If you walk into the cheesecake factory in Philadelphia, and greet the hostess with, como es ts, you would be kindly escorted out of the restaurant. The reason you would not be allowed to continue with your dinning experience is that this particular eatery will only serve English speaking costumers. It is hard to believe that in this country of freedom and liberty that someone can be turned away because of their language. Sounds like another time in our county when Americans were turned away because of their color. Many groups want to in-state a national language, English, in the United States.
The problem with this is the fact that there are indeed many perks of having a bilingual nation. For example, bilingual individuals can use their language skills to promote our business interests abroad. Their linguistic competence strengthens our foreign diplomatic missions and national defense. And they can better teach the rest of us to speak other languages.
Another factor that must be looked at before our country decides to enforce a language is the fact that the majority of other countries are at least bilingual, many are multilingual. Not only are other countries multilingual, but this country use to be. The different Native languages of this nation range in the hundreds.
Our country was founded on the premise that people of any race, creed, or culture could come here to escape persecution of their religion or culture. If we are taking away culture, why not instate Muslim as the national religion?
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
English only please
We live in a country founded by immigrants and in most cases the citizens of our country came here to escape persecution or simply to find the American dream. These one time immigrants and the cultures that they bring to our country are what makes America special. We are the most racially diverse country in the world and it is ignorant to think that America should have a national language.
Groups like U.S. English, English First, or the Official English movement think otherwise and support legislation that would make English the official American language. A national language for the U.S. does not make sense, because we live in a very diverse country. Majority of the countries around the world are multilingual, having two or more official languages. I mention this because unlike the United States of America, majority of these countries are inhabited by the same group of people that have been there for the last several hundred years: Guatemala, Mexico, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland, and many, many others. The groups that are promoting this legislation are simply too lazy to adapt to the changing world around them. It is arrogant of Americans to say that “this land is our land and this land is your land,” but only if you speak English. The English speaker in all of us needs to remember that we are not the only people in this country and it would be un-American to make English the official language. I for one do not want to see a sign posted on the Statue of Liberty that says, “English only please.”
Groups like U.S. English, English First, or the Official English movement think otherwise and support legislation that would make English the official American language. A national language for the U.S. does not make sense, because we live in a very diverse country. Majority of the countries around the world are multilingual, having two or more official languages. I mention this because unlike the United States of America, majority of these countries are inhabited by the same group of people that have been there for the last several hundred years: Guatemala, Mexico, Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Switzerland, and many, many others. The groups that are promoting this legislation are simply too lazy to adapt to the changing world around them. It is arrogant of Americans to say that “this land is our land and this land is your land,” but only if you speak English. The English speaker in all of us needs to remember that we are not the only people in this country and it would be un-American to make English the official language. I for one do not want to see a sign posted on the Statue of Liberty that says, “English only please.”
Habla me en English?
Does it really matter if a person living in an English speaking country speaks English? Some might say, “Yes”. If that is true, should all world travelers learn to speak foreign languages? Some might say, “No”, because someone there probably speaks English, so why bother?
So why is the dynamic different when “they” are in “English” territory? To understand this, a person must know the unwritten rule, which says, "if you come here to live, work or play… you better be able to talk the talk, or just stay home!"
When looking at the larger cities like New York, Atlanta, Los Angles and Chicago where there are many nationalities and cultures that seem to co-exist, does this rule still apply?
According to a recent article written by the Gold Coast Bulletin (Australia), entitled, “Speaking in Tongues”, it reports the US Census Bureau showing only one in four New Yorkers admiting he or she can’t speak English well. And on a national level 8.6 per cent of America’s 300 million residents over the age of five have problems with the English language.
In the same report, Roley Sussex, Professor of Applied Language Studies at the University of Queensland’s School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies says, “Of the languages spoken at home around the world, the most popular in order are Mandarin (Chinese), Spanish, Hindi and English.”
But what does that mean to Georgians? According to a report from the Georgia Census Bureau, conducted by the US Census Bureau, the population of Georgia totaled 8.8 million people as of July 2004. This ranks Georgia as the ninth most populated, with the Hispanic population at 6.1 percent, as of 2003, up from 1.6 percent in 1990. With regard to the Hispanic population this means--Georgia has gone from twentieth to tenth.
What this means in terms of time and money for the government is that the immigrant populations tend to place additional fiscal burdens on school systems since English language training and bilingual education programs must be provided in many cases.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, it costs an average 50 percent more to educate a non-English speaking child than an English-speaking one.
So, should English be required if a person lives, works or is educated in the United States? If time and money factor into the equation, the general consensus would probably be, “Yes”.
