Black Friday: Should doorbuster sales be banned or restricted?

[bugo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Special K]

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!

[J N Winkler]

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?

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.

[bugo]

Atheism is as old as humanity itself.  Babies are born lacking the belief of deities.

[deathtopumpkins]

Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.

[Special K]

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.

[english si]

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.

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.

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.

[MVHighways]

Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines [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?

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[hbelkins]

Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.

So is this:

• Pointless cursing.

Yet I see f-bombs being dropped here with increasing frequency.

[Alps]

Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.

So is this:

• Pointless cursing.

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.)

[kphoger]

Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines [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).

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?

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.

Discussion of religion is not allowed per the Forum Guidelines [link]. Continued discussion will result in the thread being locked.

So is this:

• Pointless cursing.

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.

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.... 

[hbelkins]

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.

[Scott5114]

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 . . .

[NE2]

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.

[corco]

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.

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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?

[kphoger]

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.