Poll
Question:
Should doorbuster sales (defined as limited-period, limited-quantity, steep-discount sales) be banned or otherwise controlled?
Option 1: Ban them completely
votes: 6
Option 2: Do not ban them, but apply criminal liability to retailers when poor crowd management results in injury or death
votes: 24
Option 3: Do not change existing rules
votes: 1
Option 4: Do not apply any form of legal control to discounting
votes: 10
Since today is Black Friday, I thought I would open a poll to gauge opinion about the extent to which doorbuster sales require regulation. Stories of people queuing days in advance for doorbuster sales (a typical example this year being a 40" LCD screen for $180) have already been a staple of local news for years, and in past years doorbuster sales have indirectly caused death through crowd-control failures, such as the 2008 trampling death of a Wal-Mart employee in Valley Stream, New York (http://bostonglobe.com/business/2012/11/22/four-years-and-millions-dollars-later-walmart-still-fighting-osha-fine/mvMpCPCRtl8wMF9Rtkto4J/story.html) (for which Wal-Mart has spent millions contesting a $7,000 OSHA fine).
Some background: (1) Major retailers have attempted to reduce the hazards associated with doorbuster sales by promulgating guidance calling for formal crowd control (though this can be seen as an effort to stave off governmental regulation); (2) some states, notably Oklahoma, have laws designed to prevent predatory pricing which in effect ban doorbuster sales (in Oklahoma's case, this is a ban on discounting beyond wholesale cost plus 6%); and (3) some commentators have suggested economic regulation is justified on the basis that people should not have to spend hours of their time queuing for sale items which they have absolutely no realistic prospect of getting.
The poll options list isn't meant to be comprehensive--so please feel free to share thoughts about other possible remedies (as well as whether or not any intervention is justified).
One other option to throw in: Require Black Friday to start on Friday. While I'm disinclined to regulate at all, starting Black Friday on Thanksgiving evening (or earlier) is what rankles me the most, as disrupting traditional Thanksgiving family gatherings.
I recommend buying everything you can online. :nod:
Laws like the one cited for Oklahoma really bother me. Requiring retailers to sell items at a specific price level is the antithesis of the free market system. Why those laws have never been overturned on a constitutional basis is beyond me. Kentucky has such laws for cigarettes and I also think milk. My years of employment at the former Kentucky Revenue Cabinet really opened my eyes to just how much government interferes with capitalism and the free market, and helped shape my political opinions that I have today.
As to Oscar's point, Kmart has been open on Thanksgiving day for years, as have 24-hour-pharmacies such as Walgreen's. Convenience stores are also open, and employees in other industries (health care, law enforcement, toll collecting, pro football, etc.) are required to work. I've had to work on Thanksgiving, New Year's Eve and Day, Christmas Eve, etc. before.
I find Black Friday to be absolutely deplorable, but I don't think it's right to regulate it. I have to believe these people that do insane things like go shopping at midnight or camp outside stores overnight and then pile over each other are doing it because they enjoy it for whatever reason, not just for the sales. It's a ridiculous tradition, but it's one that I think some people really love.
The only people I worry about are the employees- I think for these sorts of sales where service employees are required to work ridiculous hours and during holidays, there should be mandatory holiday pay or overtime or something so that those folks are at least better compensated when they can't spend time with their families. I've had to work holidays that are important in my family before - a lot of the year it works fine because different people care about different holidays and you can schedule around that. For instance, I hate working Thanksgiving because that's a big deal in my family but I couldn't care less about working the 4th of July, but I know people who feel the opposite way. If you're having these massive sales you need everyone on, which prevents anybody from enjoying the holiday, and that's not right for the employees.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 23, 2012, 04:15:20 PM
Requiring retailers to sell items at a specific price level is the antithesis of the free market system.
Obamunism?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 23, 2012, 04:15:20 PM
Why those laws have never been overturned on a constitutional basis is beyond me.
Perhaps because the constitution doesn't say the crap you think it does.
I say let retailers sell items at any price they want, but require them to honor the price for that item, and have the item available in stock for sale at that price, for the entire Christmas shopping season (day after Thanksgiving to Christmas Eve). If this happened, there would be no need for Black Friday at all.
Of course, the whole concept of Black Friday, and the growing issue of "Christmas creep" (starting the season a bit earlier every year) for that matter, is IMO a good example of how inefficient the retail industry really is. If they adopted the practice of "set price for entire season", and restricted their Christmas sales season to the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas, I suspect they would actually attract more customers at lower expense, and thus make more money, then they are doing now.
Too bad big retailers follow the "monkey see, monkey do" attitude (i.e. X is opening at 4 AM, so I have to open at 3 AM). And I bet that, come January, we'll start hearing the annual news reports of how poorly retailers did. With a season that is now forced on us starting in early October (for no good or logical reason BTW), it's no wonder that these poor performance reports have become another annual tradition.
Another factor is that they are in semi-cahoots that they don't want you store hopping so they will all have the price only available in the same short window of time, oh and to sell other items while you are in the store anyway. Somewhat like when hearing an ad on the radio, you soon find out that all the stations are playing ads at the same time.
Quote from: Big John on November 23, 2012, 05:27:01 PM
they are in semi-cahoots that they don't want you store hopping
Those idiots who do that, they don't realize that some people want stuff they don't sell. I was in a Walmart on Wednesday and I did not see ANY indication of the iPad 4 or the iPad mini ANYWHERE., for example.
Quote from: roadman on November 23, 2012, 04:50:13 PM
With a season that is now forced on us starting in early October (for no good or logical reason BTW), it's no wonder that these poor performance reports have become another annual tradition.
Quoting to this AND my previous statement, I heard a commercial earlier this month and just before HALLOWEEN that stated that November 2nd thru 54h or some date like that are "the only shopping days you need until Christmas" and "we have great gifts for everybody". I knew right off the bat that they do NOT sell any GOOD electronics, etc. PLUS they SHOULD realize--this goes for everybody--that you'll be holding onto these gifts for a LOOONNNGGG time.
There's been some debate in Massachusetts lately over the fact that state law prohibits stores from opening on Thursday, November 22. Many major retailers planned on opening late Thursday night but have had to open after midnight in Mass, including Target, who posted this sign in MA stores:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcdBgs.jpg%3F1&hash=3dcf257a86f582706da2ae1e0c0785531970d9ba)
I get the feeling Target's not really a fan of the law...
I wonder if people realize what a "doorbuster" really is. Stores intentionally stock low quantities of these items. They advertise them heavily to stir up excitement among consumers in order to get them to spend their long weekend shopping and not camped out in front of the TV watching football. They're hoping that if you get to the store and the "doorbuster" item is sold out, you'll stay in the store anyway and buy something else at full price (or at a discount smaller than the doorbuster) just to be able to say the trip wasn't a total waste of time. If people were smarter about it, they wouldn't fall for it and end up risking their own lives or the lives of store employees.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 23, 2012, 07:52:26 PM
There's been some debate in Massachusetts lately over the fact that state law prohibits stores from opening on Thursday, November 22. Many major retailers planned on opening late Thursday night but have had to open after midnight in Mass, including Target, who posted this sign in MA stores:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcdBgs.jpg%3F1&hash=3dcf257a86f582706da2ae1e0c0785531970d9ba)
I get the feeling Target's not really a fan of the law...
So I guess that guy in the other thread really couldn't buy a Sunkist orange soda in Massachusetts on Thursday.
