"The universal opposition to his view in a country of so many different faiths amply demonstrates that there's no establishment involved in the Pledge."

The vote in Congress fifty years ago was unanimous. That doesn't mean there was no opposition anywhere then, and it certainly doesn't mean it now. Never mind that the size of the majority is not a test for establishment.

No, the variety of the unanimity is a test of establishment.

Rehnquist should simply have asked Newdow why he shouldn't run for Congress and try to reverse the "trend".

Go Newdow go! Striking down the pledge is just what Bush and Bill Jones in California (to name a few) need. What is the time record for a Constitutional amendment passing?

Has there ever been such a clear confession by the left that it goes to the courts to circumvent the people and the political branches.

"That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office."

There's that line again. I can't "get" anyone to pay me for my belly button lint. Should I sue?

I thought Jesse Ventura was an atheist. In any case, he doesn't respect religious people much. Despite that, he seems to have gotten elected.

Interesting comment, LRogers.

The point, though, it seems to me, is that when it was stated that no atheist could be elected, the peanut gallery cheered.

That seems to establish the intent of, at least, those who cared enough to attend.

Orrin loves religious bigotry. I find it unlovely.

Apparently, this is a case of mere subjective estheticism.

I tend to think that Newdow is tilting at windmills. The "under God" line will appear ridiculous to people who think about what happened under god.

The remark can be taken as a government-enforced statement of religious belief, which was its obvious intent; or as a mere historical statement about how the country developed (although "under gods" would be more accurate, but that's a quibble) of no particular theological import.

If I were a believer in ultimate justice, and if I believed as the majority do, I'd tremble to come before God after blaming him for everything.

There was a bumper sticker in the '60s that read, "Jesus is coming soon and is he p**sed!"

Ventura is actually a believer, of sorts. His famous insult was against "organized" religion, he has no gripe with the disorganized religious.

Which just proves that Americans will elect anyone, as long as he professes some concept of God. He could be a Raelian, or he could worship a giant golden carp, but as long as he can check off that box on the application marked "believer", he is electable.

Robert:

I was in Minneapolis at the time of his comment. If memory serves, he said religious people had weak minds.

Harry:

Religious bigotry is one of the best ways known to make unnecessary enemies.

Well, thank you very much.

Jeff, he said that people who follow organized religion are weak-minded. He actually offended me, not for myself, but for all my friends and family who are religious.

Robert:

Why be offended by such idiocy? The belief that it is strong-minded to do what your feelings tell you to do is self refuting.

I can't believe you guys are arguing the theology of Jesse Ventura.

Robert:

I guess my memory didn't serve. Like you, though, I thought he was well over the top.

OJ:

The belief that it is strong minded to do what some self-appointed group of clerical authorities tells you to is self refuting.

Jeff:

If only. Then society would be easily made moral. Instead it takes a massive act of will to set aside petty personal desires and behave as the community would have you act.

oj:

That's true, but it also takes a tremendous act of will to put aside one's petty and/or personal issues and set community standards that enhance both personal freedom and morality.

Far too often, religious and political leaders set standards that reflect nothing more than the people setting such standards. Thus, people reject that authority, and throw the baby out with the bath-water.

When the Pope used to sell indulgences, did that make the community more moral ?

When the Georgia state legislature voted to ban the sale of dildoes and vibrators, did that make the community more moral ?

Self appointed clerical authorities are not the community.

Michael:

To which you might add: does the Catholic Church selling anullments make the community more moral by strengthening marriage?

Michael:

It made the Church corrupt. It learned its lesson.

Yes, that does make Georgia a better place.

Jeff:

They aren't self-appointed.

Michael:

"...set community standards that enhance both personal freedom and morality."

Firstly, since Mount Sinai, community standards in a healthy society aren't set by anyone, they derive from authority, custom and tradition. Secondly community morality is not about personal freedom, it is about restraints on that freedom. If personal freedom is ALWAYS the higher good, then the outcome is predetermined.

A serious question. Why would the Georgia law bother you? I confess to being mystified as to why so many current progressive causes are being promoted with no apparent benefit. I can understand why emancipation and civil rights were good, because I can imagine the horror of being a slave or oppressed minority. Womens' rights should be seen against the backdrop of being imprisoned in an abusive dependent relationship. Even abortion prevents some tragedies. But who actually still believes Freudian nonsense about porn and dildoes liberating anyone or increasing happiness or health? Is freedom now such an abstract good that it is to be fought for with no reference to its context? It is all well and good to say each to his own, but if you can't even conceive of a healthy upside, what is the point?

OJ:

Who appoints the Catholic or Epicsopalian or Jehovah's Witnesses heirarchies?

Peter:

Welcome back--been busy?

I think Micheal's point is that not only did the legislation have no impact on morals, but that it is beyond the competence of any legislature to make such a decision. Who among us should presume to make for someone else the decision that such devices are "unsuitable."

