Different countries have different social mores, so I don't really see the issue. If Vietnamese people feel something is inappropriate for an art show maybe they should decide.
Recently I've been thinking about a lot of the conflicts in our own country and I wonder if a lot of them wouldn't be solved by transferring as much control to local places.
For example, if folks in rural Alabama want to have the 10 commandments in their court house maybe we should let them. If folks in Seattle want higher property taxes in exchange for greater services maybe they should. If folks in Durham want to take down Confederate statues maybe they should be allowed. And places that want them should keep them.
After all, nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head saying you have to live in a certain place. Maybe we'd all be better off if groups of people with similar beliefs sorted themselves out and agreed to disagree. And if you don't like a certain place because it is too liberal or too conservative or the people there like shitting in the Taco Bell too much you can decide to put up with it or decide to move.
I do with that the US (or at least parts of the US) were more like the French and Germans about topless beaches and skimpy thongs.
But only for the hotties! After all, topless thong wearing uggos = not brilliant!
4got, I don't think any American citizen should be denied their basic rights. The founding fathers recognized the danger of the tyranny of the majority, and therefore gave us the Bill of Rights. I personally don't want to live in Alabama, but those who do deserve their freedoms. State and local governments have plenty of power to regulate things, but they can't violate the Constitution.
I agree with @jackslash. Federalism is fine, but there are limits. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If a state wants to have high property taxes or statues of the Confederacy, well, I don't like it and it's un-American, but I suppose it's not unconstitutional. Only the people of those states can decide how to proceed. However, a statue of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse clearly violates the First Amendment.
And as for the wretched government of Vietnam, they don't get any credit from me for making people ask permission to do something that they already have a natural right to do.
4got,
Check what I typed. I didn't say anything about what Vietnam does or doesn't do. Just comparing the American "morals" to other countries. To me, it is up to each individual adult.
Well, all societies have had rules.
As far as the US, the present situation is mostly the result of legal challenges based on the 1st Amendment. Most of the old laws against strip clubs were overturned. But now we have a new generation of laws, defining what is Adult Entertainment and what it can and cannot do. So once you have that license you are subject to intricate restrictions which don't apply anywhere else except inside of a licensed Adult Entertainment venue.
These new laws a just as unConstitutional, but they sit until someone is willing to pay the costs of taking them down, and until we have state and federal courts who would be amenable.
Read the memoirs of Melvin Belli and about the legal fights of Jim and Artie Mitchell:
[view link]
As far as nudity in advertising, non-Adult Venues, or just in public, well people have been doing it. See what happens. On websites I see cover nothing bikini's.
[view link][view link][view link]
SJG
@Clubber,
A bunch of guys in black robes seem to disagree with you. The Incorporation Clause applies all provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States as well as the Federal government:
[view link]
It makes sense if you think about it. The Bill of Rights would be almost meaningless if Massachusetts or Alabama could, for instance, restrict the press, pass laws about politically incorrect speech, establish a state religion, outlaw religions that they don't like, ban guns, etc.
Brilliant point BurlingtonHoFactory.
But I'll give a little pushback to you and jackslash. I agree that there are basic rights every American should have, but the exact line between legal and illegal depends on court decisions.
Take my 10 commandments example. Cases have generally supported "ceremonial deism". Another way of saying that could be: the government can be religious if the religion is generic enough.
My point is that exact line could differ. In a place that is 95%+ various Christian denominations the 10 commandments is probably pretty generic. In a place with a reasonable number non-religious, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc maybe everybody agrees to scrub religion from public spaces.
I do concede that it would be hard to implement, but America is so divided that it might be worth considering
Burl,
Best re-read my post. I said what the Constitution does. Unfortunately, it also gives us SCOTUS. To amend the Constitution it takes about 66% of congress or the states to do so. SCOTUS can "interpret" it with 5 members. Don't particularly like those odds.
@4got2wipe,
You're right about that, it usually comes down to a court decision. I'm an atheist myself, and I would personally prefer to have displays of religion removed from government property. But the courts have spoken and we have to abide by their decisions. We may or may not agree with them, but that's the way it is. If the tables were turned, and atheists were erecting plaques on government property that say things like "There Is No Such Thing As God," I would object to this, too. But it would nonetheless be up to the courts to make a right or wrong interpretation of the First Amendment. I would really hope they would tell the atheists to take it down.
Interestingly, in some states, atheists and secular people do indeed make up large swaths of the population: New Hampshire, Vermont, Alaska, Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, Wyoming... And yet, I just don't see such a thing ever happening. It would be weird.
