On this day in 1833, according to the Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities, “religious and social reformer Abner Kneeland printed a letter deemed so blasphemous by a Massachusetts court that it landed the former clergyman in jail. Kneeland capped 30 years of increasingly liberal religious preaching by declaring, “Universalists believe in a god . . . that . . . is nothing more than a chimera of their own imagination.” He was tried, convicted of having libeled God, and sentenced to 60 days in jail. Freethinkers such as Emerson, Garrison, and Alcott rallied, unsuccessfully, to defend his freedom of speech. Massachusetts authorities were so embarrassed by the case that, even though the law against blasphemy remains on the books, no one in the state has ever again been convicted of that offense.”
let’s ask the legislature to tidy things up a bit.
1. repeal the blashphemy law.
2. ammend the marriage laws to explicitly include same-sex couples.
3. repeal the 1913 laws. they exist only to discriminate.
We still have a criminal law against adultery as well as a bunch of sodomy & similar laws (fornication, unnatural & lascivious acts, etc.) that were struck down by the Supreme Court. If someone were working on cleaning up, there’s an awful lot of Chapter 272 that needs repeal.
We should be able to do whatever the hell we want.
No boundries, no judgements.
So, I guess Geo likes to bring it…lol đŸ˜‰
No, everything should be prohibited. Frivolous blog comments should be punishable by striking the poster. Or pushing them onto the sidewalk. Chapter 272++, object-oriented!
boink a baby elephant?
<
p>
Stop the insanity!
D’OH!!
that are still on the books from the know nothing peeriod.
…which would have resolved all these complaints, and which as a bonus would have lightened bestiality penalties in the Commonwealth, has been placed in a study in Senate Ethics.
<
p>
If that isn’t an oxymoron….
and gets sent to a study every year. Trying to repeal Chapter 272 is nothing new.
Every time I have seen any reference to Senate 938- not often, maybe a dozen times in the last six months- it has been in the context of some conservative harping on the bestiality clause, not the other hundred things that this bill changes. Do you guys all get your marching orders from the same source?
Peter Porcupine writes that S.B. 938 “would have lightened bestiality penalties in the Commonwealth.”
<
p>
Here is what current law prescribes:
<
p>
<
p>
Here is what S.B. 938 would replace it with:
<
p>
<
p>
The claim of lightened penalties wouldn’t seem to be true. The bill would add other possible penalties, but leaves the current maximum penalty unchanged.
<
p>
An oddity here is that the current statutory provision(quoted above) does not actually seem to prohibit bestiality other than sodomy — the “crime against nature.” I would hope that there is some other statute that does prohibit that, but I am not aware of it.
I do hope you mean “the above-referenced issue.”
If it’s not involving someone’s sex organs, it doesn’t get their attention. You know, shrinking government small enough to fit into the bedroom and all.
baby elephants in there. I better call my rep.
speaking of religious tolerance, is it not time to end the custom of opening legislative sessions with a prayer? i find this ongoing habit much more offensive than dead laws laying on the books.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
so it would be a-ok to NOT pray communally in chambers.
I am interested in reading any relevant judicial decisions you might be able to provide. Thanks.
I mean, maybe it’s a “mandate” in the sense that it’s an internal rule of the MA legislature, but it’s sure not a constitutional requirement. You can’t seriously think that abolishing that internal rule (if it exists) would be constitutionally problematic, can you?
….the courts have held time and again that while individuals have a right to prayer they have no right to force prayer on others. If someone in the legislature wants to pray before session they can do so, quietly in their seat or in their office. They do not have a Constitutional right to make everyone else stop what they are doing and watch them pray.
What, exactly, do you find offensive about a group of people engaging freely and voluntarily in a non-denominational prayer? It doesn’t even begin to violate the establishment clause. So it can’t be that
<
p>
I’ve never heard a single complaint by a MA solon about this “ongoing habit”. And I’m sure, given the makeup of this legislature, that they’d have no qualms about summarily dumping a 200+ year old tradition, if it really bothered anyone.
and also makes some Christians uncomfortable**. Contrary to your experience, I have heard many complaints about this. But they are usually quietly and carefully raised, as raising this subject generally insures that one will be treated incurtiously and/or dismissively.
<
p>
**One reason is that Jesus condemned public prayer (Matthew 6).
No more than any other activity in which one chooses not to participate.
<
p>
If one is truly respectful of the rights and beliefs of others, then graciously abiding a dignified and tasteful blessing would seem to be in line with the tolerant attitude that people here expect regarding their own sincerely held views.
why is it that the non-religious and by-the-book Christians (and perhaps others) are the ones expected to stand by respectfully each and every time the majority (and those cowed by what they think is the majority) feel like huddling for a prayer? You ask for what you are not willing to give in return.