How widely does this law extend in the Masshole state? Are convenience stores with gas pumps allowed to be open? If not, I'd hate to be traveling in that state and need fuel.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 23, 2012, 07:52:26 PM
There's been some debate in Massachusetts lately over the fact that state law prohibits stores from opening on Thursday, November 22. Many major retailers planned on opening late Thursday night but have had to open after midnight in Mass, including Target, who posted this sign in MA stores:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcdBgs.jpg%3F1&hash=3dcf257a86f582706da2ae1e0c0785531970d9ba)
I get the feeling Target's not really a fan of the law...
Neither am I. I think it's dumb because in my opinion the MA government has essentially been running a dictatorship saying stores can't open on Thanksgiving and Christmas for 380 years. Yes, I think most stores should close on Thanksgiving. No, it should not be government run. It should have been repealed years ago but it is beyond me why they are still keeping a law from the Puritan and Pilgrim days.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 23, 2012, 08:12:16 PM
So I guess that guy in the other thread really couldn't buy a Sunkist orange soda in Massachusetts on Thursday.
How widely does this law extend in the Masshole state? Are convenience stores with gas pumps allowed to be open? If not, I'd hate to be traveling in that state and need fuel.
A lot. Just about every store here was closed. And yes, it IS the Masshole state. Luckily my town borders the awesome New Hampshire :P
There is a Sears and JCPenney in the same mall close to me that VERY closely approach the NH/MA state line by INCHES--they are literally just barely in NH. In front of Sears you're not even off the sidewalk and you're in MA. Think of it. They had a battle over it during construction in the 1980s, which if the original plan went through, then this would leave at least half the mall shuttered.
Oh, and as for my orange soda, apparently I didn't realize that places like CVS were allowed to open because the one on MA Route 113 in Dracut was to my surprise OPEN when I was traveling up to Hudson, ==NEW HAMPSHIRE== for my family's Thanksgiving feast. I stopped in to get said orange soda and all things were resolved.
I refuse to shop on Black Friday out of personal protest to the insanity and a general hatred of dealing with unnecessary crowds in general. But I don't see the need to introduce any sort of regulation that doesn't already exist since things seem to mostly handle themselves OK. No store wants to be the subject of bad press, so if something bad happens, you can bet they'll do something differently to prevent it from happening again next year without any regulatory body needing to tell them to.
I think that something should be done to end the insanity but I can't think of anything that wouldn't be worse than what we have now without being overly specific.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 23, 2012, 08:12:16 PM
How widely does this law extend in the Masshole state? Are convenience stores with gas pumps allowed to be open? If not, I'd hate to be traveling in that state and need fuel.
No, convenience stores are not included in the law. At least neither of the gas stations in Ipswich, MA were closed on Thursday (though only one of them has a convenience store attached).
I don't agree with the law either, but eh, it doesn't really affect me since I, as usual, did not go shopping on Friday.
I just really hate the term "doorbusters" and how it's become a regular "word" the last couple of years.
If I ever decide to go to a "doorbuster", I'm going with a baseball bat & maybe a cinder block, with the sole intention of unleashing a lot of pent up aggression on the door(s) of the place advertising that they're having "doorbusters". I'd bust them doors up good.
Probably wouldn't buy any products though.
Quote from: oscar on November 23, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
One other option to throw in: Require Black Friday to start on Friday. While I'm disinclined to regulate at all, starting Black Friday on Thanksgiving evening (or earlier) is what rankles me the most, as disrupting traditional Thanksgiving family gatherings.
That I agree with.
I dislike so-called blue laws
intensely (since not all people of faith observe Sunday as the Sabbath, I consider them to be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and an offense to our secular system of government).
Having said that, I think Thanksgiving Day should be a day when most businesses should be shut-down. We don't have too many days like that in the U.S., but Thanksgiving should be such a day. At 1 minute past midnight on "black" Friday, businesses can do as they wish.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 24, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
Quote from: oscar on November 23, 2012, 04:07:46 PM
One other option to throw in: Require Black Friday to start on Friday. While I'm disinclined to regulate at all, starting Black Friday on Thanksgiving evening (or earlier) is what rankles me the most, as disrupting traditional Thanksgiving family gatherings.
That I agree with.
I dislike so-called blue laws intensely (since not all people of faith observe Sunday as the Sabbath, I consider them to be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and an offense to our secular system of government).
Having said that, I think Thanksgiving Day should be a day when most businesses should be shut-down. We don't have too many days like that in the U.S., but Thanksgiving should be such a day. At 1 minute past midnight on "black" Friday, businesses can do as they wish.
Not everyone celebrates Thanksgiving though.
Have there been any deaths reported? It's not a true Black Friday unless someone's squashed trying to pick up one of one newfangled electronics available at a discount (ha ha) retailer.
Quote from: roadman on November 23, 2012, 04:50:13 PM
the growing issue of "Christmas creep"
Grrrrr.... There needs to be a nastier term for 'Christmas creep', one that conveys my soul-wrenching contempt for the trend. If I were in charge, Christmas and everything having to do with it (except possibly Jesus) would be prohibited until at least December 1. One other thing that I dislike even more than 'Christmas creep' is that it comes to a complete halt on December 26; just when I'm finally in the mood for Christmas, and finally feel like listening to the songs on the radio, and finally want to wish people a merry Christmas–people turn off their lights, the radio goes back to normal programming, and people look at me weird when I say 'Merry Christmas'. Haven't they heard of the 12 days of Christmas?
Celebrating the holiday by giving gifts has turned into a compulsory, arduous task at which many people shudder and shiver–and which now robs Thanksgiving of its 'spirit'. It was recently put to me this way: Just hours after we all take a moment to be thankful for what we have, we get up early and trample people in order to buy each other even more crap.
Having said all that, though, I'm not too keen on the government meddling in private enterprise, especially on a flimsy premise like keeping the customers safe from being trampled. That would be akin to prohibiting the Bears from playing the Packers in the Super Bowl in order to keep people safe from rioting.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 24, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
I dislike so-called blue laws intensely (since not all people of faith observe Sunday as the Sabbath, I consider them to be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and an offense to our secular system of government).
Having said that, I think Thanksgiving Day should be a day when most businesses should be shut-down. We don't have too many days like that in the U.S., but Thanksgiving should be such a day. At 1 minute past midnight on "black" Friday, businesses can do as they wish.
I'm not entirely opposed to laws that require businesses to shut down on holidays; I guess I'm on the fence about it. As a way of accepting a Sunday blue law, I could view Sundays as miniature weekly civic holidays: just as Christmas is both a religious and a civic holiday, so might Sunday be. Many nonreligious people, after all, still treat Sunday as a day of rest, and the case could be made that it is healthy for our society to take a 'break' on a regular basis. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and would be hesitant to actually broaden such laws.
Plus, changing the time and date of Black Friday only changes the time and date of the chaos. If stores aren't allowed to have doorbuster sales on that Friday, then they'll just have them on Saturday instead. If they're not allowed to have them for the whole holiday period, then they'll just have them before Thanksgiving instead.