So why is the dynamic different when “they” are in “English” territory? To understand this, a person must know the unwritten rule, which says, "if you come here to live, work or play… you better be able to talk the talk, or just stay home!"
When looking at the larger cities like New York, Atlanta, Los Angles and Chicago where there are many nationalities and cultures that seem to co-exist, does this rule still apply?
According to a recent article written by the Gold Coast Bulletin (Australia), entitled, “Speaking in Tongues”, it reports the US Census Bureau showing only one in four New Yorkers admiting he or she can’t speak English well. And on a national level 8.6 per cent of America’s 300 million residents over the age of five have problems with the English language.
In the same report, Roley Sussex, Professor of Applied Language Studies at the University of Queensland’s School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies says, “Of the languages spoken at home around the world, the most popular in order are Mandarin (Chinese), Spanish, Hindi and English.”
But what does that mean to Georgians? According to a report from the Georgia Census Bureau, conducted by the US Census Bureau, the population of Georgia totaled 8.8 million people as of July 2004. This ranks Georgia as the ninth most populated, with the Hispanic population at 6.1 percent, as of 2003, up from 1.6 percent in 1990. With regard to the Hispanic population this means--Georgia has gone from twentieth to tenth.
What this means in terms of time and money for the government is that the immigrant populations tend to place additional fiscal burdens on school systems since English language training and bilingual education programs must be provided in many cases.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, it costs an average 50 percent more to educate a non-English speaking child than an English-speaking one.
So, should English be required if a person lives, works or is educated in the United States? If time and money factor into the equation, the general consensus would probably be, “Yes”.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
An Issue of Time
Imagine you moved to
What you have just imagined is what many people are proposing
That is what we are really dealing with here, a time issue. The children of foreign immigrants are learning English at school. The next generation after those children will have an even better understanding of English. Given time immigrant families will learn English. Do immigrants of this time period not deserve the same time allowances given to those in the past?
The ProEnglish official website states “the English fluency needed to succeed in our society.” Is that not why immigrants come to this country, to succeed in our society and our economy? If speaking English is indeed such a needed ability, then logically the people coming to this country, in order to improve their lives, will learn it. The legislation to make English America’s official language is unnecessary.
Public English
Many are surprised to find out that America does not have an official language. Debates have sprung up over the years about making English America’s official language but to no avail. While the nation as a whole has not declared English as its official language, 28 states have done so already. I believe that English should be adopted as America’s official language. An official language would give us as a nation the unity it so desperately needs. All this would mean is that all the official documents would be in English and all official ceremonies would take place in English.
There is much controversy surrounding this. Some people believe that immigrants should be able to speak their home language here in America. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to speak their native tongue but, if I go to live in another country I would not expect people to accommodate my language barrier. The same should be for here in America. People can still speak their language amongst themselves, but they should not expect people to accommodate them.
There are many holes in this plan though. Some areas have high concentrations of immigrants that do not speak English. It would be hard in these areas for the government to operate and everyday tasks to be completed. A solution to this would be to offer classes in that teach basic English. America needs an official language to tie us together and bring us unity.
There is much controversy surrounding this. Some people believe that immigrants should be able to speak their home language here in America. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to speak their native tongue but, if I go to live in another country I would not expect people to accommodate my language barrier. The same should be for here in America. People can still speak their language amongst themselves, but they should not expect people to accommodate them.
There are many holes in this plan though. Some areas have high concentrations of immigrants that do not speak English. It would be hard in these areas for the government to operate and everyday tasks to be completed. A solution to this would be to offer classes in that teach basic English. America needs an official language to tie us together and bring us unity.
Unite America
While many people including well known politicians are against making English the official language of America. I think that American English is a diverse enough language as it is. Making English the official language of America can only make things better. This will force immigrants to learn the language and will help bring the country together, while getting rid of all the confusion us Americans have when encountering someone who lives here, but speaks another language.
On the state level 27 states have adopted English as the official language of the state, while in the past six years seven other states have put in a piece of legislation to make English the official language. Georgia is one of the seven states that are trying to pass a bill that would make English the language of the state.
Coming from Cherokee County I know of this firsthand; Last December Cherokee County made English the official language of the county and it is illegal to have any signs or advertisements in Spanish. Cherokee County also has the second largest population of Hispanics in the state of Georgia trailing only Hall County. If a county with a Hispanic population as large as Cherokee’s can adopt English as the official language, then why can’t this country?
On the state level 27 states have adopted English as the official language of the state, while in the past six years seven other states have put in a piece of legislation to make English the official language. Georgia is one of the seven states that are trying to pass a bill that would make English the language of the state.
Coming from Cherokee County I know of this firsthand; Last December Cherokee County made English the official language of the county and it is illegal to have any signs or advertisements in Spanish. Cherokee County also has the second largest population of Hispanics in the state of Georgia trailing only Hall County. If a county with a Hispanic population as large as Cherokee’s can adopt English as the official language, then why can’t this country?
Our very roots
You mean to tell me we have groups like U.S. English, an advocate group for “Official English", but we do not have groups working to solve the real problem of illegal immigration? There are actually people wasting our time and tax money trying to push English as the official language and how sad is that?
Here's the truth. America is a country of so many different cultures, religions and people. What kind of an American is a person who tries to force people into just one language? That's no American at all. Look, I understand that English is the dominant language of our society and that we should look to open more avenues to people who cannot speak it to learn how to do so. However, we must not begin to force anything like this upon the citizens of our society.
Would you enjoy it if suddenly at school they said you can no longer wear your favorite team's colors and that you must wear colors they choose? Of course you wouldn't. How much would you like it if the government showed up at your church and shut it down because you're not Catholic? Probably not a whole lot. If you go to Mexico, do you think the government makes you speak Spanish-only? No, you must adapt to their culture as they must adapt to our own. There is no need for force on such a petty issue.
Here's the truth. America is a country of so many different cultures, religions and people. What kind of an American is a person who tries to force people into just one language? That's no American at all. Look, I understand that English is the dominant language of our society and that we should look to open more avenues to people who cannot speak it to learn how to do so. However, we must not begin to force anything like this upon the citizens of our society.
Would you enjoy it if suddenly at school they said you can no longer wear your favorite team's colors and that you must wear colors they choose? Of course you wouldn't. How much would you like it if the government showed up at your church and shut it down because you're not Catholic? Probably not a whole lot. If you go to Mexico, do you think the government makes you speak Spanish-only? No, you must adapt to their culture as they must adapt to our own. There is no need for force on such a petty issue.
English: The Language of a Melting Pot
The United States is commonly referred to as a melting pot. From its birth, the United States supported immigration, becoming a refuge for people under religious, economical, and political persecution. These immigrants arrived from lands across the globe speaking a variety of languages. However, the normal mindsets of these people groups designated English as the accepted language of the United States, one that needed to be learned to function in their new setting.
Since that time, immigration has increased and the view of English as the accepted national language has changed. According to the Yearbook of Immigration statistics, in 2005 1,122,373 immigrants entered the United States. 52, 636 of these travelers come from Central American countries, 382,744 are from Asia, and 180,499 are from various European countries. Consequently, emphasis is being placed on officially adopting more languages into American society. In one respect, this would promote recognition and respect for other cultures. On the other hand, it might maintain confusion and disarray.
The United States has always prided itself on its population of people with culturally diverse backgrounds. As common citizens, however, Americans need to connect through one language. The United States should adopt English as its official language. This action would serve to unify the diversity of people into one common group. What is a melting pot, after all, but an assortment of metals merging to form one common material?
Since that time, immigration has increased and the view of English as the accepted national language has changed. According to the Yearbook of Immigration statistics, in 2005 1,122,373 immigrants entered the United States. 52, 636 of these travelers come from Central American countries, 382,744 are from Asia, and 180,499 are from various European countries. Consequently, emphasis is being placed on officially adopting more languages into American society. In one respect, this would promote recognition and respect for other cultures. On the other hand, it might maintain confusion and disarray.
The United States has always prided itself on its population of people with culturally diverse backgrounds. As common citizens, however, Americans need to connect through one language. The United States should adopt English as its official language. This action would serve to unify the diversity of people into one common group. What is a melting pot, after all, but an assortment of metals merging to form one common material?
Bring Our Country Closer
The United States has never had an official language. The “English-Only” movement began in 1981 when a man named Samuel Ichiye Hayakawa, an immigrant himself, sponsored a constitutional amendment to make English the official language. This is a continuing battle that should be taken seriously. The United States is primarily an English speaking country, therefore, we should declare it officially.
Coming from a family of immigrants myself, I know first hand that the United States is a “melting pot,” comprised of many different cultures and languages. In 1948 my grandmother moved to the United States from Colombia, this was also the year she learned to speak English. Immigrants in today’s society seem to be very different. Immigrants are living here for years and never learning to speak English, and never having to. The formation of sub-cultures is overwhelming, and the lack of integration into our society is dividing this country.
