« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

On Separation of Church & State: Christine O’Donnell is Right

By: Mary Catherine "radicallyright" Sibley (Diary)  |  October 21st, 2010 at 11:32 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Fronted by Erick.

Christine O’Donnell might not be the model candidate.  She has made more than her share or errors, but as the Senator from Delaware, she will not disappoint.  She will vote with Jim DeMint, will be the first pro-life female Senator who is not afraid to own it and will not spend our money like it’s her own.  I know she has fumbled a few times, but she did not fumble by denying the concept of separation of church and state.  It is not and cannot be found in the Constitution.

After Tuesday’s debate, leftist pundits, including Larry King, trounced on her because she questioned Coon’s statement about whether the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.  The First Amendment requires a number of things that are ignored, separation of church and state is not one of them.  History simply does not support it.

One of the initial acts of the first congress was to print bibles.  The God that Larry King and I’m sure the other commentators on MSNBC think should not be talked about, but one that O’Donnell believes in, is represented in the bibles ordered to be printed by the Congress.  If the Congress printed bibles as an initial act, with government money, how were the two separated?

Separation of church and state evolved from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists – a group of constituents.   Jefferson did not participate in drafting the constitution and was not a signatory.   Jefferson was basically a modern day blogger.  Given that the concept developed way after the convention, it has about as much constitutional merit as Roe v. Wade.

If these liberal “historians” were honest, they would be attacking Coons and the activist courts, not O’Donnell.  The truth is, even Jefferson did not believe in the separation of church and state.  In writing the letter to the Danbury Baptists, President Jefferson was actually explaining that he had no intention on establishing a national religion and that he would not interfere with the ability of the Danbury Baptists to worship the deity of their choice.  Jefferson’s view of the First Amendment was that it was designed to prevent the federal government from interfering with the affairs of the church as King George III had.  His Second Inaugural Address makes this concept very clear:

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.

Instead of promoting the separation of church and state, history shows that the church was very much part of the state.  Congress opened its initial meeting with prayer and subsequently hired a priest.  Jefferson himself attended church in the Capitol Rotunda and even advocated for the following as the seal of the United States: “Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . .”

Over the last twenty years, the courts have stopped all prayer in public schools, prohibited the display of the Ten Commandments and stopped children from reading the bible in public schools.  This is what the First Amendment was designed to prohibit.  It was never intended to create a wall of separation between church and state.  Read the Mayflower Compact: the Pilgrims made the journey “for the Glory of God,” not to separate the church from the state, but for the right to live in the state and practice their religion.

The Investment Business Daily got it right: Decrees of Separation.  Instead of laughing at O’Donnell and questioning her intellect, some of these leftist elitists need to read the Constitution again or for the first time.

Larry King and the others are hostile to any public profession of faith and they seem to be more likely to worship secularism than God.  They are clearly hostile to the true meaning of the Constitution.   O’Donnell as imperfect as she is, wants so come to Washington and shake things up.  She will not shake up the Constitution though; she will actually adhere to it.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/ kilowattradio

    With O’Donnell almost 20 points down in the polls R’s & RS should just throw in the towel on her candidacy. Face it her “I’m not a witch” ad has done her in for voters in middle of the road Delaware. Concentrate on candidates where R’s have a good chance of winning, like Dudley in Oregon & Paul in Kentucky. Rove was right about her candidacy. IMHO.

    • Brian Hibbert

      My guess is Eyeore.

      • http://restorationary.wordpress.com Restorationary

        I guess by wearing Nike sneakers, I’m “establishing” a sneaker company? Since when did establish mean to display, teach or allow.

        http://restorationary.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/tear-down-that-wall/

      • acat

        My guess is Keith is rather confused about the nature of the battle – yes, Keith, battle – and needs to go read V.B.

        There is no downside to staying in this, or any other race. The marxists won’t suddenly love us, or even respect us if we quit. The Dems won’t reach across the aisle and help us push our agenda if we give up. If we throw the towel, we just make it easier for them to enact their agenda, putting us, and all future Americans in government-issue shackles.