Honestly, the only real way to curb Black Friday is to convince everyone to not participate in it. The most effective way would be for everyone scheduled on Black Friday to refuse to work. People forget in times like these that capitalism is supposed to work both ways; you should be able to "shop" for a better employer. Unfortunately, a lot of the people working Walmart-level jobs don't have the luxury of having enough money to risk getting fired for refusing to work that day. So the only solution is to convince shoppers to not participate. Unfortunately the America of the 21st century is not a country that is all that good at individual sacrifice for the greater good, so I am not really sure if that is doable.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 24, 2012, 06:39:47 PM
Honestly, the only real way to curb Black Friday is to convince everyone to not participate in it. The most effective way would be for everyone scheduled on Black Friday to refuse to work. People forget in times like these that capitalism is supposed to work both ways; you should be able to "shop" for a better employer. Unfortunately, a lot of the people working Walmart-level jobs don't have the luxury of having enough money to risk getting fired for refusing to work that day. So the only solution is to convince shoppers to not participate. Unfortunately the America of the 21st century is not a country that is all that good at individual sacrifice for the greater good, so I am not really sure if that is doable.
The funny thing is that we'd be asking people to 'sacrifice' by not spending money on
other people.
I wonder what percentage of Black Friday sales are actually given to other people as gifts
Probably not very much. How many people do you know gifting each other big screen TVs?
Mallard Fillmore hates capitalism.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 24, 2012, 07:42:25 PM
Probably not very much. How many people do you know gifting each other big screen TVs?
Married people.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 24, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
That I agree with.
I dislike so-called blue laws intensely (since not all people of faith observe Sunday as the Sabbath, I consider them to be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and an offense to our secular system of government).
I agree. I remember malls here in MS used to not be open on Sundays until the mid-80s, when the state's blue laws were ruled unconstitutional. I don't get blue laws either. Since when did a mall keep someone from going to church?
Quote from: florida on November 24, 2012, 05:11:39 PM
Have there been any deaths reported? It's not a true Black Friday unless someone's squashed trying to pick up one of one newfangled electronics available at a discount (ha ha) retailer.
Yup, they got one of the temporary Walmart workers. I'm sure Walmart won't pay a dime because he was temporary and they're fascists.
Quote from: kphoger on November 24, 2012, 05:23:23 PMI'm not entirely opposed to laws that require businesses to shut down on holidays; I guess I'm on the fence about it. As a way of accepting a Sunday blue law, I could view Sundays as miniature weekly civic holidays: just as Christmas is both a religious and a civic holiday, so might Sunday be. Many nonreligious people, after all, still treat Sunday as a day of rest, and the case could be made that it is healthy for our society to take a 'break' on a regular basis. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and would be hesitant to actually broaden such laws.
We have restricted Sunday trading in England (and Wales) - big stores can only open for 6 hours. For the Olympics, it was relaxed, though from what I gather, while stores opened longer, there was often little fanfare and I don't recall anyone caring other than to score political points. One of the big four supermarkets said that it made little business sense for them to open longer on Sundays, as they predicted barely breaking even for the extra hours - they opened a few stores in tourist areas, citing that they reckoned on some small profits and not wanting their competitors to steal some of their share.
It's an interesting political debate, with a lot of heat, but little light:
- The left are divided between sticking it religion and protecting workers rights and small businesses
- The right are divided between protecting small businesses, keeping tradition and removing regulation on business
- The Scottish (who don't have these restrictions) are completely baffled by the whole idea, except for those on the Western Isles, where shops are boycotted for opening on Sundays and there's protests when they talk about the ferries running on Sundays.
The sticking it to religion crowd is perhaps the most idiotic - their sole argument is that this is imposing religion on people, completely forgetting that while nominally Christian England has Sunday trading restrictions, so does aggressively secular France (and they are more strict than England's ones). Oh, and they typically are the sort of intolerant, hypocritical, people who want to impose their equivalent-to-religious views with force-of-law on religious groups.
Most holidays, after all, can be traced to religion anyway. Thanksgiving itself was officially instituted in the US with the proclamation that we give 'Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens' (A. Lincoln). Go even further back in history, clear to the early 1600s, and other proclamations are similar; thanksgiving, after all, implies that that there is a Someone to whom you are thankful.
But that doesn't mean that all holidays attempt to force religion on the people. It's not like Black Friday, by reason of being one day after Thanksgiving, attempts to force shoppers into believing in a deity any more than closing a store on Thanksgiving itself attempts to. I think it's entirely appropriate that a nation's government should be able to enact civic holidays during which businesses must remain closed; the fact that such civic holidays may or may not coincide with religious holidays shouldn't matter.
My feelings about Black Friday and 'Christmas creep' seem to be more religious in nature (putting the focus on buying stuff instead of on the Christ child, taking over the Thanksgiving holiday, etc.). OTOH, my feelings about 'blue laws' and such seem to be less religious in nature (the government's place in our lives, the value of freedom vs. the value of a day of rest, etc.). Maybe the link between the two isn't as strong as we think it is.....
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Most holidays, after all, can be traced to religion anyway.
Which have piggy-backed pagan holidays.
Quote from: english si on November 25, 2012, 11:04:59 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 24, 2012, 05:23:23 PMI'm not entirely opposed to laws that require businesses to shut down on holidays; I guess I'm on the fence about it. As a way of accepting a Sunday blue law, I could view Sundays as miniature weekly civic holidays: just as Christmas is both a religious and a civic holiday, so might Sunday be. Many nonreligious people, after all, still treat Sunday as a day of rest, and the case could be made that it is healthy for our society to take a 'break' on a regular basis. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, and would be hesitant to actually broaden such laws.
We have restricted Sunday trading in England (and Wales) - big stores can only open for 6 hours. For the Olympics, it was relaxed, though from what I gather, while stores opened longer, there was often little fanfare and I don't recall anyone caring other than to score political points. One of the big four supermarkets said that it made little business sense for them to open longer on Sundays, as they predicted barely breaking even for the extra hours - they opened a few stores in tourist areas, citing that they reckoned on some small profits and not wanting their competitors to steal some of their share.
It's an interesting political debate, with a lot of heat, but little light:
- The left are divided between sticking it religion and protecting workers rights and small businesses
- The right are divided between protecting small businesses, keeping tradition and removing regulation on business
- The Scottish (who don't have these restrictions) are completely baffled by the whole idea, except for those on the Western Isles, where shops are boycotted for opening on Sundays and there's protests when they talk about the ferries running on Sundays.
Don't forget that the United Kingdom is not a secular republic, unlike the U.S.
Quote from: english si on November 25, 2012, 11:04:59 AM
The sticking it to religion crowd is perhaps the most idiotic - their sole argument is that this is imposing religion on people, completely forgetting that while nominally Christian England has Sunday trading restrictions, so does aggressively secular France (and they are more strict than England's ones). Oh, and they typically are the sort of intolerant, hypocritical, people who want to impose their equivalent-to-religious views with force-of-law on religious groups.
I agree especially with your
bolded comments above.
Sweden and Finland (both of which have Evangelical Lutheranism as their state religions) used to be
very strict about everything shutting-down on Saturday afternoons around 3 P.M. No more. Now many things are open late and on Sundays as well.
There are non-religious kooks and nuts out there in every society. In free nations (such as those mentioned here), we have to patiently put up with and sometimes even listen to their arguments.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2012, 05:43:21 PMDon't forget that the United Kingdom is not a secular republic, unlike the U.S.
As someone who is a member of a CofE church, I actually see that more than most people. Of course, it typically works backwards - see Parliament's recent threats to interfere with the internal affairs of the church (reiterated strongly today) - that they voted wrongly (and no, the CofE didn't reject women bishops - it rejected one way of dealing with the issue).
QuoteThere are non-religious kooks and nuts out there in every society. In free nations (such as those mentioned here), we have to patiently put up with and sometimes even listen to their arguments.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that what I said wasn't true. And likewise you have religious kooks who do the same - attack those who have different religious(-esque) views for wanting to impose such views while wanting to impose their religious(-esque) views.
I'm not that fussed about Sunday trading, but I am against fallacious arguments to abolish it - one of which is that it's automatically seeking to impose Christianity on people. After all, if France, where Paris has banned prayer in public spaces (as Muslims were blocking streets - but instead of banning blocking streets they used a hammer to crack a nut) - which is just an extension of the French government desire that religion is something done in private and should have no effect when you walk out of your house/place of worship - has stricter Sunday trading than England.
Black Friday; or the reason strip malls and big box stores have those giant parking lots that sit half-vacant the other 364 days of the year.
There's no sale that's going to be good enough to make me go near a store on that day. A bunch of idiots spending money they don't have on shit they don't need is a pretty lame ass tradition.
Rather than trying to control crowds, they should be handing them weapons and broadcasting it live on pay-per-view. Now let's see how bad you want that new game console, dear rabid consumer.
Quote from: english si on November 26, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2012, 05:43:21 PMDon't forget that the United Kingdom is not a secular republic, unlike the U.S.
As someone who is a member of a CofE church, I actually see that more than most people. Of course, it typically works backwards - see Parliament's recent threats to interfere with the internal affairs of the church (reiterated strongly today) - that they voted wrongly (and no, the CofE didn't reject women bishops - it rejected one way of dealing with the issue).
I don't know enough about the laws of the United Kingdom to know how the Parliament "oversees" the Church of England, but it bothers me that the MPs would involve themselves in such matters.
Quote from: english si on November 26, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
QuoteThere are non-religious kooks and nuts out there in every society. In free nations (such as those mentioned here), we have to patiently put up with and sometimes even listen to their arguments.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that what I said wasn't true. And likewise you have religious kooks who do the same - attack those who have different religious(-esque) views for wanting to impose such views while wanting to impose their religious(-esque) views.
I strongly agree. I have a major problem with people that want to impose their values on others, often using the powers of democratic government to achieve what they want.
Quote from: english si on November 26, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
I'm not that fussed about Sunday trading, but I am against fallacious arguments to abolish it - one of which is that it's automatically seeking to impose Christianity on people. After all, if France, where Paris has banned prayer in public spaces (as Muslims were blocking streets - but instead of banning blocking streets they used a hammer to crack a nut) - which is just an extension of the French government desire that religion is something done in private and should have no effect when you walk out of your house/place of worship - has stricter Sunday trading than England.
We are in agreement. I get the impression that efforts to limit Sunday business often come from the secular Left in at least some EU nations (curiously, the same applies to sales of alcoholic beverages in some parts of the EU), while in the U.S., it usually comes from the religious Right.
Quote from: Special K on November 26, 2012, 02:54:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Most holidays, after all, can be traced to religion anyway.
Which have piggy-backed pagan holidays.
And paganism is a category of religion.
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
I'd be tempted to call for triple pay for all employees required to work between 11 PM Wednesday and 8 AM Friday. Or require all sales to last at least a week, with rainchecks given if they're unable to fill demand at the advertised price. But it'd be awfully hard to write such laws in such a way as to avoid unintended side effects.
I strongly support the regulatory functions of government, but I think that's beside the point here. The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that we have what's called a "compelling interest" in strictly regulating this type of sale. When you can count the human casualties of a "sale", there's a compelling interest. We need to stop this nonsense now. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster) happens again.
New regulations were imposed in 1980 in a lot of places to keep something like that from happening again. Apparently we weren't thinking about going shopping.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 26, 2012, 09:49:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 09:36:17 PM
Quote from: Special K on November 26, 2012, 02:54:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Most holidays, after all, can be traced to religion anyway.
Which have piggy-backed pagan holidays.
And paganism is a category of religion.
Indeed it is.
To be sure.
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Quote from: berberry on November 27, 2012, 09:37:53 AM
I strongly support the regulatory functions of government, but I think that's beside the point here. The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that we have what's called a "compelling interest" in strictly regulating this type of sale. When you can count the human casualties of a "sale", there's a compelling interest. We need to stop this nonsense now. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster) happens again.
New regulations were imposed in 1980 in a lot of places to keep something like that from happening again. Apparently we weren't thinking about going shopping.
If only Macy's would hire The Who to play a Black Friday show at 12:01am, we will have come full-circle.
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Yeah, but not to save 30% on a big screen TV.
QuoteQuote
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Yeah, but not to save 30% on a big screen TV.
Well no, I guess not. I mean, that whole table-flipping thing ruined his credit, so he couldn't get the 90-days same-as-cash.
Quote from: kkt on November 27, 2012, 12:54:35 PM
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Yeah, but not to save 30% on a big screen TV.
Only because they didn't exist. Imagine the tempatation possibilities nowadays.
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 02:29:08 PMOnly because they didn't exist. Imagine the tempatation possibilities nowadays.
Satan on Mount Tibidabo, wearing a Wal-Mart greeter's uniform, saying: "And now we have 90% off on the Nexus 7 . . ."
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Absolutely - at least it is described that Jesus ran them out of the temple ahead of Passover (in the English-language and Swedish-language Bibles I have read).
Note that I have a
major problem with people that describe Bibles written in languages other than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the infallible Word of God, for those texts were translated by
fallible human beings.
Why are we talking about relilgion on this topic?
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 04:57:24 PM
Why are we talking about relilgion on this topic?
Because doorbuster in the original Hebrew is the same root word as Jehovah.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
Note that I have a major problem with people that describe Bibles written in languages other than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the infallible Word of God, for those texts were translated by fallible human beings.
The books of the Bible were written by fallible humans too :bigass:
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2012, 05:41:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
Note that I have a major problem with people that describe Bibles written in languages other than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the infallible Word of God, for those texts were translated by fallible human beings.
The books of the Bible were written by fallible humans too :bigass:
Absolutely. The oldest scraps of Torah being unearthed have many differences from the versions today. Which begs the question, if the Torah is considered the unalterable word of God, why is there no record of Him having clearly altered it?
That is not a right answer, Steve. Where is Alex or other admins when you need them?
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
That is not a right answer, Steve. Where is Alex or other admins when you need them?
Wow, dude. Lighten up a little. We let Off-Topic drift more than other boards.
Holy cow. Yes, I have much to say about this, but even I shall remain silent.
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 04:57:24 PM
Why are we talking about relilgion on this topic?
Well, I was first going to mention that this.....
Quote from: kkt on November 27, 2012, 12:54:35 PM
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Yeah, but not to save 30% on a big screen TV.
.....should hardly construed as "religious talk". But then I scrolled down the forum and came across.....
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
I have a major problem with people that describe Bibles written in languages other than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the infallible Word of God, for those texts were translated by fallible human beings.
.....and there went that. :no: I believe this all started with the post.....
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
.....which is a legitimate reaction to the actual
topic of Black Friday doorbuster sales. For the love of
{name stricken} , can we get this thread back on topic, please?
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: berberry on November 27, 2012, 09:37:53 AM
I strongly support the regulatory functions of government, but I think that's beside the point here. The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that we have what's called a "compelling interest" in strictly regulating this type of sale. When you can count the human casualties of a "sale", there's a compelling interest. We need to stop this nonsense now. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster) happens again.
New regulations were imposed in 1980 in a lot of places to keep something like that from happening again. Apparently we weren't thinking about going shopping.
If only Macy's would hire The Who to play a Black Friday show at 12:01am, we will have come full-circle.
Megadeth would also be fitting for a Black Friday concert.