And besides, the absence of religious symbols on government property does not mean the absence of religion. People can, of course, erect anything they want on private property, and they can be as openly religious or irreligious as they please, both in private and public life. The notion that displays of religion only matter when they are on government property is fundamentally creepy and seems contrary to the tenets of Christianity to me.
I would also point out that the Supreme Court decision about the Ten Commandments statue applied specifically to Alabama, which is a state in which over 90% probably self-identify as Christians. And yet the Court decided against Roy Moore anyway. I agree with their decision.
The thing is, this is a country primarily founded by Christians. Or at least, most of the Founding Fathers believed in the same God that Christians believe in. Probably 75% or more of the Founders did believe. The phrase "In God We Trust" has been a defacto motto since the Civil War, and officially for the last 60 years. "God" in this case referring to the Christian deity, but also to "providence," "fate," "destiny," "nature," and so on.
But does this mean that this country was founded specifically FOR Christians? No. Does this mean that Christians are supposed to have special rights and privileges? No. Does this even mean that Christians should be given an extra amount of respect and deference? No. After all, the people we fought in the Revolution (the British Empire) were just as Christian as we are. And they had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about putting references to God and crosses on everything their government touched.
@Clubber,
I hear you. But if we're specifically talking about displays of nudity or religion (the statue of the Ten Commandments, as per 4got2wipe's post), then the part of the Constitution that we're talking about is the First Amendment. The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with religion and free expression, or from endorsing or condemning religious beliefs. And the courts have determined that it applies to the states as well as the Federal government.
Do you have some alternative to the Supreme Court in mind? When the Court interprets the law it's doing its job.
By the way, I totally agree with you on at least one thing: The morals expressed by the American Government and the American people are far and away superior to anything that has ever been expressed by the government of Vietnam, or any other developing country.
Generally I would say that the First Amendment should prohibit any absolute ban on nudity, like a prohibition approach. That should be unconstitutional.
And in some places we do have nudist beaches, public, and nudist camps, private.
But about specific places, like retail or public buildings, probably nudity can be prohibited.
It gets nasty with this concept of "Adult Entertainment", being subject to rules which no one else is.
But as for the First Amendment giving local government the right to impose social conformity laws, that is absolutely wrong.
SJG
How To Talk To Women & Spark Attraction
[view link]
Burl,
As a matter of fact, I do have one. Example: the Constitution says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Leave it at that.
Now before you even bring it up, Merriam-Webster says that a definition of militia is, "the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service."
@Clubber,
Right, but the constitution also says that the Supreme Court is supposed to be the judicial power of the United States. And the role of all courts is to interpret laws and apply them (including the supreme law of the land, the constitution). Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and we should be thankful that they did. Because if they had ignored it and just "left it at that" then each state would be free to interpret it in their own way, and who would stop them? The Second Amendment would become totally meaningless. Texas might say you have an individual right, but New York might say you only have the right to bear arms if you sign up for the Army Reserves or something, etc. I think we should all be thankful for the Supreme Court for generally standing up for our constitutional rights, especially when the other two branches of government haven't. Granted, I'm much more pro-Second Amendment than you or virtually anyone else here. But everyone can point to a part of the Bill of Rights that they like and they have the Supreme Court to thank for upholding it.
Burl,
How can one interpret The 2nd to mean anything other than it says. It doesn't say anything about restrictions, yet there are likely hundreds of them.
The 2nd says nothing about an individual right. It states, "...the right of the people...". If SCOTUS had not changed the 2nd, states could NOT infringe on "the people" as the do!
Burl,
Missed this before. You state. "I'm much more pro-Second Amendment than you...". How do you know my stance on the second. I could be hardcore anti gun and still think the decide how I think the 2nd is enforced. Might just best give it up. You are digging yourself a hole.
@Clubber,
Well, you're right, I don't know your position on gun rights. I just made an assumption based on two things: what you've said so far, and what everyone else I've ever met in my life has said. I once visited a firing range and had a spirited debate with the owner. I couldn't believe it but he was actually in favor of background checks!
