What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Smart Guys Keep Their Faces Looking Young view!
howlifeworks.com - Why men have finally started to use certain anti-aging skin care products...
333 Comments
- CraigB12, on 10/12/2007, -26/+299I'm an atheist and I live in boston. I've already emailed the governors office about this. We'll see what happens.
- baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -16/+262state sanctioned religion?
- mrharvey518, on 10/12/2007, -20/+207This is stupid. I will digg this story when someone gets arrested for being an atheist. This is obviously an archaic law which is unconstitutional and will never be enforced. There is still a law in South Carolina that says that it is illegal to give or receive oral sex. There is also a law that adult males must bring a rifle to church on Sunday to ward off Indian attacks. This is actually a really funny site to read:
http://www.dumblaws.com/
Of course, I still can't buy beer on Sundays in SC either. - xsuite, on 10/12/2007, -25/+177WOw. Im a devout christian and I think this is ***** (as well as those crazy ass neocons)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -20/+63"state sanctioned religion?"
To be completely technical, it's allowed for a *state* to sanction a religion, but it's forbidden for the *federal government* to sanction a religion under the Constitution.
That said: this is pretty crappy. - Fejerro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40http://www.dumblaws.com/
Here's one of my favorites from my home state of Utah:
"It is illegal to detonate any nuclear weapon."
Uh, sir? We're gonna have to write you a ticket. - wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+40Mr. Harvey,
Don't you think we should get a law of this sort off the books? It could technically be enforced should the properly oppressive regime seize power.
Your example of sodomy laws is especially interesting since those laws were all struck down by Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 after that law WAS enforced to arrest two men for consensual sex. - rmxz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33The big deal is that it's downright confusing having a government based on laws half of which are archaic and unenforced, and the other half of which are important. New laws get added all the time; and noone seems to care about removing laws - which just adds so much complexity to the system that the only winners are ever-higher-priced laywers who have the time to keep up with all this crap.
The other big deal is that it encourages a culture of not respecting the laws when a number of laws are under-enforced. Even having everyone speeding and drinking underage makes people more likely to disrespect the more serious laws.
The third big deal is that having lots of laws so everyone's a criminal is one relatively popular way for totalitarian governments to gain control. People they don't like can be arrested for the archaic laws.
Didn't some scandinavian country have a system of government where each year some government official recites the laws from memory, and anything he couldn't remember was automatically repealed --- based on the idea that unless someone's capable of knowing the laws, the laws are too complex for people to be expected to follow them. - macaddct1984, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41God damn, that sucks.
- Awap, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34@texpundit and meltingrobot
Actually texpundit would have been right 100 years ago. Up until 1925, the bill of rights only prevented the federal government from limiting people's rights. The applicability to state governments is a recent thing. Before then many states had official state religions and limited certain political parties. The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. It is written "Congress shall make no law regarding an institution of religion."
From wikipedia:
"...in the 1925 judgment on Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been adopted in 1868, made certain applications of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The Supreme Court then cited the Gitlow case as precedent for a series of decisions that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation." - evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29@mrharvey518:
They were enforcing sodomy laws in Texas until a few years ago (2003 apparently). And people can't buy beer *any* day of the week in this city. - fasda, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29@texpundit
No states can't sanction religion either due to the series of supreme court decisions known as incorporation which uses the 14th amendment to enforce other amendments on the states. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24from my own country (netherlands) :
It is legal to smoke pot, buy it, or have less than 5 grams with you.
Prostitution is legal but the prostitutes must pay taxes like any other business.
I live in the greatest country of the world !!!!! - jcapogna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22I dare somebody to turn themselves in for being atheist. Maybe get a group together and head down to the the police station and turn yourselves in. Would be a great YouTube video.
- reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23True, but technically you could charge this as a crime right?
- digduggler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23So how do we know what's enforced and what's not? And when they change their minds about what is and isn't?