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 05:44:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 27, 2012, 05:41:53 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
Note that I have a major problem with people that describe Bibles written in languages other than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the infallible Word of God, for those texts were translated by fallible human beings.
The books of the Bible were written by fallible humans too :bigass:
Absolutely. The oldest scraps of Torah being unearthed have many differences from the versions today. Which begs the question, if the Torah is considered the unalterable word of God, why is there no record of Him having clearly altered it?
I blame the Romans.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Absolutely - at least it is described that Jesus ran them out of the temple ahead of Passover (in the English-language and Swedish-language Bibles I have read).
Note that I have a major problem with people that describe Bibles written in languages other than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the infallible Word of God, for those texts were translated by fallible human beings.
As were the originals.
Quote from: kphoger on November 27, 2012, 08:43:14 PMcan we get this thread back on topic, please?
Thread drift makes the baby Jesus cry.
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 04:57:24 PM
Why are we talking about relilgion on this topic?
Because Black Friday sales are for Christmas gifts, and Christmas is a religious holiday?
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
That is not a right answer, Steve. Where is Alex or other admins when you need them?
Steve IS an admin.
Bringing it back to religion, Steve is part of the Trinity. Probably the Holy Ghost.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 27, 2012, 11:37:07 PM
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
That is not a right answer, Steve. Where is Alex or other admins when you need them?
Steve IS an admin.
Actually, no. I'm just State Property.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 27, 2012, 04:37:56 PM
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Absolutely - at least it is described that Jesus ran them out of the temple ahead of Passover (in the English-language and Swedish-language Bibles I have read).
Note that I have a major problem with people that describe Bibles written in languages other than the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the infallible Word of God, for those texts were translated by fallible human beings.
They were *written* by fallible human beings. There is no question of this. The only question is whether they were divinely inspired or not.
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:13:50 AM
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 04:57:24 PM
Why are we talking about relilgion on this topic?
Because it bips.
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:13:55 AM
Quote from: golden eagle on November 24, 2012, 10:31:41 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 24, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
That I agree with.
I dislike so-called blue laws intensely (since not all people of faith observe Sunday as the Sabbath, I consider them to be a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and an offense to our secular system of government).
I agree. I remember malls here in MS used to not be open on Sundays until the mid-80s, when the state's blue laws were ruled unconstitutional. I don't get blue laws either. Since when did a mall keep someone from going to church?
+1
There are still blue laws in North Dakota. The Minot Walmart has a sign saying (and I paraphrase:) "Due to state blue laws, your local Walmart must close from (time) to (time)." Minot was also the town where I saw a guy wearing a "White Pride" shirt at the post office. Lovely town, other than that.
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:14:00 AM
Quote from: english si on November 25, 2012, 11:04:59 AM
The sticking it to religion crowd is perhaps the most idiotic - their sole argument is that this is imposing religion on people, completely forgetting that while nominally Christian England has Sunday trading restrictions, so does aggressively secular France (and they are more strict than England's ones). Oh, and they typically are the sort of intolerant, hypocritical, people who want to impose their equivalent-to-religious views with force-of-law on religious groups.
It
is imposing religion on those who don't want it. Sunday is just another day to me. Why should I be forced to follow the rules of a deity that I don't believe in? Why not close stores on Fridays for the Muslims, Saturdays for the Jews, and Sundays for the Christians? There's no question about it, they are imposing their beliefs on others. I have very strong and outspoken beliefs, but I would never impose them on anybody. If your religion is so weak that it can't survive without government support, then does it really need to survive?
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:14:04 AM
Quote from: Special K on November 26, 2012, 02:54:14 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 26, 2012, 01:55:33 PM
Most holidays, after all, can be traced to religion anyway.
Which have piggy-backed pagan holidays.
Absolutely. The Catholic cult ripped so much off of paganism that it should be sued for theft.
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:14:12 AM
Quote from: english si on November 26, 2012, 06:16:35 PM
Don't forget that the United Kingdom is not a secular republic, unlike the U.S.
As someone who is a member of a CofE church, I actually see that more than most people. Of course, it typically works backwards - see Parliament's recent threats to interfere with the internal affairs of the church (reiterated strongly today) - that they voted wrongly (and no, the CofE didn't reject women bishops - it rejected one way of dealing with the issue).
QuoteThere are non-religious kooks and nuts out there in every society. In free nations (such as those mentioned here), we have to patiently put up with and sometimes even listen to their arguments.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that what I said wasn't true. And likewise you have religious kooks who do the same - attack those who have different religious(-esque) views for wanting to impose such views while wanting to impose their religious(-esque) views.
[/quote]
For every non-believing kook, there are at least a thousand believing kooks. This is true both in the United States (South and Midwest) and on the internet. I saw a cartoon that said "Muslim radical: flies planes into buildings. Christian radical: bombs abortion clinics. Atheist radical: drinks microbrew beers and dissects the Bible." And it's true. Who was worse: Osama bin Laden, Scott Roeder, or Christopher Hitchens?
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:14:17 AM
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 02:29:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 27, 2012, 12:54:35 PM
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:48:59 AM
Quote from: kkt on November 26, 2012, 11:45:12 PM
Hate the doorbusting "Christmas" sales. Which door would Jesus bust?
Jesus was known to flip a table or two. Allegedly.
Yeah, but not to save 30% on a big screen TV.
Only because they didn't exist.
Neither did Jesus Christ.
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:14:22 AM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2012, 06:06:50 PM
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on November 27, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
That is not a right answer, Steve. Where is Alex or other admins when you need them?
Wow, dude. Lighten up a little. We let Off-Topic drift more than other boards.
But I can't call a Kook a kook.
Post Merge: November 28, 2012, 08:14:27 AM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 27, 2012, 08:58:30 PM
Quote from: Special K on November 27, 2012, 10:51:09 AM
Quote from: berberry on November 27, 2012, 09:37:53 AM
I strongly support the regulatory functions of government, but I think that's beside the point here. The point, as far as I'm concerned, is that we have what's called a "compelling interest" in strictly regulating this type of sale. When you can count the human casualties of a "sale", there's a compelling interest. We need to stop this nonsense now. Otherwise, it's only a matter of time before this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster) happens again.
New regulations were imposed in 1980 in a lot of places to keep something like that from happening again. Apparently we weren't thinking about going shopping.
If only Macy's would hire The Who to play a Black Friday show at 12:01am, we will have come full-circle.
Megadeth would also be fitting for a Black Friday concert.
Dave Mustaine is a Fundamentalist Christian (and a Rick Santorum supporter, how un-metal can you get?) so it would indeed be fitting.
Whatever religion you believe in, Jeremy, I can guarantee you it's 100% wrong if it doesn't say that it's a sin to post nine times in a row.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 02:29:50 AM
Whatever religion you believe in, Jeremy, I can guarantee you it's 100% wrong if it doesn't say that it's a sin to post nine times in a row.
I believe in the religion of Post Merge.
Quote from: Steve on November 28, 2012, 08:14:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 02:29:50 AM
Whatever religion you believe in, Jeremy, I can guarantee you it's 100% wrong if it doesn't say that it's a sin to post nine times in a row.
I believe in the religion of Post Merge.
But which post is it better to end, the left post or the right post?
Quote from: bugo on November 28, 2012, 12:19:54 AM
Quote from: english si on November 25, 2012, 11:04:59 AM
The sticking it to religion crowd is perhaps the most idiotic - their sole argument is that this is imposing religion on people, completely forgetting that while nominally Christian England has Sunday trading restrictions, so does aggressively secular France (and they are more strict than England's ones). Oh, and they typically are the sort of intolerant, hypocritical, people who want to impose their equivalent-to-religious views with force-of-law on religious groups.
