Here in Texas, you cannot buy alcoholic beverages before Noon on Sunday. Just one example...

Here and now in America, such religious Blue Laws have been rolled back, overruled in court, and repealed. But vestiges remain.

Until 1990 or so, in about a dozen states you could not vote, serve on a jury, or hold elective office if you did not profess a belief in God.

Vermont has been making a very, very hard left hand turn for several years. I know many people who have moved to that region in recent years who are rabid statists almost complete Marxists and they have huge numbers of like minded robots.

Guess you can't read:
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
There is no mention of the background of the culture, or the fact that it was based on Judeo-Christian values. You seem intent on just putting pieces into play on the chessboard that have no part of the game just to obscure the issue. Either that, or you are one of those highly educated individuals who "can clearly state the obvious" to those of us uneducated peons, and are responsible for the incredibly bad education system we have. Stop pontificating and speak to the matter at hand. There are lots of silly arguments you can try, but the plain and simple fact is, at that time, and in that culture, the WAS a religious influence that was reflected in our laws created then, and carried on. That was the specific reason for the 1st Amendment, to protect the individual right to choose their religion and not have it dictated by the state (which was the case in England if you studied any history). Period. End of story.

Bob, I think one missing or slightly off-center point here is that, if I do something good for someone else, I may feel good about doing it, for whatever personal reasons, so that's a positive reinforcement FOR me to have done it.

In addition, I AM A MEMBER of "society," so "society" HAS benefited from my actions... but keep in mind that initially and maybe forever, only I and the person I helped are the ones who know it.
I think this is where Rand's position would be that if anyone thinks anyone SHOULD/MUST do "nice things for others" FOR the "good of society" ALONE, that IS "immoral," and I tend to agree.
If lots of people do good things for others in my society or culture, I'm probably going to benefit, but that's NOT why i'm going to, on an individual basis, "do nice things" for others. Unless I feel good about having done it. Something like all of the non-taxable donations I make to organizations that champion some of the issues of groups I'm NOT a member of....
Can I believe in Rand's points and still LIKE PEOPLE and want to see them live happier, safer lives? I think so.

Absolutely true, Bob, but does the ACA directly address fat cats and tort cases? Was/Is that the intent and content and main goal of the Act?

I agree that lots of money like that goes down a rathole, and some of it is your money and MINE, too, but I don't support an ACA as a way to deal with it.

I don't support ANY legislation that isn't focused on a specific issue and has "riders" on it that suck everything and the kitchen sink in, just to get the attachments made into law.

Bob, the problem is that, while you make that judgment, tons of other folks don't, and sorry, but it also opens up the "gray area" of someone falsely accusing some gun owner of "being unstable" or, in your words, "having problems," in order to get their gun(s) taken away from them because that someone doesn't approve of guns.... or just happens to be pissed at them or hold a grudge or mad that that neighbor's dog barks too much or whatever. Check my home page image collection and look at all of the anti-gun control ones....

Bob, a dear friend and coworker of mine was killed in an auto accident some decades ago by a repeat-offender drunk driver. I'm not without experience in the field.

But, like me and the Mormon, I might be able to describe some circumstance where it WOULD be a "good idea" for someone whom you would define as "impaired" to actually DRIVE somewhere for SOME reason that you might agree is good.

But black and white? I predicted your response. I love to be right, as most folks do, so thanks for that.

The proof is all around you, but if you're not willing to acknowledge it, there's no way I can possibly demonstrate it to/for you, Boboro...

Look for a simple example, at any and all public assistance programs where the recipient need do NOTHING but "sign up" to receive the benefits... and then, after some time, everyone starts to notice that more and more people sign up for it, it becomes more and more expensive to support, and when more funding is brought to the "free service," more and more people sign up or demand to be eligible.

Got your Obamaphone? Anyone ever turn that "free offer" down?

Or crop insurance, flood insurance subsidies that put the paybacks on the backs of everyone in the country, NOT just the home owner?

Nope, can't see that... Even your hygienist's free toothbrush and roll of floss isn't "free," but it IS, pretty much rolled into the fee YOU pay the dentist's office and not anyone else. Do you ever refuse the "free toothbrush"?

Didn't think so. I take them, too, give them to my wife and buy my own toothbrushes at Costco.

Yes, Fred, and that's one of the problems in the US today, ( in my never-so-humble opinion [imnsho]).

We are a pluralistic nation, a "salad bowl" of different beliefs and backgrounds, not a "mixing pot" where individual aspects disappear into the amalgam.

Many Christians behave as if there is no other lord but Jesus, despite the contrary religious beliefs of billions of other people (including atheists like myself.)

So when you make statements like that, we see it as YOU trying to shove YOUR beliefs down OUR throats while you claim that WE are trying to shove ours down YOURS. We're not.

For the most part, all we want to do is be able to believe what we believe without anyone (Christians OR Muslims or anyone else) telling us our beliefs are wrong or inferior to yours (no matter WHAT your holy book tells YOU.)

Any more than homosexuals recruit and convert "straights" in order to grow their ranks or "destroy marriage as an institution." Red herrings, completely, except for True Believers on EITHER side.

If I believe, claim or say that there is no god, you reach into your beliefs and historical texts to "prove" that I'm wrong. If I ask for any recent events or examples as proof, you reach into the same bag as if the proofs were on video somewhere. Sorry. Just not enough for me and a lot of others.

And, lest you make some other spurious claims, I oppose virtually ALL extremists "isms" too. I believe Islamism is one of the most dangerous of all today because if you don't follow THEIR beliefs, they claim the right to tax you or kill you (and it's their choice.) VERY un-Randian, too.

oh, and the raping women going down the street and "God-given rights" stuff?

ALL of those things fall under "power and agreement." If you exceed the speed limit in a school zone, the community has AGREED to vest POWER in the police to arrest, fine or imprison you. If you wantonly rape people, you're going to either be caught by the police, vested with the same POWER to lock you up for trial, OR that "stronger individual, male or female," who kicks the shit out of you is wielding POWER over you directly in order to convince you that you "really shouldn't do those kinds of things."

POWER and Agreement. That's what makes people stop for red lights and agree to uphold the Constitution.

Few people understand that.
Ciao, again!

oh, ps... My wife and I have ALL of our retirement IRA money being managed by Fisher Investments (fi.com ... check it out.)

My IRA was opened in June of 2004, rode through the Crash of '08 and as of a few days ago the balance stood at a bit over two percent HIGHER than the day I opened it.

Our combined IRA totals were down ZERO POINT THREE NINE percent after nine years and six months AND withdrawing cash AND paying fees a bit in excess of $530,000 over that period.

Go tout some other fiction to the unwashed masses....

Spoken as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-capitalist, Bobor... If you really think that's evil, there's no discussion possible. Thanks.

Try "Economics In One Lesson" ... the whole message is in the first ten pages or so; the rest is examples.

Ciao!

Ah, you are correct and I actually can prove it. proof is in the knowledge of something being true and I know it to be so. However my knowing something does not depend on your agreement and understanding. For example, take the color red, the reason it's true is that we both agree that it is. however if one of us doesn't agree, does that make it any less true?

Fred

Re: Boborobdos

Your commentary is becoming more absurd and I might even say deranged by the minute. Is it that somehow in the past you were somehow disillusioned by exposure to the concept of God, whatever it was I'm sorry that you have come to the conclusions you have. But, you are entitled to them as my faith teaches me.

As to the concept of the “ sacrament of the Eucharist is changed, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in reality,[1][2] into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus,[3] " there are those that believe it to be a symbolic change and those that take it more literally. The question remains, what difference does it make to you? Leave and let be, is the only principle at stake in this debate. I have no desire to convince you of anything, yet you insist on your point of view to be fact. As I wrote earlier, neither of us can prove our beliefs, but I'm only stating what my belief is without insisting on it being a fact. Yet you are consistently casting aspersions on my beliefs and the beliefs of others.

By the way, congratulations on your abilities to use a dictionary. We can both play a game of digs at each other, but I would ask to what purpose? Live in piece and believe what you will, please allow me and others the same privilege.

your statement regarding Ayn Rand's belief in free will jsut proves her mistaken understanding of at least Christianity as she came to the understanding of the teachings of God without realizing it. Just proves that despite her brilliance she just didn't get it when it comes to the existence of God.

Fred Speckmann

Re:Boborobdos
You state, "Still no state religion, much as some from the right are demanding it."

Please provide one example of "some from the right demanding it."

Fred Speckmann