        Mew

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

      Rasmussen was 11 down last Friday, let’s see if any new movement. Cook has likely Democrat, not solid. RPC is older data. But certainly uphill for O’Donnell to move over two categories to at least toss up in 11 days.

  • Donald Ayotte

    Most people in the conservative and even some democrats that have been taking a look at this First Amendment issue with the seperation of church and state agree with O’Donnell
    I certainly agree with here after reading much on the issue for the last two days. Of course what bothers me most about the far left on this issue, is that they are teaching our young impressionable children these things in school, along with their false version of history.

  • norfolker

    Amendment I

    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.

    I read the first amendment for the first time after watching the gasps of the legal minds on television.

    Well. First amendment was not written in latin or in Sanskrit. It is plain English. English is not my first language and the bleeding heart liberals should not blame me for finding literal meaning.

    To my understanding there is no separation between church and the state, but a separation between congressional law making and the religion.

    Say if I am taking TOEFL, GRE or something of that kind, if first amendment is the passage in the reading or listening comprehension, I would be selecting the answer that is not meaning
    there is separation between church and state.

    For that matter it is there and everywhere “In God We Trust”.

    For people “In Weed We Trust” may definitely need to gasp. For Christine O’Donnell she got it right.

    To me Supreme Court intepretation is unconstitutional because First Amendment prevents only Congress from enacting laws respecting a region or prohibiting a religion. First Amendment does not ban the religion from the government and therefore the removal of the Cross from College of William and Mary may be unconstituitional and Cross can be on the public grounds because it is not a law respecting religion as long as the public ground is not under the purview of congress.

    College of William and Mary may be state institution and court interfering into States rights where in the First Amendment explicitly prohifits the prohibition of free expression of religion.

  • merryj1

    That the Founders properly refused to endorse any specific “state religion” — such as the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist, Lutheran or Episcopalian persuasion of Christianity, or Judaism, or Budhism or Islam — does not imply an endorsement or expectation of secularism or atheism. Several early states, including the State of Massachusetts, did have an “official” state religion; that was NOT prohibited (nor even discouraged) by the First Amendment. The ONLY prohibition was against federal alignment with any specific religious body because of the coercive nature of such an endorsement.

    Leftists have made a cottage industry of belittling the intellectual capacity of anyone to the Right of Joe Stalin since before their “amiable dunce” allegations about Ronald Reagan — regardless of the comparative IQ deficiencies of the respective opponents of their targets. Even Barry Goldwater once complained to his running mate that “they’re (the pundits) only accusing LBJ of being a crook – they’re calling US stupid.”

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/david.dlpe daviddlpe

    Progressives/Liberals have almost hijacked this phrase and perverted its meaning. We must push back – HARD!

    The wall of separation Jefferson spoke of was intended to protect Christianity, not government. In fact, it was so well understood that America is a Christian nation that there was a battle underway to decide which brand of Christianity would become the national religion…

    In a letter dated September 23, 1800, addressed to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson shed more light on the clarity of his position:

    “I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot shewed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro

  • Adjoran

    to explain why you are right.

    The problem lies in the rather pathetic way she explained her position.

    Or, failed to explain it at all in a clear and forceful way which would have shut up the audience, Coons, and his teammates the “moderators.”

  • grout

    link?

  • rfpzzzzz

    The charming woman who was the face of the removal of prayer from school in the ’60s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

  • powertothepeople

    after three years plus and the entire post, this was all that stuck out to you? The bubble you live in must be an amazing place if you have not seen or heard about all the times the Bible, reading the Bible, or just carrying the Bible has been attacked. But since you asked…..