Anyway, my position is that any person who wants to own any weapon should be able to buy them from anyone who is willing to sell them. No background checks, no waiting period, no registration, no regulations, no limits, no kidding. This includes machine guns, gatling guns, Uzis, so-called "assault" rifles, AR-15s, AK-47s, grenade launchers, grenades, bazookas, tanks, missile launchers, crossbows, any kind of knife or sword, switchblades, gravity knives, machetes, dynamite, plastic explosives, unlimited bullets and magazines, literally anything. No limits whatsoever under any circumstances. I'm okay with people being able to purchase weapons from the corner store or from the 7-11. I'm fine with people being able to buy them in bulk at Costco. I'm okay with people who have a psychiatric diagnosis buying as many weapons as they want. I'm okay with people who are on the "No-Fly" List buying weapons. (In fact, I don't think the government should even maintain a No-Fly List in the first place - that should be up to the airlines, but that's a different discussion.) And you should be able to carry your weapon, whether openly or concealed, in any private establishment that will allow it, with no government permission required, including in houses of worship, business establishments, daycare centers, literally anywhere. You should also be able to carry your weapon on an airplane if the airline allows it.
I support the Second Amendment, but my position doesn't really have anything to do with the Second Amendment itself. It's more based on my belief in property rights and the right to self-defense. These are natural human rights that precede the Constitution. You should be able to own anything you want as long as you acquire it lawfully. And no one should ever tell you what kind of weapon you need to own in order to feel safe. Only you know what you need to feel safe. If you're out in the middle of nowhere and facing mob-justice, and if the local law enforcement doesn't want to protect you, then you're going to need something stronger than a revolver. That's my view, anyway. I don't own any guns myself, and I don't really want any. I live in a safe neighborhood and I'm not all that interested in weapons. But I would never want to tell someone else what they can and can't own. I've never met anyone else who shares my views on this. Even most hardcore libertarians and conservatives draw the line a little further away than I do.
As for how else you can interpret the Second Amendment, you're asking me to try to get inside the head of a liberal. Since we have a standing army now, and since we don't have a military draft anymore (and even if there were a draft, the soldiers would be supplied with a gun by the army - they wouldn't have to supply their own), and since militias today are all-but nonexistent throughout most of the country... based on all of that, it would be very easy for a left-wing lawyer to argue that the Second Amendment only applies to people who no longer exist. Namely, people who are subject to a military draft and who must supply their own weapons in the event of an invasion. I assume that would be their argument.
Plus women and elderly men have never been subject to any kind of conscription or Selective Service Registration in America. So based on that, if you interpreted it narrowly and literally, you would be able to curtail the Second Amendment so that women and elderly men cannot bear arms. This would be very bad, because women and the elderly need self-defense at least as much as we do, if not more.
I know what you're thinking: so what, it still says what it says. If it said that you had the right to own a horse, even though very few people ride horses anymore, you would still have to right to own a horse. That's true. But I'm sure if the wrong lawyer and the wrong judge get together, they can interpret the Second Amendment in all kinds of crazy ways. Or, at a minimum, this would provide a pretext for liberals to attempt to repeal it (which is what they want to do anyway).
I'm not sure what you mean about the Second Amendment not being an individual right. If it weren't an individual right, then it wouldn't apply to "the people." Frankly, I would change the Second Amendment anyway, to read something like: "The people have the right to own any inanimate object they wish, so long as it's acquired by purchase, gift, or inheritance, and to do whatever they want with their property as long as they don't hurt anyone else." I think that would cover all the bases.
vm,
I carried a gun once, but legally. Had it locked in case, ammo separate, and locked in checked luggage. I called the airline before flying to ask about it. I had no issues.
Now, I wonder if they will allow that, after the AHOLE shot up the airport after he took his gun out of his checked luggage.
Many of the founding fathers would have been considered atheists by the standards of their day. Jefferson, Franklin, and I think Thomas Paine.
In the constitution for the state of Virginia, Jefferson wanted to outlaw the practice of organized religion. Though he did not hold to this, this is the basis of the First Amendment Establishment Clause. And generally the Bill of Rights is considered to be as central to the 1787 Constitution as the initial text itself.
You have to deliberately enforce church and state separation, otherwise the dominant religion will just take over. Most people are not willing to stand up to them, and so their theocratic arguments will prevail.
SJG
Yardbirds Tangerine
[view link]
Led Zeppelin - For Your Love - rare live tape
[view link]
Yardbirds, Train Kept A Rolling, 1968 French TV
[view link]
Dazed and Confused
[view link]
And after NaturalSelection gets pushed out the last shift register, its the bit bucket for him:
[view link]
@san_jose_guy,
I don't think they were atheists but they certainly weren't very religious, either. Jefferson and Paine seemed to have believed in God but not in anything supernatural other than a "creator." They were absolutely not Christians in the strictest sense. I don't know much about Franklin though.
Franklin was one of the furthest out, supposedly stealing communion wafers and holding Black Masses.
All freedoms in the US are obtained by playing one group against another.
But the role of our government has to be to protect the must vulnerable, and this of course includes the poor.
SJG
26 comments