It clearly states it is only to be in socials that are held in School or Church buildings. That means that if, say, my sister was to move to North Carolina (My sister does Terot cards, not me. Lol...) and to practice such things inside her house, she would be put in jail.
But this is the ambiguity of law that you need to consider. It says what it will not prohibit. But it also doesn't say what it will not allow. And because the law never stated it would not allow your sister to use Tarot cards insider her house, so could she easily make the case that it is well within her right to use Tarot cards in her house. This lack of foresight in the law (intentional or otherwise) would also overlap with privacy rights within the constitution. So if someone were to go as far as raiding your sister's home while she was using her Tarot cards just to arrest her for using the careds, it would be pretty easy to argue that her Constitutional rights had been violated and the federal court would step in and overturn any jurisdiction that the state law felt it had over your sister. But I actually don't believe it would need to go that far. I think even in a state supreme court the law could be picked apart to show that it does not say it will not allow her to use the Tarot cards in the privacy of her own home.
I think this perceived threat some of you have about the government saying you can't practice one religion or another is widely unfounded. When it comes to religious freedom, the U.S. remains one of the most open and liberal states in the world that allows freedom of religion. You could cite the 1st Amendment alone to contest this South Carolina law. But the law is scrapped anyway. So even less the reason to worry, no?
Which does sound slightly ridiculous I have to agree. The reason though I think is probably precisely because they don't want people to do this in their homes on their own. If it is in a church and/or school, they can keep track of it. At home, it becomes hard to track. And manage.
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
Which does sound slightly ridiculous I have to agree. The reason though I think is probably precisely because they don't want people to do this in their homes on their own. If it is in a church and/or school, they can keep track of it. At home, it becomes hard to track. And manage.
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
Quote from "Siaynoq" »
But this is the ambiguity of law that you need to consider. It says what it will not prohibit. But it also doesn't say what it will not allow. And because the law never stated it would not allow your sister to use Tarot cards insider her house, so could she easily make the case that it is well within her right to use Tarot cards in her house. This lack of foresight in the law (intentional or otherwise) would also overlap with privacy rights within the constitution. So if someone were to go as far as raiding your sister's home while she was using her Tarot cards just to arrest her for using the careds, it would be pretty easy to argue that her Constitutional rights had been violated and the federal court would step in and overturn any jurisdiction that the state law felt it had over your sister. But I actually don't believe it would need to go that far. I think even in a state supreme court the law could be picked apart to show that it does not say it will not allow her to use the Tarot cards in the privacy of her own home.
It shall be unlawful for any person to practice the arts of phrenology, palmistry, clairvoyance, fortune-telling and other crafts of a similar kind in the counties named herein. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.
This section shall not prohibit the amateur practice of phrenology, palmistry, fortune-telling or clairvoyance in connection with school or church socials, provided such socials are held in school or church buildings.
It DOES say that it's unlawful to practice it anywhere but socials in a school or church building though.
It DOES say that it's unlawful to practice it anywhere but socials in a school or church building though.
You need to interpret it sentence by sentence. That's how Con law lawyers like to pick this stuff apart.
For the counties that are mentioned, it says that those specific practices are to be prohibited no matter what. You can make a Free Exercise argument here that a government is violating your right to practice your religion.
In the counties that it is allowed in as long as it is an amateur practice in a school or church setting, obviously anyone can claim to be merely an amateur and they could also easily link whatever they were doing to either their church or school.
For example, I've been caught doing some palm reading in my home. My defense? I am practicing palm reading because I would like to try it as a novelty act at my school fair. Or maybe I am a Christian and I need to learn about palm reading so that I may give a lesson at my church about how palm reading is bad.
States may make whatever laws they like as they do not interfere with the Constitution. Even religious laws can be made as long they do not interfere with the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment. And don't get me wrong; states have often drafted laws that were challenged in a federal court because someone felt those clauses were ineed violated.
I agree with you here, that state laws can not violate the Constitution. However, I have a problem with state goverments attempting to do it anyway, citing small loopholes (if any) in the Constitution itself.
But I believe the intention of the law then was really to protect consumers more than to discriminate. If I wanted to be a palm reader, I doubt I would need a degree in palm reading. I could just come out of nowhere and claim to be a professional palm reader and charge people whatever I wanted for such a service.