    Abington School District v. Schempp

    Stone v. Graham

    Wallace v. Jaffree

    Lee v. Weisman

    Santa Fe Ind. School District v. Doe

    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/sep/29/cheerleaders-religious-signs-draw-fire/

    http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features-the-religion-world/2010/07/01/florida-school-district-bans-bibles-on-religious-freedom-day/

    http://radio.foxnews.com/2010/01/06/bibles-banned-in-bible-belt/#axzz1346sQAhx

    http://www.adherents.com/misc/school_houston.html

    The Bible, reading the Bible, prayer, distribution of Bible material and or Bibles has been under constant attack. Even after rulings from the Supreme court allowing these activities, the attacks continue. You may find it ludicrous in your bubble world, but bans against all that is Christian happen all the time in our schools.

  • skorrent1

    Print bibles, but also they built chapels on military bases and funded chaplains for the army the better to effect the “free exercise” of religion.

    Not enough emphasis is placed on the ordinal importance of the liberties enumerated in the 1st A. After the strict prohibition against imposing a single set of religious beliefs, it sets forth the primary freedom — to express without restriction whatever the individual holds to be his most fundimental and significant beliefs regarding his life, for that’s what religion is. To have freedom to speak about everything except what is most important in your life is surely no freedom at all. To write, assemble or petition for good or just laws is surely limited if you are prohibited from expressing what leads you to consider them “good” or “just”.

    As government extends its presence ever more into society through ownership and control, it is reversing the emphasis of the founders by placing more and more restrictions on the “free exercise” of religion. Just because the government “owns” schools, parks, post offices and court houses, as they “own” roads, it does not mean they are enforcing the ideas expressed therein any more than that they are endorsing every product carried on the road. The idea that government “allowing” the individual expression of religion is the same as government “enforcing” a particular religion is as phony as holding that a tax cut “costs” the government money.

    There’s something wrong with a country that celebrates the prayer of Washington with his troops, but prohibits a coach from bowing his head while his team prays.

  • heir2freedom

    Right next to the abortion and the gay marriage amendments.

    NEW POST:

    IS JOY BEHAR REALLY A CLOSET LESBIAN?
    http://heir2freedom.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-joy-behar-really-closet-lesbian.html

  • grout

    The truth is strong enough without embellishment. “Stopped children from reading” is rather different from “stopped schools from sponsoring children’s reading.” Which seems to be the order in Abington. Similarly, Wallace did not forbid prayer, but forbade the use of state power to arrange it. Lee and Santa Fe forbade the leading of group prayer at school events arranged by state authority … the latter by students, but it’s easy to see how a student could be used as a stalking horse given the restrictions in Lee.

    Meanwhile, Stone v. Graham is again a case of limiting state sponsored action, in that case, of posting the Ten Commandments in schools — places where children are forced to go, by the state.

    The rest of the stories aren’t about court decisions, which was the topic at hand. I could discuss them as well, if permitted.

  • BradE

    As Sect Rumsfelt said: “you fight your war with the army you have.” I would add: “not the army you are dreaming of.” There has never been, in my estimation, a perfect candidate; but I may yet run for something;)

    It it any surprise that Christine O

  • JadedByPolitics

    NOPE we do not! Joy Behar is a leftist and in such must be made a pariah on that fact alone NO ONE cares what she does in her bedroom!

  • Libertarian Republican

    I’d love to have a truce with you of faith. I could care less if you erect a 20ft tall cross anywhere you like as long as it’s privately funded (as everything should be :-) be as loud and proud a Christian as you like as long as you do not infringe on the property rights of others. Use the liberty protected by our republic to worship as you see fit.

    In return I’d like an end to the drug war and all other nanny state laws that prevent victimless crimes. Your communities and churches will determine your lifestyles and standards as my personal beliefs mold mine.

    Everyone goes along to get along. The Republican party would make many inroads in the secular community if this approach was taken.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Regarding drugs, the cases where the law steps in most of the times are when the drug use does start affecting other people. Not sure what other nanny state laws you’re referring to, so can’t comment on those without explication.

    However, regarding your proposed “trade-off” between religious express, which relates to a sphere of constitutionally-protected activities vs. drug use, which is not a constitutionally protected activity the last time I looked (unless some judge has discovered such a “right” out of the air) is rather a ludicrous assertion of parity between the two.

