Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Code of Hammurabi of course, and even before that, murder has been considered a crime by humans nearly everywhere for obvious reasons.  The main point is that even though it's prohbited in religious texts, it also is the same in various secular texts.

Most of our laws are based on old English law for understandable reasons.  That of course was somewhat based on Biblical sources.  Louisiana is a bit different.

Oh, so getting rid of bullshit blue laws wouldn't be a slippery slope to throwing all laws out the window.
Interesting.

This is one general definition of "faith":

complete trust or confidence in someone or something.


I think we can all name things in which we have faith, using that definition, for logical sound reasons.  It is often associated with religious beliefs, but not always.  

I do like the idea of converting office to housing, but at some point, don't the people living in all of this housing need some place to go to work?

There is one case around here, and a lot of discussion of doing more, but I read one article laying out the issues with it, and the expense.  I won't be shocked if certain contractors get awarded contracts and foul it all up.

Exactly.

Exactly.
Complete trust and confidence in something...that lacks any evidence (in the case of a god).  

Here, tell me what's wrong with this statement:  your confidence in something should mirror the evidence that supports it.

The next evidence there is for a god will be the first.

According to that definition, it does not have to be "without any evidence".

Here is another separate definition:


Meaning of faith in English

faith
noun
US
 /feɪθ/ UK
 /feɪθ/
faith noun (TRUST)
Add to word list
B2 [ U ]
great trust or confidence in something or someone:
have faith in She has no faith in modern medicine.
great faith in You'll cope - I have great faith in you.
lose faith in After the trial, his family said they had lost all faith in the justice system.
restore someone's faith in Politicians must start keeping their promises if they want to restore the people's faith in government.

Oh, so getting rid of bullshit blue laws wouldn't be a slippery slope to throwing all laws out the window.
Interesting.

Nothing he said indicated that getting rid of blue laws would or would not be a slippery slope to throwing all laws out the window.  He listed some non-Christian religious justifications for laws against Murder.  I never specified "Christian", I merely said "religious" and the fact that nearly all religions prohibit murder only buttresses my point.  There clearly is "some religious basis" for laws against Murder and that is true for nearly all religions.  There clearly are also non-religious justifications for laws against Murder.  Again, that WAS my point.  Laws against Murder have BOTH religious and non-religious justifications.  Kinda like blue laws.  They obviously were adopted at least mostly for religious reasons but there ARE plausible non-religious justifications for them.  

It would be less irksome to have to explain this to you if you weren't such a belligerent A-hole when you don't understand things.  

Whether or not getting rid of blue laws would also throw other laws out depends on how you went about "getting rid of" them.  

How are you "getting rid of" them?  Options:

• Legislatively Repeal - As this is a statutory process it would obviously have no impact on other statutes.  
• Judicially Invalidate under the Establishment Clause on the basis that they have "some religious basis" - This would create a precedent (not precedence) that any law with "some religious basis" is invalid as a violation of the Establishment Clause.  This would literally invalidate nearly all laws because nearly all laws at least arguably have "some religious basis".  
• Judicially Invalidate under the Establishment Clause on some basis other than that they have "some religious basis" - Ok, lets hear it, what basis?  Obviously my "some religious basis" example fails.  You could go to the other extreme and say that laws are invalid under the Establishment Clause when they have no basis other than religion but that doesn't work either because nearly every law at least arguably has some plausible non-religious basis.  So I put those two examples out there and they both fail.  What would be a workable rationale for invalidating blue laws under the Establishment Clause without also invalidating other laws?  This is where law gets tricky, you need to concoct an articulable legal distinction between them.