Posted on 12/16/2006 7:20:34 AM PST by Graybeard58
I totally agree with you about the Blue Laws. I was working part-time in retail here in Maryland at the time they were changed in the 1980s. The retailers lobbied hard for that one, because prior to the change in the law, there were only 4 Sundays they were allowed to be open -- the 4 Sundays preceeding Christmas. And for employees who worked those Sundays, there was time and a half. But once the blue law was done away with, bye bye time and a half.
I think it's a travesty for the malls and grocery stores to be open on Sundays, even for those people who do not attend religious services. How about one day of the week when we are not chasing the buck? How about allowing those workers a day of rest and family time?
Whenever, I am in a grocery store that is advertising that it will be open on Christmas or Thanksgiving or Easter, etc., I let the management know that I think it is disgraceful to take their employees away from their families on those important days. I mean, really, who needs to shop on the big holidays?
The sexualizing of children that is not limited to errant parents letting them watch "raunchy MTV videos". Every year reflects the continuing lowering of the standard of what is "adult" and what is "child" in terms of what is and is not permissible in advertizing and entertainment venues.
To make one simple example: The movie Shrek 2, aimed for a primary audience of supposedly girls and boys between 5 and 9 includes a scene in with the princess and her wearing of a thong - an undergarment that has zero relevance or recognition outside of the sexual objectivization of a woman's backside. Sexual innuendo and "sex" objects (body parts and otherwise) keep sliding downward through so-called humor in movie comedies directed at and marketed to children under 10. Little girls now dress like sluts and more often act like them, and they don't need R rated raunchy adult movies to pick up that garbage, it comes in the movies and advertizing directed at them.
Clothing, movies and "in" products in particular have advertizing and "art" that keeps lowering the age in which sex and sexual attraction are an overt part of the pitch or the story.
It is not that children could not always find these images, tucked away where adults tried to keep it away from them; they could. But it is pervasive now. They get in the stuff marketed directly to them now, in the form of innuendo that keeps getting more and more explicit at lower and lower ages all the time.
They are losing their right to a childhood.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with you about the intelligence of teachers. But please say "many" rather than referring to all teachers. (Retired teacher here.)
"Does the government really have the right to tell a private store owner when s/he may or may not sell certain items?"
As I said, if its not unconstitutional for liquor, its not unconstitutional for anything else.
..."and they passed their retirement costs on to their grandchildren, without a second thought. Ponzi scheme, anyone?"
Not my family.
My grandparents on my mother's and father's side (died in 1950, 1954 and 1983) saved and invested for their retirement. On my mother's side neither her mother or father ever had a dime from social security. My grandfather was in business for himself and he saved and invested, leaving paid-off property, investments and a secure income for my grandmother when he died (1950). My father's father had a private pension, & rental houses he saved for and invested in and zero social security (died in 1954).
Even my own father, who died in 1972 had opted out of Social Security when he could. My mother got a little Social Security only because she kept herself busy going back to work for ten years after my father died.
Of course, he also left my grandmother a fortune - he was quite good with money.
But it didn't bother him at all, that every dime he got from SS, I had to pay.
Next we'll have blue laws for Saturday to avoid offending the Seventh Day Adventists. Shut down everything by sundown Friday so everyone can observe the Jewish sabbath too. It's slippery slope you're advocating. Enforcing religious observance by government edict. Such observance should be an individual choice, not a government mandated practice. That's the point of the 1st amendment. The government is not to establish a religion (and enforced policies) or prevent you from engaging in your preference of religious observance (assuming it harms nobody else).
You probably are unaware, then, that it is quite common for three-year-old kids to masturbate, much less six-year-olds?
Excellent comments.
As someone who has raised children and been around many, many children, I really don't agree that it is common for three year old children to masturbate. To touch the sexual organs out of curiosity occasionally is not masturbation.
An argument could be made that it IS unconstitutional for liquor. I don't think the bar-closing laws are specifically about selling liquor, though -- they're more about allowing nearby residents to get some sleep, and curbing the increased crime and drunk-driving deaths that invariably accompany establishments which promote all-night alcohol consumption.
Actually it's extremely common for 3 year old boys, who are quite capable of erections and know full well that it feels good. However, 3 year old boys growing up under the guidance of adults who don't grasp this will quickly learn not to do it with those adults watching or to discuss it with those adults. Said adults therefore retain their blissful ignorance, imagining their little boys to be some sort of asexual cherubs.
In practice, this would usually just happen in the course of adults quite reasonably teaching young children not to touch their genitals in front of other people for any reason. If an adult stops a preschooler from touching his genitals "out of curiosity", the touching won't last long enough for the adult to be forced to grasp that what the child was actually trying to do was masturbating.
Fact is, when a child reaches into a cookie jar, it's not "out of curiosity", it's out of intention to eat the cookies. Some adults have their own psychological reasons for needing to believe that a child touching his genitals is just doing so "out of curiosity", and not out of an intention to masturbate. Not too different from parents who convince themselves that their children still believe in Santa Claus when that hasn't been the case for a long time (research has documented this, with parents and their very young children often giving firmly different answers as to whether the child believes in Santa, and in many cases the child is well aware that the parent still thinks s/he believes, and has made a conscious decision not to hurt the parent's feelings by 'fessing up).
Anyone who attributes sexual motivations to anything a 6 year old boy or girl does has,him/herself,serious psychiatric problems.
There are six year olds and there are six year olds. A six year old who has been watching nonstop porn with family members and perhaps has been involved in sex acts with them also, is a predator among his peers.
And it happens.
I think it's a travesty for people to expect the government to manage their lives. Very few people really have no choice as to what job or schedule to accept. If having a weekly day of rest and family time is important to you, then you should arrange your life so as to make it happen. Many people want to shop on Sundays as it's convenient for their schedules, and many people want to work on Sundays, especially students and young adults (who in fact fill a very high percentage of service jobs in stores). In addition, there are a lot of jobs in our society that simply have to have coverage 7 days a week -- all levels of hospital workers, police, utility and road repair crews, power and water plant workers, 911 operators, social service workers whose jobs are inherently not 9-5 as they have to respond to unscheduled urgent calls about child abuse/neglect or mental health emergencies, clergy who need to be available 24/7 to tend the emergency needs of the people they serve, and many more. If all these people can't be guaranteed a life of no work on Sundays, why should anyone be?
What is possible for most people to manage throughout most of their lives, if it's really a priority for them, is to have one day a week -- not necessarily Sunday or even the same day every week -- reserved for restful time at home with family. Even jobs/industries that require 24/7 coverage don't require every employee to work all 7 days each week. It's a bit harder for families with school-age children to do this on a weekday, unless they homeschool or have their children some other type of flexible educational arrangement (both good options IMO), but it's certainly possible for families with preschoolers or college students living at home.
I think they were just upset it was between male and female...
I think it's all avoidable if you make a priority of it. You don't have to take your kids to movie theaters, or let other people take them. It's cheaper to rent a video anyway, and there are many sources of video entertainment that do not include raunchy content. I'm not active in any church or other religious group, but I know that many show movies and hold other entertainment events that are perfectly decent. A couple of years ago I attended a play at a Mormon Church that a friend was performing in. Utterly, totally clean, and a very enjoyable evening at a well-written, well-performed historical/musical play.
I'm not personally inclined to worry about things like skimpy clothing, as long as the context isn't raunchy. Perhaps that's because I spent my preschool years in central Africa, and saw plenty of Africans in the countryside wearing nothing but loin-cloths (women nearly always went bare-breasted in the countryside, and one tribe had a custom of women pulling on their breasts to make them very long and droopy -- some had long breast-flaps hanging down past their waists!).
But I'm always a bit puzzled by the willingness of parents (and other people) to assume that they simply have to expose themselves and their children to all aspects of the prevalent culture just because it's prevalent. Billboards are about the only thing that's really unavoidable, but in the regular course of a reasonably sheltered young child's life there isn't much exposure to those, and by themselves they don't have much allure.
I don't remember that scene.
--Where do you stop? You use common sense, which they always did for a long, long time when "blue laws" were common place, and everyone survived, even the retail industry companies. They were even profitable and made many a wealthy family dynasty. Imagine that!!!!!--
Common sense says let someone stay open on Sundays if they want to. You are for freedom, right?
I take it you never go to a store on a Sunday ...
"An argument could be made that it IS unconstitutional for liquor. I don't think the bar-closing laws are specifically about selling liquor, though -- they're more about allowing nearby residents to get some sleep, and curbing the increased crime and drunk-driving deaths that invariably accompany establishments which promote all-night alcohol consumption."
But, the fact is that it is not, and the reasons you have demonstrated for why laws regarding liquor stores and their hours of operation are right in line with the essential, basic argument of "compelling government concern", which is the same basic legal argument with all "labor" laws and regulations, which is the same foundation, in law, for "blue laws" - compelling government interest for something considered a greater good. It is always a compromise with "absolute" freedom and it can surely be abused if/when the people are not vigilent; but there has been some form of the excercise of the concept, in thousands of ways, large and small, since the very beginning of the nation.
If it were truly unconstitutional, then you would expect that the closer you went to the time of the 1st generation, you would expect to find fewer instances of things like "blue laws" and the regulation of where businesses could operate and during what hours and days, yet, in fact you would actually find that "blue laws" and other business regulations by local government were even more prevalent than today.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.