<
p>
Or do I misunderstand you, and you are actually proposing that we set aside a certain number of prayer times during which the prayerful will respectfully not pray while the rest of us carry on with the business of the day?
Jesus was not condemming public prayer, but was cautioning against the hypocrisy of those who want to be seen by the public, in prayer.
You know, like a politician who endevours to be observed clutching his Holy Bible, when in fact, godliness is the furthest thing from his mind.
that your interpretation of Matt. 6 is the only valid one? It may be valid for you, but not for other Christians. Read on. Read about Jesus advising that prayer should be such a private matter that we go into closets to pray.
And yes, prayer is a private activity.
I do not consider the simple act of petitioning for wisdom before making decisions affecting millions to be outside the teachings of any faith.
<
p>
In fact, as a polititical junkie, having seen hundreds of invocations before the opening of legislative sessions, I have never heard mention of Jesus, Allah, Buddah, or any other specific deity.
It is always NONdenominational, as in generic. So as not to be offensive to anyone.
<
p>
Some may be impatient to get on with the business of the day, and may consider the prayer a waste of time (though I’ve rarely seen one go more than about a half a minute).
But I would guess that most people are comfortable with the reasonable tradition of compromise as is currently observed.
geo999, non-denominational means that you are having more or less generic prayers that don’t favor any particular faiths, correct? In a room full of only religious people, that’s fine, very fine. However, non-denominational by definition EXCLUDES non-religious people, who have no denomination or faith or need or desire for or affinity with prayer. So with non-denominational you do have the spirit if inclusivity, which is very commendable. But if you have a communal non-denom prayer, you will still be excluding people who have no religious belief.
<
p>
I think the answer is for people who need to pray communally to do so before they enter the chamber. I do not object to prayer per se. But holding up the business of the entire chamber for communal prayer is divisionary and unnecessary. I mean, God’s (or whomevers) blessing won’t fall off as legislators walk from the meeting room where they prayed into the chamber, will it?
Haven’t you ever been to a service that is outside your own tradition? Unless one is truly uncouth, one respects the others by neither jeering nor particpating actively.
<
p>
Why is this so hard to do? Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, except maybe be polite for 30 damn seconds.
<
p>
The folks that find this ultimately trivial practice so “divisive,” even if they succeed in this particular establishment of irreligion, would immediately find some other divisive thing that must be changed to accomodate their delicate sensibility.
“Haven’t you ever been to a service that is outside your own tradition?”
The General Court isn’t a church.
No one has mentioned a real pressing need to have this public prayer. Some may want it, or like it, but do they actually need it? What would happen if they didn’t do it? Would the government fail?
When Christians think of their “non-denominational” prayers as all-inclusive, it reminds me about the joke about the Midwestern record store: “We have both kinds of music. Country and Western.” The prayers may have the specific religious references obfuscated, but they’re still a distinctly Christian kind of prayer.
<
p>
If a Muslim wanted to pray in his way in a legislative session, he’d have to do it on his own time. I don’t think it would go over well for him to say multiple times per day, “Hold on, I need to prostrate myself toward Mecca again”.
<
p>
A Buddhist might try to meditate a bit during the public prayer, but the guy yammering on about some Supreme Being that Buddhists don’t believe in would be a bit distracting.
<
p>
And to an atheist, the whole idea would be disturbing: when these lawmakers are going to be making decisions affecting millions, shouldn’t they do it based on thinking the issues through, not based on some supernatural nonsense? (Of course, I’m supposing an atheist would get elected to public office, which around now couldn’t happen unless the atheist was firmly in the closet.)
…and numerous other examples of public prayer and praise, fraught with mny references to making a joyful noise.
<
p>
I would also suggest that …someone…can cite scripture to his purpose, and that the Bible is a first cousin to sttistics – you can prove or disprove just about anything.
<
p>
That’s why you need faith to understand.
As I said to geo999 above, if that is your interpretation, then taht is your interpretation. Others have a different take on it, and it is equally as valid.
<
p>
Whether one is a “noisy” or “quite” Christian, however, is a side issue. The real issue is anyone of any religion(s) holding a communal prayer session on the house or senate floor. By definition, it creates an us/them situation of religious/non-religious legislators.
what would our puny, small-time state legislators get out of a Petitioning the Big Guy when the Decider in Chief Himself has a Direct Line to his lord and savior’s ear (sans cerumen).
<
p>
BTW, Happy Festivus!