It is imposing religion on those who don't want it. Sunday is just another day to me. Why should I be forced to follow the rules of a deity that I don't believe in? Why not close stores on Fridays for the Muslims, Saturdays for the Jews, and Sundays for the Christians? There's no question about it, they are imposing their beliefs on others. I have very strong and outspoken beliefs, but I would never impose them on anybody. If your religion is so weak that it can't survive without government support, then does it really need to survive?
Requiring businesses to close on holidays is not forcing religion on you. Are you compelled to make a confession of faith? No. Are you compelled to use your time away from Wal-Mart in pursuit of spiritual matters? No. Are you compelled to go to a place of worship? No. All you're compelled to do is take a
break, during which you're free to do whatever non-
business enterprise you'd like. I think one could argue that it is a benefit to society–all religion aside–that we take a break every so often. Maybe that means one day a week, maybe it means a few days a year, or whatever, but not to go full-throttle 365 days a year.
Not to mention that it isn't a Christian point of doctrine that people not work or do business on Sundays. The Christian Sunday is not completely equivalent to the Jewish Sabbath (in fact, this point is made quite obvious by the fact that Christians go to church on that day, which requires work not only by the members but also by the staff). So, if it's not a religious belief that it's morally wrong to do work on Sunday, then how is requiring stores to close on Sundays forcing religion on you?
Quote from: lots and lots of people
lots and lots of Bible debate
Moderators, are we calling the reliability of the Bible too far off-topic, or should I post my reply later? I'm surprised it's gone on this long...
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 02:29:50 AM
Whatever religion you believe in, Jeremy, I can guarantee you it's 100% wrong if it doesn't say that it's a sin to post nine times in a row.
I had nine separate thoughts, so I posted nine times. Why should I make one post with 9 unrelated subjects? Can you imagine the quoting nightmare?
Quote from: Steve on November 28, 2012, 08:14:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 28, 2012, 02:29:50 AM
Whatever religion you believe in, Jeremy, I can guarantee you it's 100% wrong if it doesn't say that it's a sin to post nine times in a row.
I believe in the religion of Post Merge.
I believe in the religion of if you have x number of unrelated thoughts, to make x number of posts. Merging my posts just proves that this forum is WAY, WAY, WAY too overmoderated and the moderators have way too much time on their hands. I've made several posts in a row on the other forums that I post to and nobody has had a problem. I guess the "anal road enthusiast" thread wasn't too far off.
Quote from: kphoger on November 28, 2012, 11:07:50 AM
Requiring businesses to close on holidays is not forcing religion on you. Are you compelled to make a confession of faith? No. Are you compelled to use your time away from Wal-Mart in pursuit of spiritual matters? No. Are you compelled to go to a place of worship? No. All you're compelled to do is take a break, during which you're free to do whatever non-business enterprise you'd like. I think one could argue that it is a benefit to society–all religion aside–that we take a break every so often. Maybe that means one day a week, maybe it means a few days a year, or whatever, but not to go full-throttle 365 days a year.
But it is. These laws are religiously based. It pisses me off that here in Oklahoma, I can't go buy a bottle of vodka (I don't even drink, but it's the point...) on Sunday to watch NFL games (I rarely watch NFL games, but it's the point...) If you don't think these laws are based on Christianity then you're delusional. I bet you would think differently if you weren't a Fundamentalist Christian.
*awaits Scott or Steve to merge all my separate posts into one unreadable post because they don't have anything better to do with their time*
Agreed. What if I want to work that day and take a break some other time? Nope, can't do that. I'm forced to take the break on one day because your religion says so. Freedom of religion means that nobody need to have any impact of any kind on their life due to someone else's religion.
Quote from: deanej on November 28, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Agreed. What if I want to work that day and take a break some other time? Nope, can't do that. I'm forced to take the break on one day because your religion says so. Freedom of religion means that nobody need to have any impact of any kind on their life due to someone else's religion.
+1
Quote from: bugo on November 28, 2012, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 28, 2012, 11:07:50 AM
Requiring businesses to close on holidays is not forcing religion on you. Are you compelled to make a confession of faith? No. Are you compelled to use your time away from Wal-Mart in pursuit of spiritual matters? No. Are you compelled to go to a place of worship? No. All you're compelled to do is take a break, during which you're free to do whatever non-business enterprise you'd like. I think one could argue that it is a benefit to society–all religion aside–that we take a break every so often. Maybe that means one day a week, maybe it means a few days a year, or whatever, but not to go full-throttle 365 days a year.
But it is. These laws are religiously based. It pisses me off that here in Oklahoma, I can't go buy a bottle of vodka (I don't even drink, but it's the point...) on Sunday to watch NFL games (I rarely watch NFL games, but it's the point...) If you don't think these laws are based on Christianity then you're delusional. I bet you would think differently if you weren't a Fundamentalist Christian.
*awaits Scott or Steve to merge all my separate posts into one unreadable post because they don't have anything better to do with their time*
I've also been annoyed by not being able to buy alcohol on Sundays (when we used to do our grocery shopping in Marion, IL), and I freely admit that such laws are based on religion. I don't believe it's wrong to consume alcohol, even though the denomination I belong to has historically been one of the loudest abolitionist denominations. But I didn't pitch a fit about the county law, since I was still free to buy my wine the other six days of the week. FYI, most Christians aren't abolitionists.
More fundamentally, I don't think it's possible to completely separate law from religion. Our American society's principles were very much framed by biblical principles; even if our founding fathers were more deist than Christian, they still used the Bible as a primary source of influence in crafting our government. Fairness, equality, justice, responsibility, etc.–these are admirable traits in religion, especially Western religion. Why, after all, do we desire to see our leaders held accountable for their actions, if not because we have a fundamental understanding that all people are all subject to an accountability that is higher than governmental position? Or why do we even have laws and government at all, if not because we have an innate desire to see (moral) justice and order? All of us but the anarchist have guiding moral principles which we want to see implemented from the top down, and to call some of those principles 'religious' and some 'non-religious' is, in my opinion, an impossible task.
Quote from: deanej on November 28, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Agreed. What if I want to work that day and take a break some other time? Nope, can't do that. I'm forced to take the break on one day because your religion says so.
As I said earlier, my religion doesn't say so. How many Christians have you heard shout 'Sinner!' to someone because they went to work on a Sunday?
If you can agree with me that it's a desirable thing for us to take a regular break from our business, then can you think of a better solution than setting aside certain designated days on which all/most business should halt? How would it be easier, for example, if you knew every business would be closed one day a week but you had no idea which day of the week that would be? This bank is closed on Tuesdays, that one on Fridays. Or imagine going to the grocery store on December 22 and finding out they're closed because they chose to remain open on December 25. I think it makes much more sense to have national civic holidays, whether or not the dates are picked due to religious history. Furthermore, it makes sense that those days
should be picked based on the religious affinity of the populace, because you know many of them are going to want those days off
anyway.
Quote from: deanej on November 28, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Freedom of religion means that nobody need to have any impact of any kind on their life due to someone else's religion.
This is an impossibility. The only way you're going to avoid any impact of any kind from someone else's religion is if you live your life in a bubble.
If I wear a tee shirt with a religious message, am I having some impact of any kind on your life due to my religion? Yes. Outlaw clothing with religious messages!
If I wish you a Merry Christmas, am I having some impact of any kind on your life due to my religion? Yes. Outlaw the phrase 'Merry Christmas'!
If you're facing a crisis, you turn to a program for assistance, and that program received donations from my church, am I having some impact of any kind on your life due to my religion? Yes. Outlaw religious donations!
If you encounter a traffic jam on the highway the Saturday after Christmas due to the fact that a lot of Christians travel to see their families for the holiday, are they having some impact of any kind on your life because of their religion? Yes. Outlaw holiday travel!
The fact is that you live in a society full of religious people. If a significant number of those people (religious or not) don't want to work on certain holidays or a certain day of the week, then it makes at least some sense to accommodate that into law–especially if we can agree that to not work on
some days is beneficial. To determine whether that is more or less important than hurting the feelings of the minority (if, in fact, it is even the minority) is another matter. But walking on eggshells so we don't offend anybody should not be the primary concern of our government, and how people feel should not be the be-all and end-all of whether a law is good or bad.
Quote from: kphoger on November 28, 2012, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: bugo on November 28, 2012, 11:17:40 AM
Quote from: kphoger on November 28, 2012, 11:07:50 AM
Requiring businesses to close on holidays is not forcing religion on you. Are you compelled to make a confession of faith? No. Are you compelled to use your time away from Wal-Mart in pursuit of spiritual matters? No. Are you compelled to go to a place of worship? No. All you're compelled to do is take a break, during which you're free to do whatever non-business enterprise you'd like. I think one could argue that it is a benefit to society–all religion aside–that we take a break every so often. Maybe that means one day a week, maybe it means a few days a year, or whatever, but not to go full-throttle 365 days a year.
But it is. These laws are religiously based. It pisses me off that here in Oklahoma, I can't go buy a bottle of vodka (I don't even drink, but it's the point...) on Sunday to watch NFL games (I rarely watch NFL games, but it's the point...) If you don't think these laws are based on Christianity then you're delusional. I bet you would think differently if you weren't a Fundamentalist Christian.
*awaits Scott or Steve to merge all my separate posts into one unreadable post because they don't have anything better to do with their time*
Quote
I've also been annoyed by not being able to buy alcohol on Sundays (when we used to do our grocery shopping in Marion, IL), and I freely admit that such laws are based on religion. I don't believe it's wrong to consume alcohol, even though the denomination I belong to has historically been one of the loudest abolitionist denominations. But I didn't pitch a fit about the county law, since I was still free to buy my wine the other six days of the week. FYI, most Christians aren't abolitionists.
Not in my experience. In my hometown, most Christians, especially Baptists, are strict prohibitionists. It is extremely rare to see somebody sitting on their porch drinking a beer. Of course, it is a dry county and every time the issue has come up, the prohibitionists have won.
Quote
More fundamentally, I don't think it's possible to completely separate law from religion. Our American society's principles were very much framed by biblical principles; even if our founding fathers were more deist than Christian, they still used the Bible as a primary source of influence in crafting our government. Fairness, equality, justice, responsibility, etc.–these are admirable traits in religion, especially Western religion. Why, after all, do we desire to see our leaders held accountable for their actions, if not because we have a fundamental understanding that all people are all subject to an accountability that is higher than governmental position? Or why do we even have laws and government at all, if not because we have an innate desire to see (moral) justice and order? All of us but the anarchist have guiding moral principles which we want to see implemented from the top down, and to call some of those principles 'religious' and some 'non-religious' is, in my opinion, an impossible task.
How many of the Ten Commandments are laws in the US? 3? Morals and laws do not come from religion. They come from human nature. (Most) humans have an innate understanding of what is wrong and what is right. Most if not all Christian morals were stolen from earlier religions like paganism and animism. You can most certainly separate government from religion.
Quote from: deanej on November 28, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Agreed. What if I want to work that day and take a break some other time? Nope, can't do that. I'm forced to take the break on one day because your religion says so.
As I said earlier, my religion doesn't say so. How many Christians have you heard shout 'Sinner!' to someone because they went to work on a Sunday?
The Bible says that anybody who works on the Sabbath should be stoned to death. If they truly follow the Bible, they will call you a sinner for working on the Sabbath.
Quote from: deanej on November 28, 2012, 11:46:46 AM
Freedom of religion means that nobody need to have any impact of any kind on their life due to someone else's religion.
This is an impossibility. The only way you're going to avoid any impact of any kind from someone else's religion is if you live your life in a bubble.
If I wear a tee shirt with a religious message, am I having some impact of any kind on your life due to my religion? Yes. Outlaw clothing with religious messages!
Now you're creating a strawman, Nobody is going to be offended by a shirt that says "I love Jesus." If they are, then maybe they need to be offended. It's passing religiously based laws and placing religious monuments on government property that unbelievers have a problem with.
Quote
If I wish you a Merry Christmas, am I having some impact of any kind on your life due to my religion? Yes. Outlaw the phrase 'Merry Christmas'!
If you're facing a crisis, you turn to a program for assistance, and that program received donations from my church, am I having some impact of any kind on your life due to my religion? Yes. Outlaw religious donations!
If you encounter a traffic jam on the highway the Saturday after Christmas due to the fact that a lot of Christians travel to see their families for the holiday, are they having some impact of any kind on your life because of their religion? Yes. Outlaw holiday travel!
The fact is that you live in a society full of religious people. If a significant number of those people (religious or not) don't want to work on certain holidays or a certain day of the week, then it makes at least some sense to accommodate that into law–especially if we can agree that to not work on some days is beneficial. To determine whether that is more or less important than hurting the feelings of the minority (if, in fact, it is even the minority) is another matter. But walking on eggshells so we don't offend anybody should not be the primary concern of our government, and how people feel should not be the be-all and end-all of whether a law is good or bad.
Hyperbole, anyone?
Quote from: kphoger on November 28, 2012, 12:22:29 PM
As I said earlier, my religion doesn't say so. How many Christians have you heard shout 'Sinner!' to someone because they went to work on a Sunday?
Shomer Shabbos!
Quote from: bugo on November 28, 2012, 12:19:54 AMFor every non-believing kook, there are at least a thousand believing kooks. This is true both in the United States (South and Midwest) and on the internet. I saw a cartoon that said "Muslim radical: flies planes into buildings. Christian radical: bombs abortion clinics. Atheist radical: drinks microbrew beers and dissects the Bible." And it's true. Who was worse: Osama bin Laden, Scott Roeder, or Christopher Hitchens?
As a non-militant secularist with broadly deist views, I have to play devil's advocate. Surely the key distinction among Christopher Hitchens on the one hand and Scott Roeder and Osama bin Laden on the other is degree of militancy, not the lack of religious belief? It is not too difficult to find instances of militant secularism leading to civil war (e.g., the Cristero War in Mexico, which supplies the historical backdrop to Graham Greene's novel
The Power and the Glory), or secular regimes making a conscious decision to oppress organized religion to prevent it from developing into centers of resistance (e.g., the Nazis under Hitler, or Soviet communists under Stalin). It is certainly true that the militant religious have racked up much higher death tolls than the militant secularists, but on the other hand they have had much longer to do it in. Religion is older than written human history while secularism is essentially an Enlightenment concept and so dates from the late seventeenth century at earliest.
Atheism is as old as humanity itself. Babies are born lacking the belief of deities.
Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0) [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.
So, where were we?
Oh, yeah... Well, I guess if Pamplona can allow idiots to run with raging bulls down a cobble street, we can surely allow idiots to run with other raging idiots through a crowded Walmart.
Bugo - France has far stricter Sunday trading laws than England, despite being a country that prides itself on values that have such a strict separation of church and state that it's really a separation of religion and public life (ie it's totally and utterly intolerant of religion outside private homes and places of worship) - any religious law wouldn't get anywhere near passing, let alone survive a legal challenge. There's plenty of other reasons for blue laws than some sort of attempt to force you to observe some religious teaching.
Quote from: Special K on November 28, 2012, 04:22:13 PMOh, yeah... Well, I guess if Pamplona can allow idiots to run with raging bulls down a cobble street, we can surely allow idiots to run with other raging idiots through a crowded Walmart.
The bull fights are increasingly being banned - only a few cities in Spain still have them. Then again, that's a lot more to do with animal rights (after all, they kill the bulls, cook them and eat them) than safety.
One would imagine a litigious country like America would have those threats of lawsuits stopping businesses doing dangerous things (it's certainly stopped a lot of stuff in the UK). Then again, Walmart have lots of lawyers to stop such lawsuits.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0) [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.
Okay. Can we still talk about Black Friday and blue laws with no religious mentioning though?
Yes. Black Friday is fine. Blue laws are fine. Religion is not fine, because it leads to the above.
It's the same idea as politics. You can talk about it to the extent that it affects the relevant subject, but no further.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0) [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.
So is this:
Yet I see f-bombs being dropped here with increasing frequency.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2012, 09:44:43 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0) [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.
So is this:
Yet I see f-bombs being dropped here with increasing frequency.
It's a question of whether there's a point to it. We generally try to let discussions resolve themselves, though different moderators have different standards as to when they'll step in. We do discuss topics like this internally, but you can't make ten or twelve people all behave the same way. (No, we're not going to Marine boot camp.)
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0) [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.
Thank you. I'm glad now I didn't put my foot in any further than I did (which was probably too far anyway).
Quote from: Special K on November 28, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
So, where were we?
The way I've been reading the thread, we can boil anti-Black Friday sentiments into three basic perspectives: public safety, consumers' interests, and religious views.
Obviously, the religious view of Black Friday being the victim of 'Christmas creep' is not going to put any laws on the books. That leaves us with two perspectives that are really viable for debate. (1) Is the risk of personal harm incurred during the mob rush of stores worth the governments' stepping in on private enterprise? and (2) Is the combination of low prices, low stock, and short time period enough of a detriment to Joe Shopper that the government should step in on our behalf?
Quote from: Special K on November 28, 2012, 04:22:13 PM
Oh, yeah... Well, I guess if Pamplona can allow idiots to run with raging bulls down a cobble street, we can surely allow idiots to run with other raging idiots through a crowded Walmart.
One subtle difference is that people are risking their lives in a public space in Spain by intentionally having a brush with large animals, whereas [insert store name] could be seen as actually encouraging people to fight each other on their property.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 28, 2012, 09:44:43 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 28, 2012, 04:04:39 PM
Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0) [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.
So is this:
Yet I see f-bombs being dropped here with increasing frequency.
I tend to just overlook people using foul language on here, since I know not everyone intends for it to be rude–it's just the way they talk. However, in a setting like a web forum, people should assume that
any foul language they use in a post will be taken by readers as offensive. Furthermore, it invariably serves to discredit the argument that's being made, never lending an ounce of credibility. But what are you going to do about it? Some forums simply kick users out if they use foul language; I have mixed feelings about that, and tend to favor allowing some slack.
Quote from: bugo on November 28, 2012, 01:08:14 PM
Now you're creating a strawman [ff.]
I'm sorry. I went to way too much length to try and illustrate my initial point, and discredited my own argument in doing so.
* * *
In other news, can we make
strawman the official word of AARoads?
Oh, and perhaps I should have split this into five separate posts.... :evilgrin:
I'm not offended by foul language. I've used a bit of it myself, although as I've grown older and more mature and wiser I tend to use it only in private settings if I do, and not out in public where the whole world can hear it, especially those who are offended by it. When I go into a store and I hear people dropping f-bombs in front of strangers, it bothers me, especially when there are children or grandmotherly-type ladies around. You never know if the guy standing next to you in line is a preacher. I try to keep my Facebook page a profanity-free zone because I know there are people who don't like foul language among my friends, including some youngsters who are children of adult friends. I have a good enough vocabulary that I can invent creative ways to say the same thing that cursing applies. And if you don't like that, you are a person who has sexual relations with your maternal parent. ;-)
I had an uncle by marriage who cursed a lot. (Although he had to temper that some when one of my first cousins married a guy who earned a doctorate in ministry and was a prison chaplain, and when he was around my grandmother's first cousin who was a lay minister). I remember one Christmas dinner when I was young and I blurted out some obscenities and was immediately chastised by my parents, my grandmother and several of my aunts. My response? "Uncle (name) says it!" His wife, my dad's sister, immediately replied, "Well, Uncle (name) shouldn't!"
Getting this back on topic -- I'm sure more than a few f-bombs and other obscenities were uttered during Black Friday madness.
Another thing to consider is how it affects employees. Frequently customer service employees face Black Friday, and sometimes the Thanksgiving before, as "blackout days", meaning any requests off for those days will not be considered under any circumstances. This means that the employee cannot participate in the Thanksgiving holiday if their family's celebration is held out of town. My family typically has their celebration in Kansas City, and I cannot attend it because of having to work Black Friday.
Meanwhile, at work, the employees will have to deal with a volume of business they are typically unprepared for, often being shortstaffed even with seasonal help (there is no compelling reason to hire extra employees for a business peak that lasts one day), and having to deal with customers acting like unreasonable animals. The employees see no extra wages or any other benefit or reward from overseeing this debacle. Then people wonder why there seems to be a preponderance of rude and incompetent retail workers . . .
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2012, 07:48:20 PM
When I go into a store and I hear people dropping f-bombs in front of strangers, it bothers me, especially when there are children or grandmotherly-type ladies around. You never know if the guy standing next to you in line is a preacher.
[expected response]I know with you mean. If I knew I was standing next to a preacher I'd be sure to throw in a couple extra 'fuck's.
QuoteWhen I go into a store and I hear people dropping f-bombs in front of strangers, it bothers me, especially when there are children or grandmotherly-type ladies around.
I'm with you on that- cussing is for inside or other private settings (sitting at a booth in a loud restaurant would be private- not so in a quiet restaurant) and apparently the internet. It's not something you use in public, live settings.
Quote from: corco on November 29, 2012, 07:54:31 PM
It's not something you use in public, live settings.
It really depends on the setting. One of my supervisors frequently peppers shift meetings with swear words where appropriate. It usually doesn't even register, since I'm used to people swearing. But then I work in a casino, which isn't known as a favorite hangout of small children and Presbyterian ministers.
Quote from: Scott5114 on November 29, 2012, 07:58:40 PM
Quote from: corco on November 29, 2012, 07:54:31 PM
It's not something you use in public, live settings.
It really depends on the setting.
Agreed. I rarely use such language on the internet, because emotion is not conveyed well over text so it's pointless, and I would never, ever use it in a professional setting. But when I'm hanging out with friends it's quite common, because we're 20-year-old guys, so what do you expect?
Quote from: hbelkins on November 29, 2012, 07:48:20 PM
Getting this back on topic -- I'm sure more than a few f-bombs and other obscenities were uttered during Black Friday madness.
It was a nice attempt. Well, maybe.