Raise your hand if you have ever sinned. Ok, shame on those of you
who kept your hands down because you have sinned once again by
lying. I know you will not admit it. But you have. Stop
pretending.When it comes to demagoging, sins are always easy things
to target considering their nature. As such they often sport big
red bullseyes for those that want to force others, and perhaps even
themselves, from partaking of them. Some of these sins even get
special treatment such as the seven deadly ones which get singled
out as Capital Vices. While some sins, if not checked, would lead
to societal collapse such as murder and lying under oath in a court
of law because they specifically involve someone other than the
person partaking in the vice being harmed, most sins are actually
quite harmless except to the person partaking of them. At least to
start out.Sins do have a tendency to get out of hand. Lust, for
example, does not in and of itself harm anyone except the person
engaging in those desires. But when the person consumed by lust,
for example, commits rape and violates the person of another to
fulfill that desire or murders her husband so that she can be with
her lover it is without a doubt true that things have gone too far.
And our laws should and do reflect that.But because some people
carry their sins, which are normally harmless to others, to a level
where actual harm is visited upon another, is that a reason to try
to control the sin No, especially when most of the time the sin is
known only to the mind of those engaging in it. Thought Police are
a scary thing to contemplate and would be necessary if sins were to
be punished by law carte blanche.Our religions have become infested
with the same sorts of liberals that have corroded our government.
And when these two groups, liberals representing religion and
liberal representatives in government, join forces, the result is a
public attempt to punish and regulate sins that have not moved to
the realm of harming others.A prime example of this was the
temperance movement in America during the early twentieth century.
During that period religious liberals thought it was their right to
push for the abolition of alcohol because it was being consumed for
pleasure. And after all, liberals, no matter their stripes, hate
anyone having fun. After years of getting some tentative footholds
around the country the liberals in both church and state got the
Eighteenth Amendment ratified. That amendment prohibited, the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors
within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof
from the United States and all territory subject to the
jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes. Scholars to this day
still marvel at how what turned out to be such an unpopular thing
ever managed to get passed as a Constitutional amendment in the
first place.Ratified on January 19th, 1919, though not going into
effect until one year later, the whole thing was undone in 1933 by
the Twentyfirst Amendment which repealed this silly, and as
liberals quickly learned, nearly unenforceable law. How bad was it
by the time Prohibition was repealed Thirtyeight states voted at
the time for the repeal amendment and only ten states either
rejected the amendment, refused to consider the amendment or simply
did not ratified it. That was a big shift from the approval of the
Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 when States could not wait to approve
the amendment and fortysix of the fortyeight did just that.Talk
about liberals getting taken to the woodshed! The left might as
well have tried to outlaw breathing. I believe they might have even
had more success with that!But just because America rejected the
prohibitionists does not mean that the liberals got the message.
Nope. Here in Pennsylvania the religious and political liberals who
thought it was their birthright to regulate our lives to the hilt
plowed onward. Sure, prohibition was officially over but they were
not going to take no for an answer. Instead they instituted the
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board just four days before the end of
Prohibition. The Governor at the time, a selfrighteous progressive
sort and sadly also a Republican, by the name of Gifford Pinchot,
said of the Board that its job was to, discourage the purchase of
alcoholic beverages by making it as inconvenient and expensive as
possible. As a central planner, Governor Pinchot had no qualms
about sticking his woohoo in affairs which concerned no one but the
person involved.Oh, and by the way, we are still dealing with the
insanity of the PALCB to this day here in the Keystone State.Like
Pennsylvania, Georgia still has silly Blue Laws promoted and
defended by religious liberals that prohibit alcohol sales on
Sunday within the State. Governor Nathan Deal says that if the
legislature in that State passes a law to undo the Blue Laws he
will sign it. Boy, oh boy, are the liberals running some of the
religious groups and churches down there in a tizzy over that! They
come up with all sorts of vapid arguments about why Georgia must
keep this ban in place and infringe upon the liberty of others. I
have even heard the argument that there must be a day where people
do not need to buy alcohol in Georgia thus the Blue Laws must
remain to ensure this. As if anyone needs to buy alcohol ever I bet
you folks living down in Georgia never knew that you needed to buy
alcohol did you If you have not bought any recently you had better
get moving and satisfy this need immediately.Basically these
liberals are upset that people will not follow their particular
version of Christianity and want to enforce their religion on
others. Essentially they believe that their freedom of religion
trumps your liberty if you disagree and want to have an adult
beverage on Sunday. It is absolute silliness by even the most lax
standards of humor.And things are just going to get worse. With
States from coast to coast running in the red, talks between the
religious and political liberals are heating up even further.
States want revenues and religious liberals want to use the power
of the State to make others conform to their beliefs. So it is a
match made in Hell.Both are out there pumping the idea of levying
new or raising existing taxes on not just alcohol, but every
various vice you can name that has not been already outlawed. The
religious left sees punitive taxes as a way to get people to shy
away from doing things they find objectionable smoking, drinking
and so on. The liberals in the positions of authority within the
State are just looking to keep the pitchforks and torches at bay a
few more years as promises made become promises broken. They hope
that new revenues from sin taxes can help stave off the inevitable
collapse of their ideology.The danger here is that these sorry
folks might actually succeed in their quest. Personally, for me, I
say that taxing sin gives the sin more notoriety than it deserves.
Punish those that take their sins to excess. Punish the man who
drinks and then drives and puts the welfare of others at risk. But
do not control those who want to responsibly enjoy a libation every
now and again.
Date Published: