I was online and I found this law for North Carolina.
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.
Provided that the provisions of this section apply only to the Counties of Alexander, Ashe, Avery, Bertie, Bladen, Brunswick, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Camden, Carteret, Caswell, Chatham, Chowan, Clay, Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Currituck, Dare, Davidson, Davie, Duplin, Durham, Franklin, Gates, Graham, Granville, Greene, Guilford, Halifax, Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Hertford, Hoke, Iredell, Johnston, Lee, Lenoir, Madison, Martin, McDowell, Mecklenburg, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Northampton, Onslow, Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Person, Polk, Richmond, Robeson, Rockingham, Rutherford, Sampson, Scotland, Surry, Transylvania, Union, Vance, Wake and Warren. (Penalty for conviction is a fine of up to $500, up to six months in prison, or both.)
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?
It is scary that maybe next the government will tell us waht to believe.
It is rather scary isn't it? The fact that the government today is unraveling the very fabric of what this nation was founded upon. I'm glad our founding fathers arn't alive to see this day...
Well, first of all, phrenology was dismissed anything but a pseudo-science a long time ago. So whenever people were actively practicing it, you can imagine that law was probably drafted a long time ago. It is even likely that when it was a law that is was barely enforced.
Lots of states have all sorts of zany laws, cities with their crazy ordinances. But hte crazier the laws, the more outdated they are likely to be. The more outdated they are, the less likely they are to be enforced. For example, downtown Ogden has a city ordinance against wearing high heals on 25th Street. This ordinance was initially drafted to combat the prostitution problem that used to be rampant during the late 19th century. They never got rid of the law, but obviously a women is not going to be cited if she is wearing high heels on 25th street today. And if they tried, any lawyer would be willing to contest the practicality of the that law and the city council would realilze that it was a stupid outdated law that was just not scrapped earlier due to lack of oversight..
As with things like phrenology and fortune telling, the people of South Carolina probably just realized one day that people were catching on to these frivolous and false practices so they left it up to the people to decide for themselves whether it was stupid or not. If people wanted to keep paying for such services, that would be up to them. But South Carolina, like many states, merely reevaluated that law as being Draconian and pointless to enforce.
Quote from "Tehstickleman" »
OOH!! Can we talk about water-boarding next? That's a fun topic
Well why don't we first try to have a serious conversation regarding the topic of this thread before you make light of torture. Then you can go on to make non-contributions to that conversation later.
Quote from "Stonebreaker" »
It is scary that maybe next the government will tell us waht to believe.
Actually the government is always telling you what to believe. The government has an opinion too. And they're going to try to convince you of it as much as you would try to convince someone else your opinion. But your statement has little to do with the actual South Carolina law and its subsequent scrapping.
This post mostly has to do with this part of your topic:
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?
In my opinion, a law such as that should never have been allowed to become a law in the first place. I find it extremely hypocritical for a state or federal government, especially in the United States, to tell someone how they may or may not worship.
That former law you quoted was, I believe, very unconstitutional and also seemed as if it were mocking those who do practice those beliefs (i.e., you may only do such things for fun in certain places).
Maybe it's just me, but I feel as though a law like that just slaps the Constitution in the face. Nearly everyone knows that America was founded by those fleeing religious persecution in Europe, and even Thomas Jefferson said:
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Yoinked from Wikipedia, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
It's sad that even after the Revolution and such, groups in America were still persecuted for their religious practices. The major ones that come to mind right now are the violence against Mormons back in the 1840s, as well as intolerance of Islamic religions in the United States now (it's not to the point of 'religious persecution,' so to speak, but rather just an intolerance by some loud people, if that makes any sense).
Though, in regards to the rest of your post, I'll have to agree with Siaynoq in terms of certain laws being outdated.
There's a law here in Michigan that states that you can not swear in front of women or children, yet it's done every day (and I do plenty myself). Probably ten years ago or so, a man had tipped his boat while in a river and, out of frustration, swore. A woman on shore overheard it and sued him, citing this law. Now, I'm not sure what ever came of it, but I do know the law came into question. I don't think it's been removed, but this is just backing up Siaynoq's point that dated laws are rarely enfoced.
My father was telling me that Hitler made people go to church and that even the pope was saluting Hitler. That is astonishing to me, but if I can find the website again I will post the picture of the pope raising his hand to Hitler.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
In my opinion, a law such as that should never have been allowed to become a law in the first place. I find it extremely hypocritical for a state or federal government, especially in the United States, to tell someone how they may or may not worship.
It's not that it would be hypocritical if the United States were to restrict a religious practice, it's that it would be unconstitutional (as you do go on to say). But I'm not sure you have carefully read the law. The may makes an exception for all those practices mentioned as long as "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."
Quote from "Requiem" »
That former law you quoted was, I believe, very unconstitutional and also seemed as if it were mocking those who do practice those beliefs (i.e., you may only do such things for fun in certain places).
I don't think the law was meant to mock those who practice such things. It was more likely drafted to protect people from preying on others with phoney practicies. Even if phrenology or fortune telling had any merits to it, the problem is that anyone can claim to be able to feel the bumps on your head (as phrenologists did) or proclaim your fortune.
Those were simply the forerunner for todays laws on fraud and misrepresentation. You need to understand that those didn't exist back then so they singled out certain professions that were known to be dodgy.
Those laws are being removed because they are redundant, not because they were inherently silly.
It's not that it would be hypocritical if the United States were to restrict a religious practice, it's that it would be unconstitutional (as you do go on to say). But I'm not sure you have carefully read the law. The may makes an exception for all those practices mentioned as long as "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."
The reason I find laws like that hypocritical (and maybe that was the wrong word to use) is because America was founded on certain beliefs and freedoms, yet state governments are taking it upon themselves to tell people what they may or may not do as far as religious beliefs are concerned. It's like saying that you're allowed to like any color you want, except you can only choose been blue and green (not the greatest example, but I'm not a very good debater, so bear with me, lol). Maybe 'too restrictive' was the phrase I was looking for.
I don't think the law was meant to mock those who practice such things. It was more likely drafted to protect people from preying on others with phoney practicies. Even if phrenology or fortune telling had any merits to it, the problem is that anyone can claim to be able to feel the bumps on your head (as phrenologists did) or proclaim your fortune.
Again, I probably didn't use a good word to describe what I'd meant by 'mocking.' I'm just imagining a school carnival or fund-raiser that has someone 'reading fortunes' for money, which may anger someone who seriously believes themselves to be psychic and practices as such. Myself, I don't actually believe in any of it, but there are people who take it quite seriously.
I have no doubt that the law was put into place to help protect people from phonies. There's rarely a day that goes by even now that you don't hear about an elderly person being swindled by a 'door-to-door fortune teller/psychic.' It's sad, really, but for every fake, there's someone who actively practices such beliefs.
The reason I find laws like that hypocritical (and maybe that was the wrong word to use) is because America was founded on certain beliefs and freedoms, yet state governments are taking it upon themselves to tell people what they may or may not do as far as religious beliefs are concerned.
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. But the law that Linkx listed there, I think for its time, it actually managed a decent balance between those two clauses. It's saying that yes, one may perform such things, but that it must be in connection with a school or church. But I think even if you were to find something fallible about the wording of the law, proponents of this law could still easily fall back on it being a consumer protection issue. It was reasonable that the law was scrapped, but also reasonable at the time that the law was there. And as I said before, I doubt even when this law was in existence that it was really enforced that much. It just didn't seem likely that the police did raids on phrenologists' offices or palm reading places. Maybe they did though, I don't know. 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.
Quote from "Requiem" »
It's like saying that you're allowed to like any color you want, except you can only choose been blue and green
I think you may be overgeneralizing this a bit.
Quote from "Requiem" »
(not the greatest example, but I'm not a very good debater, so bear with me, lol). Maybe 'too restrictive' was the phrase I was looking for.
LOL You're all good. I'm not trying to go after you or anything. I'm just making sure we understand one another.
Quote from "Requiem" »
Again, I probably didn't use a good word to describe what I'd meant by 'mocking.' I'm just imagining a school carnival or fund-raiser that has someone 'reading fortunes' for money, which may anger someone who seriously believes themselves to be psychic and practices as such. Myself, I don't actually believe in any of it, but there are people who take it quite seriously.