Jeff:

Not themselves, by definition.

Peter, welcome back!

Community standards are set by someone. Whether they believe that they are following the will of God or not, every community rule or standard was set down at some time by the personal decision of a person or group of persons. Community standards change over time, due to the actions of people. Every community determines which of its inherited standards to retain and which to discard.

As far as dildoes are concerned, it is not so much a matter of whether there is some community benefit that is being promoted as it is a question of where the community should interfere with the private behaviors of individuals. Community and individual freedom are not mutially exclusive, diametrically opposing interests, but are both necessary elements of a healthy society. You are correct that community morality requires some limits to personal freedom, but a healthy community also requires limits to the authority that the community, or the majority of the community, can wield against the individual.

A community that tries to abolish every personal vice, from drinking, smoking, gambling, swearing, eating junk food, dancing, etc. will come apart at some point due to rebellion from its members. If you see it as your place to keep dildoes from lonely spinsters, then don't complain when the state tells you that you can't have a beer after work, or can't put money into the office fantasy football pool. Wise communities don't require personal perfection.

Robert:

Our communities of course tell us precisely those things. Betting pools are illegal and if you stop for a beer on the way home you are likely to be driving illegally afterwards.

Robert:

And you laugh at those of us who worry about slippery slopes. If the average citizen can't distinguish between sex toys and alcohol regulation then let's forget about democracy. But at least you get credit for recognizing them as a vice. Are you suggesting the state is not competent to ban vice or that such is a denial of basic liberty (as opposed to simply being wrong-headed)? Can I withdraw my loyalty to my country if it bans the office football pool?

You say that community standards change over time and are set by people in the context of time and place. I thought you guys were the ones who promoted the idea of natural, evolved common moral impulses shared by all mankind. Wouldn't you agree that the idea of sexual taboos is universal, even if the actual taboos may vary (but not by that much)?

Lonely spinster? Is she the one who is related to the cultured gentleman who likes to release his unhealthy tensions with a tiny bit of private, innocent rough trade reading in between those long hours of Shakespeare and Bach? Honestly, do you guys know what the porn and sex trades are all about?

Jeff:

The state is not competent to regulate or prohibit the sale of dildoes? Tell me, in your ideal world, what is left for the democratic process to do legitimately? Presumably you would say taxation, which means you would recognize the authority of the majority to levy punitive, impoverishing taxes, but not to ban dildoes? I think you are suffering from a bad case of compulsive constitutionalism.

You can't just keep repeating "Who am I to decide?" in response to every issue. Shouldn't you be asking yourself how you got to the point where you see the right to buy dildoes as one of those fundamental self-evident truths that define the free citizen and their denial as an act of tyranny?

Peter:

How's that saying go? Something like: "Grant me the patience to tolerate that which I cannot change, the strength to change what I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

Sure the state can ban the sale. But if it gains nothing thereby--think of the US 55 mph national speed limit and the utter disregard for the law it engendered--then it has made an incompetent decision.

Robert's point, which clearly I agree with, is that decisions whose consequences are primarily private should remain completely out of the realm of government meddling.
For the state's part, it has to figure out which those are, and leave well enough alone. The biggest challenge to government is putting sidewalks where people want to go.

I know what the porn and sex trades are all about--for the record I've never spent a dime on either. But they are freely engaged behaviors by all participants. And, to the extent there are material downsides to vice, self punishing. Okay, let's ban them both. But I happen to like driving cars on race tracks, an activity that is both expensive and potentially fatal.

Should we ban that too? And if not, why not?

OJ:

Well, then who appoints them? I'll grant the Anglicans elect their own bishops, but as for the rest: who appointed the original Mormon hierarchy? Or Catholic, etc? Who appointed Pat Robertson?

Their millions of followers in the community.

Peter,

Of course you are right, the sex trade is all about scraggly, tattoed ruffians in motorcycle gangs. How foolish of me to suggest that the kindly woman at the library might enjoy a little artificial stimulation to spice up her life. How naive am I?

Yes, we all have sexual taboos, and we generally all break some of them at some point in our lives. Some taboos are serious enough to enforce by law, and some are not. I tend to think that the sale of dildoes is of the latter type.

Alcohol kills many more people every year than pornography does. But of course, almost everyone imbibes from time to time, so there is no chance that we will ever revisit prohibiton again. I don't trust the government to be any more competent than the average voter, so I'd rather they stick to the really serious issues of morality, and leave the petty vices to public opinion to handle.

Robert:

And we won't ban liquor advertising, drunk driving, underage drinking....

Robert:

Actually I agree with you about leaving minor vice to public opinion or local community fiat, but the point of my post was how hard that has become when people see all these issues as touching fundamental liberties and constitutional rights. Jeff seems positively itching to turn this into a legal challenge. I doubt the Georgia legislators were out to harass those thousands and thousands of frustrated librarians whose cause you are championing. I assume they were trying to control sex shops and public advertising and shield the public from unavoidable exposure. What is wrong with that? If millions of parents are upset that children are forced to confront this stuff way too young, that is a legitimate beef. So what is the upside? Oh, right--the librarians. (Are you sure you aren't still harbouring some latent schoolboy fantasies.)