In their effort to protect consumers, they probably did end up discriminating against people. The way I read into that law was that those types of practices were prohibited, even in a private setting. The wording of the law also led me to believe that those practices were only allowed to be used for entertainment purposes, since it specifically stated that amateurs were exempt.
I think you may be overgeneralizing this a bit.
Probably, but debate has never been a strong point of mine. Lol.
LOL You're all good. I'm not trying to go after you or anything. I'm just making sure we understand one another.
Understood, haha. You're very good at this, and it's given me a bit to think about today.
Bah, Americans. You always think there's omething special about the founding fo your country
Heh, I can't help it. I love European/early-American history, focusing on the history of colonies in particular.
You need to interpret it sentence by sentence. That's how Con law lawyers like to pick this stuff apart.
For the counties that are mentioned, it says that those specific practices are to be prohibited no matter what. You can make a Free Exercise argument here that a government is violating your right to practice your religion.
In the counties that it is allowed in as long as it is an amateur practice in a school or church setting, obviously anyone can claim to be merely an amateur and they could also easily link whatever they were doing to either their church or school.
For example, I've been caught doing some palm reading in my home. My defense? I am practicing palm reading because I would like to try it as a novelty act at my school fair. Or maybe I am a Christian and I need to learn about palm reading so that I may give a lesson at my church about how palm reading is bad.
Umm... Either your not following me or I'm not following you... The way I see it, it's saying it's only to be done for fun as a game... Could you explain a bit more clearly what your trying to say?...
Maybe I am just reading it wrong, but the way I see the law is that it's prohibiting profiting from it, which is a good thing in some cases, but also its prohibiting private religous use, which seems to me as unconstitutional...
When was that law created, exactly? I don't imagine that getting passed with the first amendment, especially now. The public would go ballistic. Nobody would ever do that.
When was that law created, exactly? I don't imagine that getting passed with the first amendment, especially now. The public would go ballistic. Nobody would ever do that.
Someone explain to Equinox the intolerant South of the old.
Lmao. South of the old? Pfft, today's south, while not as bad, is still pretty bad. Shoot I live inbetween the North and South and it was bad where I lived. I can only imagine how bad it is down in the deep south.
I was online and I found this law for North Carolina.
It has sense been taken off the books and is no longer a law. But still, the very fact that it was a law, isn't it scary? The very fact that there are some state governments trying to put religion into law?
What are your thoughts and views on this? Do you think its right? Do you think its wrong? Do you think the Government has any right what-so-ever to outlaw any religion or any practice?
I think it has less to do with religion and more to do with those practices being a scam.
I think that if they put church and state together, it might become a dictatorship
As I was saying before the forum went down and I lost my entire post, it would be more of a theocracy than a dictatorship. But while the U.S. may not be as secular as the E.U., we still frown a lot on religious-based discourse in politics. Which is a good thing in my opinion.
Quote from "Stonebreaker" »
who do think will win on the Democrat side?
Eh, it's still fairly open I think. Technically, Clinton has more delegates than Obama, but the California votes are still not all in and there are a significant number of states that still need to do their caucuses.
I think it has less to do with religion and more to do with those practices being a scam.
I could say the same about Christian practices. Or Jewish practices.
Could people just think for a moment, how would y'all feel if it was a practice that your religion believes in that was made illegal except as a "game" in a different religion's building, please?
Someone explain to Equinox the intolerant South of the old.
The first post does not specify the year of the law, the condition of the law, who passed it, why they passed it, and so on. I hate when people do that, make a post like "OK, is this right?" and don't explain anything...
In fact, STILL nobody explained anything. After I asked the question. It's all because of your jokes, Siaynoq... are you ever serious?
South of the old? Old South? How old is "old"?
To Linkx
If you lived in a slum poor neirbourhood that ended up being a South slum poor neirborhood it doesn't mean that ALL South is like that. Poor areas are poor areas, they are always bad, whether it's Cali, Alabama, Minnesota, or Maine... Look at my location, I think it's a lot better than everyone's belowed New Jersey or NY (yes, I did live there).
The first post does not specify the year of the law, the condition of the law, who passed it, why they passed it, and so on. I hate when people do that, make a post like "OK, is this right?" and don't explain anything...