I agree that people definitely take it more seriously than others. And one who does take it seriously and does such a thing for a living would expect others to have the same training and qualifications as they do. Albeit, I don't know how official such schooling could possibly be.
It most likely is unconstitutional, but that's not really interesting to argue. The interesting aspect is whether or not the law has any good aspects to it.
So, it limits certain practices that are deemed religious. Ok, fair enough. From a governmental point of view, it's entirely logical. People cooperate better when they agree than when they disagree, and they obey better when they agree than when they disagree. And religion has always been an enourmous mountain or problems. Everyone thinks they're right, and by definition that must in almost all cases make everyone else wrong. And when God gives you the right, why should you listen to some human- elected leader? Thus, making all people believe the same thing creates less friction, and small occult groupings can easily be targeted and removed, creating a more homogenous society.
That's a bit cynical of me, and not specifically related to this law, but I think it does very much represent one of the underlying reasons for all acts that limit religion.
Quote from "Requiem" »
The reason I find laws like that hypocritical (and maybe that was the wrong word to use) is because America was founded on certain beliefs and freedoms, yet state governments are taking it upon themselves to tell people what they may or may not do as far as religious beliefs are concerned.
Bah, Americans. You always think there's omething special about the founding fo your country
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
What Constitutional law attempts to do in regards to religion is to neither officially endorse it, nor prohibit it in any way. It's the best system we've come up with so far, but obviously it runs into snags from time to time.
Reqium: Indeed. It saddens me too that people still try to do these things.
Siaynoq: I undestand that they were trying to keep people safe from people using these things as profit. But it also means it would be illegal for personal use as well. If they passed a law about Islam or Judaism or Christianity not even being permitted in your own house, I am sure that opinions wouldn't be the same here.
And a quick question, what if Mass was only permitted in Jewish Synagogues?
Shere Khaan: If that was true, don't you think that it should of been worded as such? The way its worded, its only to be used as a game. Wouldn't you be upset if, say, Mass or Lent was only to be used as a game? No religious attachment what-so-ever?
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
But it also means it would be illegal for personal use as well. If they passed a law about Islam or Judaism or Christianity not even being permitted in your own house, I am sure that opinions wouldn't be the same here.
I don't think that's what it means. With possibly the use of a church setting which is also private, the law makes no other mention for or against these practices in a private setting. Effectively, since it does not prohibit private use, I would interpret that as meaning a person is free to exercise these practices in private.
I don't think that's what it means. With possibly the use of a church setting which is also private, the law makes no other mention for or against these practices in a private setting. Effectively, since it does not prohibit private use, I would interpret that as meaning a person is free to exercise these practices in private.
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 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.
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.
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.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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?
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
It is rather scary isn't it? The fact that the government today is unraveling the very fabric of what this nation was founded upon. I'm glad our founding fathers arn't alive to see this day...
By the way, the Treaty of Tripoli:
Yea...
To find the truth, you must risk everything.
Lots of states have all sorts of zany laws, cities with their crazy ordinances. But hte crazier the laws, the more outdated they are likely to be. The more outdated they are, the less likely they are to be enforced. For example, downtown Ogden has a city ordinance against wearing high heals on 25th Street. This ordinance was initially drafted to combat the prostitution problem that used to be rampant during the late 19th century. They never got rid of the law, but obviously a women is not going to be cited if she is wearing high heels on 25th street today. And if they tried, any lawyer would be willing to contest the practicality of the that law and the city council would realilze that it was a stupid outdated law that was just not scrapped earlier due to lack of oversight..
As with things like phrenology and fortune telling, the people of South Carolina probably just realized one day that people were catching on to these frivolous and false practices so they left it up to the people to decide for themselves whether it was stupid or not. If people wanted to keep paying for such services, that would be up to them. But South Carolina, like many states, merely reevaluated that law as being Draconian and pointless to enforce.
Well why don't we first try to have a serious conversation regarding the topic of this thread before you make light of torture. Then you can go on to make non-contributions to that conversation later.
Actually the government is always telling you what to believe. The government has an opinion too. And they're going to try to convince you of it as much as you would try to convince someone else your opinion. But your statement has little to do with the actual South Carolina law and its subsequent scrapping.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
In my opinion, a law such as that should never have been allowed to become a law in the first place. I find it extremely hypocritical for a state or federal government, especially in the United States, to tell someone how they may or may not worship.