Declaring English as an official language of the United States would not take away people’s right to speak any language they want. Spanish is often the chosen language among my family inside and outside our homes. It would however, allow Americans of different backgrounds to communicate, understand each other, and overcome differences.
Coming from a family of immigrants myself, I know first hand that the United States is a “melting pot,” comprised of many different cultures and languages. In 1948 my grandmother moved to the United States from Colombia, this was also the year she learned to speak English. Immigrants in today’s society seem to be very different. Immigrants are living here for years and never learning to speak English, and never having to. The formation of sub-cultures is overwhelming, and the lack of integration into our society is dividing this country.
Declaring English as an official language of the United States would not take away people’s right to speak any language they want. Spanish is often the chosen language among my family inside and outside our homes. It would however, allow Americans of different backgrounds to communicate, understand each other, and overcome differences.
America Shouldn't Control The Language
No habla Inglés.
In many parts of the United States, one might hear this phrase in schools, restaurants, and other locations. Many people, including former President Theodore Roosevelt, see this as anti-American. On the other hand are those of us who feel that the United States should not be dominated by one style of thinking, and therefore one style of communicating.
Many advocates including U.S. English, an advocate group for “Official English,” support the English-Only movement to make English the official language of the United States. Legally, America has no official language, English is only official de facto, in other words all government business is conducted in English.
America is mostly made up of immigrants, or descendents or immigrants. Why should the American government decide which immigrated language should be the one spoken in America? From my own visits out of the country, I realized how lucky I was to speak a language that is fairly well known.
People in America, especially citizens should be given the respect of that feeling of security. American should be allowed to speak any language they choose, even at government institutions. Also, if all languages were allowed, Americans could become fluent in multiple languages and therefore be more educated and could communicate with many people.
If the government limits what languages we can speak, how can one not expect the same government not to limit the ways that we think? The government grants us the freedom of speech, why can it not be in the language of our own choice.
In many parts of the United States, one might hear this phrase in schools, restaurants, and other locations. Many people, including former President Theodore Roosevelt, see this as anti-American. On the other hand are those of us who feel that the United States should not be dominated by one style of thinking, and therefore one style of communicating.
Many advocates including U.S. English, an advocate group for “Official English,” support the English-Only movement to make English the official language of the United States. Legally, America has no official language, English is only official de facto, in other words all government business is conducted in English.
America is mostly made up of immigrants, or descendents or immigrants. Why should the American government decide which immigrated language should be the one spoken in America? From my own visits out of the country, I realized how lucky I was to speak a language that is fairly well known.
People in America, especially citizens should be given the respect of that feeling of security. American should be allowed to speak any language they choose, even at government institutions. Also, if all languages were allowed, Americans could become fluent in multiple languages and therefore be more educated and could communicate with many people.
If the government limits what languages we can speak, how can one not expect the same government not to limit the ways that we think? The government grants us the freedom of speech, why can it not be in the language of our own choice.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Assignment Due Wednesday, Jan. 31
Should the United States adopt English as its official language? Remember to do your research and consider all the pros and cons before giving your opinion and supporting it with factual information.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Up the creek
For college students around the state of Georgia, Sunday has been a day that can be compared to being caught up the river without a paddle. I say this because in the state of Georgia it is illegal to purchase alcohol on Sundays.
Help might just be on the way for those of legal age who forgot what their scoutmasters told them, because the Georgia state legislature is currently discussing a bill that would lift the Sunday ban on the sell of alcohol. Currently alcohol sales are only permitted at locations where food is also served.
The main problem that I have with the Sunday ban on alcohol sales is that, it is based on religious beliefs. The United States constitution says that there should be a separation of church and state. So why is it okay, in southern states especially, to have laws such as the Sunday alcohol ban?
Some Georgians have shown that they are ready for a change in a recent poll in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, when 68 percent of the people polled were in support of the passing of the new bill. It is time for Georgia to move into the 21 century and stop enforcing the ideals of a single religion on to everyone else.
Help might just be on the way for those of legal age who forgot what their scoutmasters told them, because the Georgia state legislature is currently discussing a bill that would lift the Sunday ban on the sell of alcohol. Currently alcohol sales are only permitted at locations where food is also served.
The main problem that I have with the Sunday ban on alcohol sales is that, it is based on religious beliefs. The United States constitution says that there should be a separation of church and state. So why is it okay, in southern states especially, to have laws such as the Sunday alcohol ban?
Some Georgians have shown that they are ready for a change in a recent poll in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, when 68 percent of the people polled were in support of the passing of the new bill. It is time for Georgia to move into the 21 century and stop enforcing the ideals of a single religion on to everyone else.
We're drunk the other 6 days...
Conneticut, Indiana and Georgia.
Those are the final 3 states in the United States of America that uphold what are called "blue" laws which prohibit the distribution of alcohol on Sundays. These laws date back into the first days of this young nation when religious freedom was the staple our society was to be built upon.
So fast forward a little over 300 years to 2007. There are still deep-rooted traditions in religion that cause these laws to exist. What is the harm of selling beer or liquor on Sundays? A good portion of our society is drunk every other day of the week so what's the harm in selling to them on Sunday? It could mean more revenue, especially with Sundays being a huge attraction in the sporting world. Look at the fastest growing sport in the world, NASCAR. What is a NASCAR race without a few beers and friends? What is an NFL game without some food and maybe a drink or two? Hey, I am a fan of the Falcons, Hawks, Braves and Thrashers. Sometimes those teams play on Sunday and we all know how crappy pretty much all those teams tend to be. A beer or a hard drink never hurts when you're a fan of Atlanta sports.
I say it's time we boot these laws and give selling alcohol on Sundays at least a shot. After all, I don't think anyone is going to hell for having a drink or two while they rest.
Those are the final 3 states in the United States of America that uphold what are called "blue" laws which prohibit the distribution of alcohol on Sundays. These laws date back into the first days of this young nation when religious freedom was the staple our society was to be built upon.
So fast forward a little over 300 years to 2007. There are still deep-rooted traditions in religion that cause these laws to exist. What is the harm of selling beer or liquor on Sundays? A good portion of our society is drunk every other day of the week so what's the harm in selling to them on Sunday? It could mean more revenue, especially with Sundays being a huge attraction in the sporting world. Look at the fastest growing sport in the world, NASCAR. What is a NASCAR race without a few beers and friends? What is an NFL game without some food and maybe a drink or two? Hey, I am a fan of the Falcons, Hawks, Braves and Thrashers. Sometimes those teams play on Sunday and we all know how crappy pretty much all those teams tend to be. A beer or a hard drink never hurts when you're a fan of Atlanta sports.
I say it's time we boot these laws and give selling alcohol on Sundays at least a shot. After all, I don't think anyone is going to hell for having a drink or two while they rest.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Beer on Sundays: Why not?
In 1617 the state of Virginia enacted America’s first “Blue Law”. This act required all citizens to attend church. Now we stand almost 400 years later and still many states have these “Blue Laws”. States such as Texas have a ban on selling cars on Sunday, while others like Georgia and South Carolina have bans on the sale of alcohol. These laws are far outdated and in New York and Connecticut courts have declared these laws unconstitutional.
With Sunday now being the second busiest shopping day of the week it doesn’t seem to make sense to keep up these bans. Secondly the states that do have alcohol sales on Sunday report increased revenue without having increases in drunk driving and underage drinking according to the Toronto News.
Many people wish to see these bans removed so that they can enjoy alcohol on Sundays without having to stock up the night before. With many major sporting events taking place on Sundays such as the NFL and NASCAR, both of which have major beer companies as sponsors, many fans would like to have a drink, but they can’t. Atlanta Falcons fan Jimmy McGuigan says, “I like to have a beer while I watch the Falcons, but I don’t always remember to buy it the day before. It would just be easier for everyone if they lifted the ban.”
The main question we need to ask is why doesn’t the federal government take control of this law? Thus making it either legal or illegal to buy in every state, this way there is some order to this outdated law.
With Sunday now being the second busiest shopping day of the week it doesn’t seem to make sense to keep up these bans. Secondly the states that do have alcohol sales on Sunday report increased revenue without having increases in drunk driving and underage drinking according to the Toronto News.
Many people wish to see these bans removed so that they can enjoy alcohol on Sundays without having to stock up the night before. With many major sporting events taking place on Sundays such as the NFL and NASCAR, both of which have major beer companies as sponsors, many fans would like to have a drink, but they can’t. Atlanta Falcons fan Jimmy McGuigan says, “I like to have a beer while I watch the Falcons, but I don’t always remember to buy it the day before. It would just be easier for everyone if they lifted the ban.”
The main question we need to ask is why doesn’t the federal government take control of this law? Thus making it either legal or illegal to buy in every state, this way there is some order to this outdated law.
Free Sunday
The ban of selling alcohol on Sundays is outdated. No alcohol on Sunday is one law in a series of laws called “blue laws.” Other “blue laws” include no traveling on Sunday, no sweeping your house on Sunday, and even no cutting your hair on Sunday. Obviously these laws are no longer practiced. Since World War II, women entered the manufacturing sector, this was the beginning of the deterioration of laws which made Sunday a day of rest.
This kind of law is clearly based on religion, therefore, the ban of buying and selling alcohol is a contradiction of separation of church and state. In the United States of America people are free to practice any religion they want, believe anything they want, and practice their own traditions. In a country which was founded and established with a document called the Constitution, citizens have these rights protected by the first amendment. The United States of America is often referred to as a “melting pot.” This means that our society is made of many different races, religions, and ethnicities. How then, can a law based on religion, such as a “blue law,” not be unconstitutional?
It is a fact, however, laws such as the ban of alcohol on Sundays are often based on resident of constituency. People vote on these issues and people put these laws into action. According to an article written by Mark Meltzer for the Atlanta Business Chronicle, “last year, a bill that would have allowed sale of upscale, higher-alcohol beer was amended to allow Sunday sales. But it was overwhelmingly rejected.” My conclusion is directed to those who voted against lifting the ban of alcohol sales on Sunday; if it is against your morality to drink alcohol on Sunday, then don’t. But who, in this free country, has the right to tell another that they should practice the same? The answer is nobody.
This kind of law is clearly based on religion, therefore, the ban of buying and selling alcohol is a contradiction of separation of church and state. In the United States of America people are free to practice any religion they want, believe anything they want, and practice their own traditions. In a country which was founded and established with a document called the Constitution, citizens have these rights protected by the first amendment. The United States of America is often referred to as a “melting pot.” This means that our society is made of many different races, religions, and ethnicities. How then, can a law based on religion, such as a “blue law,” not be unconstitutional?
It is a fact, however, laws such as the ban of alcohol on Sundays are often based on resident of constituency. People vote on these issues and people put these laws into action. According to an article written by Mark Meltzer for the Atlanta Business Chronicle, “last year, a bill that would have allowed sale of upscale, higher-alcohol beer was amended to allow Sunday sales. But it was overwhelmingly rejected.” My conclusion is directed to those who voted against lifting the ban of alcohol sales on Sunday; if it is against your morality to drink alcohol on Sunday, then don’t. But who, in this free country, has the right to tell another that they should practice the same? The answer is nobody.
Blue Law Leaves Public Blue
A glass of wine with Sunday dinner at the local restaurant; many people consider this just normal behavior. However, if you would like to have that same glass of wine at home, you may run into a problem. The problem being you would need to buy that wine on Saturday.
This law was passed at a time when most of the United States of America was Christian. The fact is that times are changing and America has to change with the times. A religious stance is simply not enough to reinforce a law when we live in a country with freedom of religion.
In the end it is up to the people, and the representatives of those people, who live in
“No drinking on Sunday,” said Mary Beth Williams, an opponent of lifting the limit. However, like many of her view, she could not state a reason, other than religion, why the limit should be left in place. This also brings to mind the fact that just because a person cannot buy the alcohol on Sunday does not mean a person will not drink on Sunday.
I believe the point I am trying to make can best be summed up with the view of another Piedmont student, Paul Meier. He remarked that if a Muslim can worship on a Friday, and we can all buy liquor on a Friday, and a Jewish person can worship on Saturday, and we can buy liquor on Saturday; why then can we not buy liquor on Sunday because the Christian faith worships on Sunday?
The Georgia Blue Law is an outdated and religiously biased piece of legislator which many people, even of the Christian faith, do not agree with. The limit should therefore be lifted, and equality granted to all faiths by doing so.
Times are Changing
Sunday is reported to be the second busiest shopping day of the week in every state in America. However, in the state of Georgia, Sunday customers intending to pick up any type of alcohol while on their outing are out of luck. The state of Georgia has strict policies which state that prohibits citizens from purchasing beer, wine, and liquor on Sundays. This law came about during the 1800s when people generally had more conservative views on the Sabbath and keeping the day holy. People's days consisted of going to church, and then staying home for the remainder of the day. However, times have definitly changed; in today's time, many people prefer to stay busy on Sundays by shopping, excercising, or even working. This gives stores which sell alcohol a big incentive to sell alcohol because people are out and would willingly pay for it just as they would any other day; whereas a long time ago, no one was out on Sundays, and most stores were closed anyhow.
Keeping Sundays holy is a Christian belief and the United States is continuing to grow in religious diversity. Though some Christians may view Sunday as a special day of the week, Muslims don't see Sunday any different from any other day; just as Jews do not see Christmas day any differently then the day before. It is unfair to tell a Muslim he may not buy alcohol because it is Sunday, those words mean nothing to him.
The state of Georgia should turn from their out-dated ways of thinking and change some of the traditional laws that do not make sense in today's world. Stores would profit greatly if customers could purchase alcohol and people would not be inconvienced into running out to the store another day of the week when Sunday is their day off. Besides, imagine how much business liquor stores and stores selling alcohol would recieve if alcohol could be sold on Superbowl Sunday!
Keeping Sundays holy is a Christian belief and the United States is continuing to grow in religious diversity. Though some Christians may view Sunday as a special day of the week, Muslims don't see Sunday any different from any other day; just as Jews do not see Christmas day any differently then the day before. It is unfair to tell a Muslim he may not buy alcohol because it is Sunday, those words mean nothing to him.
The state of Georgia should turn from their out-dated ways of thinking and change some of the traditional laws that do not make sense in today's world. Stores would profit greatly if customers could purchase alcohol and people would not be inconvienced into running out to the store another day of the week when Sunday is their day off. Besides, imagine how much business liquor stores and stores selling alcohol would recieve if alcohol could be sold on Superbowl Sunday!
Monday, January 15, 2007
Lift that Ban!
In the past, the federal government has not done too well with attempting to control alcohol, so what makes the state of Georgia think they can do a better job? The question is not about whether the state should ban alcohol on a religious day, but is instead why should the state have control? These questions bring about a need for change: the General Assembly should lift the ban on alcohol sales on Sunday.
The foremost reason to lift the ban is because there is no good reason to have it in the first place. The ban originated in the 1800s when many states were restricting what their citizens could do on Sundays. The reasoning was that Sunday is reserved to be the day of God. According to the decision of Everson v. Board of Education, the establishment clause of the First Amendment states that no federal or state government can “influence him [a person] to profess a belief in any religion.” While the ban is not a direct denial of the rights of the first amendment, it surely influences the practice of Sunday being the day of God.
Another reason to lift the ban is that since we can already purchase drinks of wine or beer at restaurants why are we not allowed to buy a bottle and drink it in the comforts of our own home.
Some people have proposed solutions of allowing the decision to be made by county or local governments. The entire problem could be solved simply by lifting the ban on purchasing alcohol on Sundays. Lift that ban!
The foremost reason to lift the ban is because there is no good reason to have it in the first place. The ban originated in the 1800s when many states were restricting what their citizens could do on Sundays. The reasoning was that Sunday is reserved to be the day of God. According to the decision of Everson v. Board of Education, the establishment clause of the First Amendment states that no federal or state government can “influence him [a person] to profess a belief in any religion.” While the ban is not a direct denial of the rights of the first amendment, it surely influences the practice of Sunday being the day of God.
Another reason to lift the ban is that since we can already purchase drinks of wine or beer at restaurants why are we not allowed to buy a bottle and drink it in the comforts of our own home.
Some people have proposed solutions of allowing the decision to be made by county or local governments. The entire problem could be solved simply by lifting the ban on purchasing alcohol on Sundays. Lift that ban!
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Convenience verses Conviction
One of the many traditions passed down by the early American settlers was that alcohol is the “good gift of God” to be used and enjoyed by all, including small children. But this tradition quickly faded and Prohibition took its place by claiming alcohol was the cause for all poverty, crime, and violence in existence.
These ideas of the past have made many today still fearful and hostile toward alcohol beverages. Laws which govern who drinks and when is not a result of science, logic, or evidence, but from a continuing tug-of-war between those who wish to use alcohol beverages and those who don’t want them to.
Recently an editorial in the Atlanta Journal, by columnist, Cynthia Tucker, brought this controversial debate to the surface. She stated, “Because of the influence that religious conservatives wield over the Georgia General Assembly, most observers believe there’s little hope this year for a proposal allowing local communities to vote on Sunday sales of beer and wine by the bottle.”
In the editorial a recent poll of Georgians estimated an overall 58 percent in favor of allowing local communities to decide whether to let their stores sell beer and wine on Sundays.
Currently, Georgia is one of three states—others are Connecticut and Indiana—that still upholds the “Blue Laws” which does not allow alcohol to be sold. Many feel this is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The first blue law in the American colonies was enacted in Virginia in 1617. It required church attendance and authorized the militia to force colonist to attend church services. The blue laws also protected Christian business owners from competition on their Sabbath by restricting the activities or sales of goods.