In fact, STILL nobody explained anything. After I asked the question. It's all because of your jokes, Siaynoq... are you ever serious?
South of the old? Old South? How old is "old"?
My appologies. My friend told me about it, but didn't give me any dates. I'll ask about it next time I talk to her.
Quote from "Equinox" »
To Linkx
If you lived in a slum poor neirbourhood that ended up being a South slum poor neirborhood it doesn't mean that ALL South is like that. Poor areas are poor areas, they are always bad, whether it's Cali, Alabama, Minnesota, or Maine... Look at my location, I think it's a lot better than everyone's belowed New Jersey or NY (yes, I did live there).
Actually I've lived in relativelly nice places. We even had a mansion ten or so roads down. I also said that I live inbetween the north and south. *Coughs.*
Back on topic, even if this was 40 or 50 or even 80 or 90 years ago, the Constitution is the Constitution, and it still would have been unconstitutional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think this perceived threat some of you have about the government saying you can't practice one religion or another is widely unfounded. When it comes to religious freedom, the U.S. remains one of the most open and liberal states in the world that allows freedom of religion. You could cite the 1st Amendment alone to contest this South Carolina law. But the law is scrapped anyway. So even less the reason to worry, no?
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
What? At home its a religous activity. In a Church or school its a game. They were banning a religous activity. I mean I can understand if its something that has no religous connections, but that isn't the case here.
It DOES say that it's unlawful to practice it anywhere but socials in a school or church building though.
For the counties that are mentioned, it says that those specific practices are to be prohibited no matter what. You can make a Free Exercise argument here that a government is violating your right to practice your religion.
In the counties that it is allowed in as long as it is an amateur practice in a school or church setting, obviously anyone can claim to be merely an amateur and they could also easily link whatever they were doing to either their church or school.
For example, I've been caught doing some palm reading in my home. My defense? I am practicing palm reading because I would like to try it as a novelty act at my school fair. Or maybe I am a Christian and I need to learn about palm reading so that I may give a lesson at my church about how palm reading is bad.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I agree with you here, that state laws can not violate the Constitution. However, I have a problem with state goverments attempting to do it anyway, citing small loopholes (if any) in the Constitution itself.
In their effort to protect consumers, they probably did end up discriminating against people. The way I read into that law was that those types of practices were prohibited, even in a private setting. The wording of the law also led me to believe that those practices were only allowed to be used for entertainment purposes, since it specifically stated that amateurs were exempt.
Probably, but debate has never been a strong point of mine. Lol.
Understood, haha. You're very good at this, and it's given me a bit to think about today.
Heh, I can't help it. I love European/early-American history, focusing on the history of colonies in particular.
Umm... Either your not following me or I'm not following you... The way I see it, it's saying it's only to be done for fun as a game... Could you explain a bit more clearly what your trying to say?...
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
Indeed. Indeed. The racism isn't as big of a problem with those who can read anymore. Key words are "who can read", hehehe
I think it has less to do with religion and more to do with those practices being a scam.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Eh, it's still fairly open I think. Technically, Clinton has more delegates than Obama, but the California votes are still not all in and there are a significant number of states that still need to do their caucuses.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
I could say the same about Christian practices. Or Jewish practices.
Could people just think for a moment, how would y'all feel if it was a practice that your religion believes in that was made illegal except as a "game" in a different religion's building, please?
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
In fact, STILL nobody explained anything. After I asked the question. It's all because of your jokes, Siaynoq... are you ever serious?
South of the old? Old South? How old is "old"?
To Linkx
If you lived in a slum poor neirbourhood that ended up being a South slum poor neirborhood it doesn't mean that ALL South is like that. Poor areas are poor areas, they are always bad, whether it's Cali, Alabama, Minnesota, or Maine... Look at my location, I think it's a lot better than everyone's belowed New Jersey or NY (yes, I did live there).
My appologies. My friend told me about it, but didn't give me any dates. I'll ask about it next time I talk to her.
Actually I've lived in relativelly nice places. We even had a mansion ten or so roads down. I also said that I live inbetween the north and south. *Coughs.*
Back on topic, even if this was 40 or 50 or even 80 or 90 years ago, the Constitution is the Constitution, and it still would have been unconstitutional.