- sirloin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23I am not the gov but i will get back to you
http://www.thephoenix.com/article_ektid32299.aspx
it has alreadyup for repeal
but thanks for keeping the eyes open for dracaonian laws. - pushmouse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19From Wikipedia:
The last person to be jailed in the United States for blasphemy was Abner Kneeland in 1838, as decided by the Massachusetts case Commonwealth v. Kneeland. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23Leave it to digg to take something thats hundreds of years old and act as though it occured yesterday. The best was the comment about this being the fault of the "crazy ass neocons" lmao.
- diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I'm sure they wanted to go on record, telling the Feds not to test in Utah like they did in New Mexico.
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Laws like these haven't been enforced in a century or more, and wouldn't stand a chance if enforced now. What's the big deal?
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14@fasda:
"THIS LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY EVEN THE MOST EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN JUDGE IN THE COUNTRY."
If only it were that simple. Legislation introduced into both Houses of Congress, under the guise of "protecting religious expression", includes the following clause:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a court shall not award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys to the prevailing party on a claim of injury consisting of the violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion brought against the United States or any agency or any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity in any court having jurisdiction over such claim, and the remedies with respect to such a claim shall be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief."
In plain English, that means that anyone accusing the Federal government of violating the Establishment Clause (say, by them refusing to challenge enforcement of a law such as the one cited here in Massachusetts), cannot have their attorney's fees and legal expenses paid, much less significant damages awarded *even if they win the case*. This is intended to make it difficult, if not impossible, for private citizens and organizations without the deep pockets of the Religious Right from being able to challenge government violation of the Separation principle.
If that Bill becomes law, then expect to see a rash of states enforcing religious laws all over the country. This is not fear-mongering - it is the publicly stated intent of those who wrote and back the law.
It passed the House in the last Congress by a large margin, a slightly different version passed the Senate, and the clock ran out before the versions were reconciled, or it would already have been made law. Bush declared he will sign it if it reaches his desk. The legislation is due to be reintroduced in the current Congress.
Wake up and smell the theocracy. - bigturns, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20@xsuite, you know, given your choice of language, I kind of thought you might be a 'devout Christian'.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16It's also illegal to cross the boston commons without a rifle. The threat of bear attacks is intense.
Also, you have to bring your rifle with you to church. - AlanLivingston, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12And another law, apparently,
"Thou shall not scare the bejeesus out of us by mounting Lite-Brites around our city!"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/01/boston.bombscare/index.html - playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15@bigturns:
The Bible restricts taking the Lord's name in vain. It does not restrict colourful metaphors. - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." - Thomas Jefferson
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion" - George Washington & John Adams, in a diplomatic message to Malta - Otto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Here's the problem with these "archaic" laws: They're unenforceable *now*, but if society changes in certain key ways, they may become enforceable, and it will happen rapidly because they won't have to pass these laws, just enforce them.
Think of it like this... Right now, you cannot arrest somebody for blasphemy. You'd never get away with it. It would never stick. However, say that circumstances changed and one major religion started really gaining political traction, and was successful in getting their people installed into most major government positions. Then they start enforcing some of these older laws. They wouldn't have to take the time to *pass* these laws. They're already laws. They'd just have to enforce the ones on the books.
The problem with having old laws on the books like this is that if you make everything illegal, and then only selectively enforce those laws, the people are at the mercy of the enforcers. It's no longer a representative government, it's a police state. - Koray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It means disrespectful and is used in legal verbiage to this day.
- danielmryan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15From the Criminal Code of Canada [ http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/c-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_296//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_296 ]:
"BLASPHEMOUS LIBEL
"Offence
296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
"Question of fact
"(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.
"Saving
"(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject."
"R.S., c. C-34, s. 260."
The Church of Canada is fully Anglican. Ironic that the "Church established by Law" cohabits a nation where any faith can avail itself of the blasphemous-libel protection of Canadian law. - Quactaur, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't state legislature get automatically overruled by federal law when the two conflict (thereby making this one null)?
- mrharvey518, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@p337
True, in Charleston SC you can buy beer on Sundays. But I wouldn't make the two hour drive for it. But the blue laws in Columbia are STRICTLY enforced. This past year, Christmas Eve was on a Sunday. Usually stores can only be open from like 1:00 until the early evening. Our moronic legislature mulled over an idea to allow people to shop all day on Christmas Eve to do holiday shopping. But no one in our legislature thought about putting an end to blue laws all together. Wouldn't that have been the perfect time to question the legality of blue laws? No, and they didn't even end up extending the shopping hours either. Morons. - vuke69, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Well since atheists are generally intelligent, and hell doesn't exist, I'm not really sure that question can be answered.
- fasda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12@thcobbs
OK It has been said several times by now but I will say it again so you can catch it. THIS LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY EVEN THE MOST EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN JUDGE IN THE COUNTRY. This law was virtually removed 75 years ago by the Supreme Court in Gitlow v New York so please before you speak up about this is a Christian attack look up some constitutional law. - baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Jesus ***** Christ! what a messed up law.
- PayneX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Atheism is the new gay.
Support Atheist Marriage! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Don't waste your righteous indignation on this -- save it for illegal wiretapping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law - dredwolff, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@ChillHomie: Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy! (RATM)
- netdawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I seriously doubt that: the penalties are too modern in nature. A three hundred dollar fine? Hell, that would have bankrupted just about anyone found guilty in the 1700s. Also, the United States didn't start using the term "dollar" until 1792.
- PhantomBantam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Hence the creation of Rhode Island, whose founder is said to have coined the term "seperation of church and state".
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Dugg down for some reason.. it's on-topic..
It's illegal to take a bath in Boston without a prescription. - MattLat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Oh, come on. This is probably from the late 1700's. Nobody would ever be arrested for this anymore.
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You know...I'm a reasonably well-read person and I've never once heard the word "contumeliously" before.
- fotoman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yea, I know in Texas these stupid things are called "dead letter laws". While no longer in Texas (got out after Bush became gov.), we did a report in HS (18 years ago), about the dead letter laws.
Some of my favorites:
It is illegal to carry wirecutters in your back right pocket.
Every hotel must have a hitching post in front for the horses.
Every motorized vehicle must have a person walking/running in front to warn people that a car is coming.
Hoping this stupid law from Mass is a dead letter law, I mean this is where the Pilgrims were (and they hated christmas trees!) :-D
It would be nice to expunge these stupid laws from the books, but sometimes that's harder than it looks. In Texas, those items i mentioned aren't just laws, they are amendments to the state constitution. Texas was leery of the federal govt after the civil war, so they put EVERYTHING in the constitution. (even the legislature's salary is in there: $7200 a year, needs an amendment to give them a raise) - starvo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7That's fine, stay out of our state. We'll keep our high taxes, good seafood, and crazy drivers for ourselves.
- parolax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7xsuite: WOw. Im a devout christian and I think this is ***** (as well as those crazy ass neocons)
I don't get why that statement would get dugg up like crazy. What I take from it is that he is saying "wow, look at me, I'm a devout christian and I'm apparently not braindead. Hooray"
Christian or not, it should be obvious that reasonable people don't support things like that. Hell, I'm not even jewish and I oppose the nazis. Wooooo, look at me, I'm the voice of reason. - smokmnky, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13@meltingrobot
"I'm pretty sure separation of church and state... means separation of church and STATE!"
Please show me where it says that in the constitution. - danobrien23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@bridbeun "What about talking bad about unicorns?"
this is getting ridiculous!
........we all know that talking bad about Unicorns is a Federal/National Crime - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6In South Dakota I can shoot an Indian as long as I'm in a covered wagon and he's on a horse. Not really a religious issue, but I can still shoot him.
- danobrien23, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This is lame, i have lived in MA for 20 years, this law is clearly not enforced because it contradicts with the US Constitution and Freedom of Religion so lets not get our panties in a bunch
-
Show 51 - 100 of 333 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is