But in today’s society some say it is hypocritical to allow a restaurant or bar to serve a glass of wine when the liquor store nearby cannot sell it by the bottle. They argue also that someone drinking in a bar is more apt to drive drunk than someone having a private drink at home.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving takes no position on Sunday sales legislation. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States said that in the past three years alone, 12 states have loosened their laws to permit the Sunday sale of liquor.
Jim Tudor, who heads the Georgia Association of Convenience Store Owners, said the issue is about local control. “People are wringing their hands as if alcohol is going to be flowing in the streets,” Tudor said. “But really its about giving local residents a choice about what they want.”
A Georgia legislator who spoke under the condition of anonymity suggested that the court may be the only option to fight this law:
“We’ve learned from the unpopularity of blue laws that very few people are in favor of the law. However, it’s not enough of an imposition that they take the energy to fight the law. The supporters, however, are rabid, and will withhold their vote, as a group, from any politician who endorses the end of blue laws.”
In the days ahead as the battle over “the bottle” brings heated debate from both sides of the issue, the new legislative session will work to keep all Georgia voters on their side.
These ideas of the past have made many today still fearful and hostile toward alcohol beverages. Laws which govern who drinks and when is not a result of science, logic, or evidence, but from a continuing tug-of-war between those who wish to use alcohol beverages and those who don’t want them to.
Recently an editorial in the Atlanta Journal, by columnist, Cynthia Tucker, brought this controversial debate to the surface. She stated, “Because of the influence that religious conservatives wield over the Georgia General Assembly, most observers believe there’s little hope this year for a proposal allowing local communities to vote on Sunday sales of beer and wine by the bottle.”
In the editorial a recent poll of Georgians estimated an overall 58 percent in favor of allowing local communities to decide whether to let their stores sell beer and wine on Sundays.
Currently, Georgia is one of three states—others are Connecticut and Indiana—that still upholds the “Blue Laws” which does not allow alcohol to be sold. Many feel this is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
The first blue law in the American colonies was enacted in Virginia in 1617. It required church attendance and authorized the militia to force colonist to attend church services. The blue laws also protected Christian business owners from competition on their Sabbath by restricting the activities or sales of goods.
But in today’s society some say it is hypocritical to allow a restaurant or bar to serve a glass of wine when the liquor store nearby cannot sell it by the bottle. They argue also that someone drinking in a bar is more apt to drive drunk than someone having a private drink at home.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving takes no position on Sunday sales legislation. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States said that in the past three years alone, 12 states have loosened their laws to permit the Sunday sale of liquor.
Jim Tudor, who heads the Georgia Association of Convenience Store Owners, said the issue is about local control. “People are wringing their hands as if alcohol is going to be flowing in the streets,” Tudor said. “But really its about giving local residents a choice about what they want.”
A Georgia legislator who spoke under the condition of anonymity suggested that the court may be the only option to fight this law:
“We’ve learned from the unpopularity of blue laws that very few people are in favor of the law. However, it’s not enough of an imposition that they take the energy to fight the law. The supporters, however, are rabid, and will withhold their vote, as a group, from any politician who endorses the end of blue laws.”
In the days ahead as the battle over “the bottle” brings heated debate from both sides of the issue, the new legislative session will work to keep all Georgia voters on their side.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Assignment Due 1/17/07
Blog Post #1:
Do you think the Georgia legislature should end the state ban on Sunday sales of alcoholic beverages? Research this topic, give your opinion, and back up your opinion with facts and direct quotes. Use the skills you've learned in class so far, including lead writing, proper grammar and style, use of quotes, attribution and strong endings. A good guideline for the length of your response is 250 words, however, you may go longer or shorter if your content justifies it. (And no, I am not going to actually count the words.)
Please post your response by clicking on "New Post" located at the top of the blog page. A new window will open up for you to type your response. When you're finished, click on the orange "publish" button.
Do you think the Georgia legislature should end the state ban on Sunday sales of alcoholic beverages? Research this topic, give your opinion, and back up your opinion with facts and direct quotes. Use the skills you've learned in class so far, including lead writing, proper grammar and style, use of quotes, attribution and strong endings. A good guideline for the length of your response is 250 words, however, you may go longer or shorter if your content justifies it. (And no, I am not going to actually count the words.)
Please post your response by clicking on "New Post" located at the top of the blog page. A new window will open up for you to type your response. When you're finished, click on the orange "publish" button.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Welcome
Welcome to the blog for MCOM 220 Writing for Newspapers and Magazines, Spring 2007. This is where you find your blogging assignments and post your responses. To view blogs written by previous classes, see http://220fall06.blogspot.com http://mcom220.blogspot.com and http://simon220.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)