Analogies to alcohol and car-racing are red herrings. There is no reason why every leisure activity or even every vice has to be treated as if they were the same. They aren't.

Peter:

Actually, I'm not itching for any kind of battle.

But there are ways of accomodating non-participants sensitivities absent outright bans, aren't there?

As a confirmed anti-statist, nanny or otherwise, legislators should stick to public conduct and leave private behavior alone. In this case, as with so many others, they could, but chose not to.

I grant the analogies aren't exactly apt, but they aren't completely red herrings, either. Are you ready for fast food to get banned? Clearly, you aren't competent to make that decision for yourself.

Jeff:

The point is you needn't ban it via the law--McDonald's and company are already buckling to the pressure. that's how a society should work and is starting to again because those in power are willing to speak to issues in moral terms.

I agree with the other bob. I hope Newdow wins. 70-30 and 68 senators.

Wrong on the facts again, Orrin. Catholic prelates are not chosen by millions in the community.

The history of the Church is, to a large degree, the struggle of the millions to control their bishops. (Notably in that religious paradise of yours, post-Moorish Spain.)

And, as we all saw in the sex scandal, it wasn't the millions of the Catholic community that imposed sexual predators priests on their innocent children.

Why would anyone see using sex toys as a vice ???

Sure, one can become obsessed with sexual behaviors, but one might also become an alcoholic.

The point is, it isn't the state's business to tell anyone that they cannot be sexually satisfied, especially if it's a solo pleasure.
Is Georgia saying that the user is a victim, and thus masturbation with a sex toy is analogous to suicide ?

The intent might have been to somehow affect sex shops, but it must be noted that the primary merchandise sold in such establishments, adult videos, are still legal. Thus, it was like trying to end the sale of crack by making small glass vials illegal.
Also, local zoning is the key to controlling the placement of sex establishments.

The law is a PERFECT example of legally limiting citizens' freedom, with NO CORRESPONDING BENEFIT. No additional good accrued the state of Georgia, nor its citizens.

Peter B:

I assume that your statement ridiculing any link between sexual satisfaction and happiness was mere hyperbole.

Michael:

No, I am challenging the link between sex toys and/or porn and what you call sexual satisfaction. You talk like a sunny liberal from the 1950's convinced that happiness and fulfillment will reign when all the strictures are broken down. Haven't the experiences of two generations after the sexual revolution given you pause?

Of course sex can be a vice. It can lead to all manner of physical and emotional damage and cause folks to make some bizarre and damaging decisions in life. That is why mankind has always sublimated it.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that sex is this powerful need that drives our psyches and can lead to a warping unhappiness and frustration if it is not satisfied regularly in any one of many ways and then turn around and talk like it is a "take it or leave it" independant experience unrelated to the rest of life and entirely within the realm of private choices that affect no one else.

Harry:

That is the community.

"So what is the upside? Oh, right--the librarians. (Are you sure you aren't still harbouring some latent schoolboy fantasies.)"

Yes, of course I am. I have librarians, and OJ has female heads of state.

I have no problem with laws against the display of sexually oriented material in shop windows or where children might see them. Let the librarians order them through the internet, to be delivered in a plain, discreet cardboard box.

Besides, if you remove all the shame, it isn't fun anymore.

Robert:

Far be it from me to frustrate the prim but sultry Miss Jones you drooled over during library period. I'll back mail order if you tell Michael he has to keep the neighbourhood wholesome.

I was not aware that Georgia had banned dildos, but it does demonstrate three of my main points:

1. Christians fear sex.

2. They have no better grasp of what's moral than any other group, and maybe worse.

3. When they achieve civil power they use it to abridge freedom.

Harry:

Several months ago, someone challenged you to source an assertion similar to the one above. Curious, I fired up Google, and happened upon an article from a Jewish website within about 30 seconds. According to the article, St Augustine told his priests:

" 'It is still Eve, the temptress, of whom we must beware in all women.' Saint Augustine made the doctrine of original sin central to the Western Christian vision; and since it was Eve who was the first to pluck the forbidden fruit, women, sex, and sin became fused in the Christian imagination. ... Several of the fathers of the Church, particularly in the West, equated marriage with prostitution. They saw sexual love as inherently sinful and incompatible with a true Christian life."

It beggars the imagination in attempting to posit some threat to the Republic that dildoes might entail. It is telling, though, that male legislators were responsible for a law affecting women's private sexuality. While leaving male oriented pornography untouched.

What is no surprise, however, is the utterly pointless abridgment of personal freedom.

Washington would be so proud to hear his children defending the "freedom" to dildo.