    Also, your implication that religion is responsible for drug laws israther over stated to say the least. Plenty of law enforcement groups and others have no religious basis for their advocacy.

    Sorry, it’s not “let’s make a deal” this morning. Not to say that there shouldn’t be an informed discussion about our drug laws, there certainly are problems – but it’s not something up for haggling, as though we were in a bazaar.

  • juumanistra

    This type of proposal for a grand bargain between social conservatives and libertarian is usually doomed from the beginning, as the latter usually misunderstands the nature of the former. (At base, the offer is to let them have their Jesus in-exchange for letting you have your pot: Such utilitarian bartering is inappropriate, at the very best.)

    The tension between the competing moralist and libertine impulses within the soul of the Right, let alone the GOP, are never going to be able to make peace with each other. Thankfully, they don’t have to: The Tenth Amendment, after all, provides for sufficient devolution of decision-making that the states and their localities should be the ones who tackle these issues. True, it’s only punting the fighting of the culture war down a few rungs, but the further down you go, the greater homogenuity of opinion you find along the moralism/libertine spectrum.

  • skorrent1

    She made her point very clear when she said that local school boards should determine what is taught in schools, while Coons insisted that as senator he would want the federal courts to determine curricula. The main argument of the TEA Party, that the feds are too intrusive, was made.

    Coons’ further rambling regarding the incorporation of “separation” into the establishment clause only served to illustrate both that it wasn’t there to begin with, and that he has the typical liberal’s attitude that activist courts know best.

    If you could not see this, don’t blame her!

  • powertothepeople

    this was the entire line.

    “Over the last twenty years, the courts have stopped all prayer in public schools, prohibited the display of the Ten Commandments and stopped children from reading the bible in public schools.”

    And those links do deal with all those issues, the cases have everything to do with that statement, compulsory prayer is nothing more that the ACLU and liberals term for anything that occurs in or around a school, actually reading the cases would show that compulsory had nothing to do with it, and you can keep repeating school arranged all you want and it does not change that fact that the cases do not show that.

    You asked, you were shown, you repeat liberal BS and rhetoric, Now go disappear for another 3 years as you are way past boring and predictable.

  • Libertarian Republican

    “Also, your implication that religion is responsible for drug laws israther over stated to say the least. Plenty of law enforcement groups and others have no religious basis for their advocacy.”

    Wasn’t really implying that (though I could see how you could draw that conclusion) Since religion itself;f is more a less the foundation of most social conservatives theory (and what seems most threatened by the bible belt folks) I only point out that most rational libertarians could care less how you worship.

    As to the victimless crime argument, yes I would say it is. Drug use in and of itself should not be a crime. The crimes associated with addiction have long been illegal. Opiates, alcohol and the rest were legal throughout the 1800′s and society survived. In fact in America it flourished as at no other time.

    It’s an issue of principal. Liberty is liberty and my constant argument to conservatives is if you can justify throwing someone in jail for using a substance that MAY lead to societies detriment, you cannot hold the moral high ground against progressives who want to pick your pocket to provide healthcare to another for the greater good. The principal is exactly the same. Using the coercive force of government against an unwilling individual for the groups (so-called) gain.

  • aesthete

    In this case, I must take issue with your seeming belief that the drug war is Constitutional: the 9th and 10th amendments rather preclude the unilateral undettaking of the federal government to prevent drug use, and related issues (militarization of federal police, ease of obtaining search warrants under this paradigm) have tarnished the 4th and 5th Amendments, and certainly the spirit of the 3rd. As Clarence Thomas said in his dissent on Gonzalez v Raich, “If Congress can regulate [the personal use of marijuana] under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything

  • Libertarian Republican

    Just as with abortion.

    I personally feel it’s a woman’s body and her choice up until viability or some term shortly before. I do not believe life begins at conception.

    However get 3-4 moths in and I’m pretty sure that being has a soul (and yes Atheists can believe in souls :-) ) From then on I’m pretty pro life. I think that’s a platform that 70% of Americans could agree on.

