Religion and Law

[Emsworth]

It is stated in the ninth and tenth ammendments where it explains that even if not mentioned in the constitution, everything is a right unless ruled not to be by the states.

I disagree. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments do not state that "everything" is a right unless the states deem otherwise. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are nothing more than rules of construction. They are not grounds for asserting any substantive rights.

Of course, the federal government has no authority to compel a business to shut down on any day. That is not because of a "right to commerce," but because of a lack of enumerated powers. But there is nothing that prohibits a state from compelling a business to shut down on a Sunday.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Taking Sundays off is not a Christian practice alone. I'm sure that there are a lot of non-Christians who do not work over the weekend.

[phk]

Religion is an evil.

[A18]

A law is not unconstitutional because it was brought about by religious principles. It has to actually be religious in nature.

To say otherwise, is to say that by merely believing something, any sizeable portion of the population can make something unconstitutional.

[The Constitarian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You still haven't given a reason for a mandatory day off or a non religious reason its sunday.

[Emsworth]

You still haven't given a reason for a mandatory day off or a non religious reason its sunday.

The Constitution does not require states to pass laws that have reasons.

The reasons of the law are irrelevant; only the effects of them are germane.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You still haven't given a reason for a mandatory day off or a non religious reason its sunday.

It could fall under worker's rights:  forcing employers to give their empleyees at least one day off.

[The Constitarian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If that were true it would be an OSHA regulation.  There is no reason to punish one man or family operations for a could be problem.  Entrepenuers are and always have been the back bone of this economy, the government should be set up to protect them not restrict their rights.

[A18]

Uh, we are not arguing over whether or not this policy is a good idea. We're arguing over whether or not it's constitutional, and you're dodging all the important points of the opposition.

[opebo]

You don't honestly think these places would keep people working for twenty-four hours straight do you?  If I worked under that sort of condition I'd just quit.

I think that without government regulation we would still have 12-16 hour workdays for the lower classes, yes.

[/quote]The intention is not obvious, either way, of a law that can be open to different interpretations.  For example, if it is not done for religious reasons, it could be done for worker's rights regulations, which you pointed out in an odd attempt to discredit yourself in the same post.
[/quote]

Forcing businesses to close on any particular day does not respect the establishment of religion. There could be a completely secular reason for providing a day of rest.
Closing a business is not a religious activity, unlike school prayer, for example.

You fellows are perfectly correct that closing businesses does not necessarily have a religious purpose, however the fact that Sunday is chosen makes the religious connection obvious.  In order to avoid the appearance and fact of State advocacy of Christianity, some other day devoid of religious significance should be chosen - I suggest Tuesday.  Anything else is unconstitutional.

I would also like to add that worker-rights regulation - the limiting of hours to reasonable levels - need not require businesses to be closed at all, merely that shifts be short and perhaps night shifts be more highly paid. 

[The 2nd Constitarian]

i like most religous laws, like the ones against murder or theft, but there is no way a government that currently exist doesn't have some religous backround, our founding fathers were protestants, as were the members of the original english parliment.

[Emsworth]

i like most religous laws, like the ones against murder or theft...

Those are not inherently religious laws. Morality can be based in things other than religion.

[Richard]

Option 1

[The 2nd Constitarian]

the ten commandments are Gods law and they forbid murder and theft, so they are a religous law.

[A18]

And that has what to do with anything?

[The 2nd Constitarian]

And that has what to do with anything?

I'm saying that just because a law has a religous backround or origin doesn't mean it is bad or unconstitutional

[PBrunsel]

I am curious, where in the Constiution does it say that there is to be complete seperation of Church and State? (Don't site the "will make no law" clause about state religion please). I mean i've read that entire document a few times and can not find anything about seperating church and state.

[John Dibble]

the ten commandments are Gods law and they forbid murder and theft, so they are a religous law.

You know, in the vast majority of societies throughout history murder and theft have been illegal, regardless of whether they had heard of the bible or not.

Completely non-religious reasons that murder and theft can be made illegal - Most people don't want to be murdered. Most people don't want to be stolen from. So, logically since 99.9% of people would rather not have either thing done to them, they decided such things should be against the law.

[Everett]

Most people don't want to be murdered. Most people don't want to be stolen from. So, logically since 99.9% of people would rather not have either thing done to them, they decided such things should be against the law.

Well, apparently 99.9% doesn't include people like opebo...