That former law you quoted was, I believe, very unconstitutional and also seemed as if it were mocking those who do practice those beliefs (i.e., you may only do such things for fun in certain places).
Maybe it's just me, but I feel as though a law like that just slaps the Constitution in the face. Nearly everyone knows that America was founded by those fleeing religious persecution in Europe, and even Thomas Jefferson said:
Yoinked from Wikipedia, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.
It's sad that even after the Revolution and such, groups in America were still persecuted for their religious practices. The major ones that come to mind right now are the violence against Mormons back in the 1840s, as well as intolerance of Islamic religions in the United States now (it's not to the point of 'religious persecution,' so to speak, but rather just an intolerance by some loud people, if that makes any sense).
Though, in regards to the rest of your post, I'll have to agree with Siaynoq in terms of certain laws being outdated.
There's a law here in Michigan that states that you can not swear in front of women or children, yet it's done every day (and I do plenty myself). Probably ten years ago or so, a man had tipped his boat while in a river and, out of frustration, swore. A woman on shore overheard it and sued him, citing this law. Now, I'm not sure what ever came of it, but I do know the law came into question. I don't think it's been removed, but this is just backing up Siaynoq's point that dated laws are rarely enfoced.
Yeah, I'm done rambling now.
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
I don't think the law was meant to mock those who practice such things. It was more likely drafted to protect people from preying on others with phoney practicies. Even if phrenology or fortune telling had any merits to it, the problem is that anyone can claim to be able to feel the bumps on your head (as phrenologists did) or proclaim your fortune.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Those laws are being removed because they are redundant, not because they were inherently silly.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
The reason I find laws like that hypocritical (and maybe that was the wrong word to use) is because America was founded on certain beliefs and freedoms, yet state governments are taking it upon themselves to tell people what they may or may not do as far as religious beliefs are concerned. It's like saying that you're allowed to like any color you want, except you can only choose been blue and green (not the greatest example, but I'm not a very good debater, so bear with me, lol). Maybe 'too restrictive' was the phrase I was looking for.
Again, I probably didn't use a good word to describe what I'd meant by 'mocking.' I'm just imagining a school carnival or fund-raiser that has someone 'reading fortunes' for money, which may anger someone who seriously believes themselves to be psychic and practices as such. Myself, I don't actually believe in any of it, but there are people who take it quite seriously.
I have no doubt that the law was put into place to help protect people from phonies. There's rarely a day that goes by even now that you don't hear about an elderly person being swindled by a 'door-to-door fortune teller/psychic.' It's sad, really, but for every fake, there's someone who actively practices such beliefs.
I think you may be overgeneralizing this a bit.
LOL You're all good. I'm not trying to go after you or anything. I'm just making sure we understand one another.
I agree that people definitely take it more seriously than others. And one who does take it seriously and does such a thing for a living would expect others to have the same training and qualifications as they do. Albeit, I don't know how official such schooling could possibly be.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
So, it limits certain practices that are deemed religious. Ok, fair enough. From a governmental point of view, it's entirely logical. People cooperate better when they agree than when they disagree, and they obey better when they agree than when they disagree. And religion has always been an enourmous mountain or problems. Everyone thinks they're right, and by definition that must in almost all cases make everyone else wrong. And when God gives you the right, why should you listen to some human- elected leader? Thus, making all people believe the same thing creates less friction, and small occult groupings can easily be targeted and removed, creating a more homogenous society.
That's a bit cynical of me, and not specifically related to this law, but I think it does very much represent one of the underlying reasons for all acts that limit religion.
Bah, Americans. You always think there's omething special about the founding fo your country
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Siaynoq: I undestand that they were trying to keep people safe from people using these things as profit. But it also means it would be illegal for personal use as well. If they passed a law about Islam or Judaism or Christianity not even being permitted in your own house, I am sure that opinions wouldn't be the same here.
And a quick question, what if Mass was only permitted in Jewish Synagogues?
Shere Khaan: If that was true, don't you think that it should of been worded as such? The way its worded, its only to be used as a game. Wouldn't you be upset if, say, Mass or Lent was only to be used as a game? No religious attachment what-so-ever?
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
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.