    But it will never happen as the fringes of the issue control the debate. I think our best hope is to discover the warp drive and we can all settle some other rocks in the galaxy where people can live as they see fit LOL.

    Of course the interstellar war that would be sure to follow probably would suck.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    Look again at my first paragraph – we’re looking from two different sides of the same coin, not different coins. I was emphasizing the validity of drug laws when drug-related activities cross over into affecting others, where as you emphasize the intrusion of drug laws into strictly personal activity. I’m not quite sure where to draw the boundaries between the two, but I do agree there is a boundary between where “drug use in and of itself should not be a crime” and where other people are affected as well – - which you recognize too.

    The difference is in the analysis of the intersection

    However, your historical reference to drug use in the 1800s is of questionable applicability to today’s society where the consequences of drug use are more acute because of technology and the lessening tolerance for error.

    And we’re not going to agree on Objectivism – however, there are other brands of libertarians who don’t reject religious faith whom I do regularly rub shoulders with and am more receptive to listening to their analysis. Atheists do not have a monopoly on libertarian – there is also the Natural Law approach.

    And yes, I am increasingly more leery of coercion by government. But life rarely offers pristine alternatives – and utopias of the right tend to be deleterious too, But that gets down to the nature of man, which is the same origin point where left utopias fail so despotically.

  • JSobieski

    We cannot live in the modern world with a presumption that say, until a person proves they cannot be trusted with a nuclear bomb, that they can’t be prohibited from having one. Its a question of probability and impact—the Learned Hand formula is actually quite profound.

    That said, I agree that the drug war should be addressed differently. I don’t see a lot of pot smokers doing acts that merit jail time, so why should pot smoking be a felony? Moreover, with inexpensive technology, a lot of people currently in jail could be put on some type of work release program.

    Jail should be for violent criminals, not someone convicted of pot possession three times.

    Palin’s approach on this is right on in my view. Address the issue first from the perspective of sentencing. In Michigan the jails are packed. Why a three time loser for possession stays in jail while a violent offender is released early due to over crowding makes no sense, regardless of philosophy.

    A lot of criminal sentences could be transformed to house confinement with anklet monitoring.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    ,,.and was not specifically arguing for Federal action, especially given the Constitutional arguments you raise you describe in your first paragraph.

    Though, assuming arguendo that some governmental agency does have an interest in preventing the importation of drugs into the U.S. and its movement within the country, then regarding Federal vs. non-Federal jurisdiction, it does seem that the Federal government should have jurisdiction over efforts to interdict the passage of drugs from foreign countries in terms of the scope of enumerated powers.

    But once the drugs are inside the U.S., then the Constitutional arguments you outline are most valid against continued Federal involvement for intrastate activities.

    Interstate commerce is a slippery slope, as we all know, given decisions like Wickard vs. Filburn – which thus under our current jurisprudence is an argument for minimizing Federal involvement.

    End of arguendo

    That said, in terms of the level that I was commenting on, I was more discussing principles rather than current drug law – which was the focus of your first paragraph.

    In particular I was primarily trying making the case that some governmental agency has the right to intervene when drug use does go beyond the victimless stage. Where I struggle with is where that boundary lies, knowing how ever drug use can affect loved ones, spouses, children – or the subtler issues of coming to work in an impaired state, which to some degree represents fraud regarding work contract. So I find the boundary of “victimless” to not be so easy to draw, or all too easy to be myopic in terms of consequences of drug use.

    But certainly the current level and tactics of the Federal war on drugs is corrosive to our liberties and efforts to prevent the slide toward an increasingly coercive and despotic centralized government. So no, I’m not at all advocating moving further in that direction or with the status quo – and certainly not wedded to the current approach.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth
  • aesthete

    I think that some laws amplifying the charges for violent and property crime committed while under the influence, and regulating the use of some public goods where one has a high chance of being a public danger under the influence, are sound ones. I am, as a libertarian-conservative, of course concerned with externalities caused by drug use being fully accounted for under our legal system, as well, and with drug users being held responsible for the fallout that will undoubtedly result from their actions.

    I don’t, however, see how support of utopian ventures like complete drug prohibition, which was motivated primarily by progressive sentiment and racism (the latter motivation was a factor in the criminalization of opiates and ), is particularly conservative. The much-vaunted pragmatism of conservatism I don’t understand how it is a stand on principle to support a freedom-killing ban on the substances which have deleterious effects on society currently prohibited, while supporting the right to ingest others with similarly bad societal effects (like cigarettes). It is difficult to see how law and order is furthered by the fostering of conditions which give miscreants and criminals a monopoly on lucrative substances and access to a large recruiting base of prospective criminals among these customers, not to mention the diverting of police resources to deal with the issue. Lastly (and most importantly), I see no way in which this enhances the liberty of the American citizen, and several ways in which it abridges them. Cannabis and marijuana in particular are much less harmful than alcohol, and have been tried by a vast minority of Americans (slightly less than half). In short, I find the support for current drug policies among American conservatives utterly baffling: it is at odds with every idea conservatives have found noble and enduring(freedom, Constitutional limits, constrained vision of humanity), and in tandem with some of the worst excesses on the left (collectivizing, reckless use of government force in all forms, putting priority on society over the individual).

    Thanks for clarifying your position, c_t: to reiterate, I agree with you that no part of our agenda should be wholly abandoned on the basis of political coalition-making (though I think that it is wise to emphasize certain aspects depending on factors like political feasibility and pragmatism). However, I do think that the conservative movement should constantly evaluate its supported policies and measure them by their adherence to conservative tenets. Othose grounds, I think that conservatives would be wise to follow Bill Buckley and the National Review in supporting decriminalization+regulation efforts at both the federal and state levels (but especially the federal level): current policies are not pragmatic, or conducive to liberty and the rule of law. The sooner we rectify this unfortunate bit of mass cognitive dissonance within the conservative movement, the better.

    @ radicallyright: sorry for the extended threadjack: Libertarian’s initial threadjack unfortunately suckered me into defending the honor of one of my bloggyhorses. Back on topic… while I think that seperation between church and state is appropriate, Christine O’Donnell is 100% correct in saying that it is not Constitutionally mandated. It’s shameful that law students cannot tell the difference between their own desires and what the Constitution actually requires.

  • jone

    Google “Separation of Raunch and State.” Excellent! JonE

  • aesthete

    that short of anarchy, even the most utopian libertarian or conservative isn’t likely to produce anything as abysmal as the extremes produced by the unconstrained activist state favored by progressives. Having insufficient red lights and roads, or poor infrastructure, is no substitute for the forced starvations, purges, minority oppression, and other horrors inflicted by communist, fascist, Jacobin, and other, similarly revolutionary and confiscatory, ideologies.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • aesthete

    A human right to life, much like any other natural right, does not depend on viability. Slavery’s morality was, for example, not contingent on the “viability” of slaves to be self-sustaining outside of a plantation. By all means, let’s end abortions that are conducted within “viability”, but let’s not settle for that.

  • aesthete

    in the case of weaponry is whether the weapon is defensive or offensive in nature. An automatic weapon, while potentially offensive, has defensive uses. A bomb, nuclear or otherwise, doesn’t have that same utility except as a threat: if it is used, it necessarily entails collateral damage to innocents and non-aggressors. Agreed on the nature of sentencing for drug “crimes”; here’s a chart that should make any law and order conservative’s blood boil.

  • JSobieski

    is something all conservatives should be able to get behind. Makes no sense to early release people convicted of assault, armed robbery, etc. in order to house a 3 strikes marijuana user.

    in terms of the broader point, I probably shouldn’t have picked an extreme weapon example. The underlying point I wanted to make was that limits on freedom become more acceptable to more likely a negative outcome is dangerous.

    Outlawing drunk driving makes sense. Mandatory drug testing for commercial airline pilots is more extreme, but the impact of bad behavior is far worse. Restrictions that apply within a person living in their own home should be minimal, particularly if there are no children in the house.