, country and Corps, nor to love this Country.

“moral precepts”

Well..point of fact, there is way too much there for me to cover. If memory serves there is still spirited discussion in the world as from where “morals” sprang. I once again have no problem conceding that religion may have been the original wellspring of the majority of our shared morals. Though I also think that there have always been men/women who have wished for a saner and less violent world regardless of there belief in any particular divinity. I don’t disagree that without ‘morals’, there is only power. But, man, has that concept ever been twisted around to suit the needs of power.

“Two sides” and “domestic social issues”;

I’ll not say much here, but if you think I am on the ‘other’ side as compared to ‘your’ side, at least as based on what you wrote, then you seriously misunderstand me, though with my poor writing skills I can understand that. I will say that comments such as “steady supply of porn and narcotics” does a disservice to both ‘sides’ in this domestic conflict.

“blue laws” and “you imagine it would be an improvement if some judge decided that such laws are ?unconstitutional” and “Contrary to what you believe, this would not result in freedom, but in tyranny;”

First off, you have no idea what I believe. I think here you are just putting words in my mouth which I did not speak. I understand fairly well the origin of law in this country. Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the “blue laws” of which I speak (good for you if so). But there was a time when one could go to jail for possession of the books I mentioned above. I don’t think that’s right. Just remember, there are times when one man’s freedom is another man’s tyranny and the converse of course.

To sum up, I just want the pendulum of change to swing in a lesser arc. I’m tired of extremes, of any kind, though I realize extremes are sometimes needed. As I said, I just don’t want to go backward.

Forgot one thing, I happen to agree that the Dem’s have been reprehensible in this judge matter. I think all the President’s nominees should be given an up or down on the floor of the Senate.

I thank you both for the engagement.

Roger, sorry about the bandwidth.

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2005/04/civil-libertarian-wedding-bells.html

Yes, I can be really pedantic. And yes, I know itís annoying. Maybe I should have been a lawyer.

If ìLife, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessî was the phrase you were referring to, I have to say that I regard that as empty boilerplate. Perhaps there are some people, somewhere, who would say ìwe donít want no stinkiní life, liberty, or happinessî, but if so I have never heard of them. The countries of South America have marvelous constitutions, many of them modeled on our own, full of wonderful principles. What has it gotten them?

The hard fact of the matter is that it is not the wonderful secular peoples of Europe or Canada who are fighting this war, it is the ëtheocraticí Americans led by their overtly religious commander in chief. That in itself should give you pause.

This country is worth defending not because it has some platitudes written in the Declaration or Constitution, but only insofar as its people subscribe to some moral precepts. Otherwise, there is nothing left but power for its own sake.

One of those precepts, written into the Declaration, is that among the inalienable rights that we the people have are the right to self-governance. It is that precept that is under attack and that is causing the ìdomestic social issuesî which you mention. There are two sides in this debate. One holds that the type of society we live in should ultimately depend on the principles that the people themselves, through their legislatures, decide to enact into law.

The other takes the view that every aspect of human existence above the level of brushing your teeth is ultimately an aspect of constitutional law, and that the type of society we live in should be determined by a small but powerful elite, much as is done in Europe. That is not a society which deserves to be defended. It is a society that buys the acquiescence of the people with the promise of empty pleasures, such as a steady supply of porn and narcotics.

The various ëblue lawsí that have you so exercised were passed by local legislative bodies reflecting the will of the people. When they decide they no longer want these laws, they can, and have, repealed them. I get the impression that you imagine it would be an improvement if some judge decided that such laws are ëunconstitutionalí. Contrary to what you believe, this would not result in freedom, but in tyranny, and I would hope that no American would ever volunteer to die in defense of such a proposition. From what I can see, none have.

Apologies for the slightly off-topic comments, but this goes to the heart of what the fight over judges is all about.

I’m sure you’ve studied the docs but I doubt that you’ve studied the Declaration as a theological argument. That’s why neither Flenser nor I could quite grasp the distinction you were attempting to make. Had it been stated as “I reject the imposition of any particular theological dogma upon a particular set of circumstances.” then I would understand it from a First Amendment POV. Our founding documents most closely pertain to those adhering to Judeo Christian ethical/moral precepts. They are really unsuitable for Moslems (for example)because the underlying theology contradicts (is in fact, antithetical) to Islam. There is no concept of “free will” in Islam.

(*zzzzz*)

Perhaps I fired off without thinking it out, OTOH, I didn’t see my point addressed, just fool by misquote. And that’s OK really, I’ve been called much worse, and sometimes for damn good cause

Yeah, Buddy, you’re right. LOL