Ten Commandments/Moore/O'Reilly

[Elind]

It seem that Bill O'Reilly, who I always thought was one of the smarter talkers on TV, is now a full fledged Moore and Ten Commandments supporter, not to mention prayer in school.

However he repeatedly claims that the 10 commandments are the basis of our law, and constitution, without getting specific about anything. Not being a scholar in these matters I can't refute this with facts and references, but I do know that most of the commandments are not crimes in our system (but they are in many others) and I know that most (all?) of the personal liberties we value were not granted by churches and priests in the past, and many are opposed by Christian groups even today. I also have trouble understanding how any 10 "commandments", which are essentially the same for all human cultures, can be described as a basis of our far far far more complex legal system.

I believe that our main legal and governmental principles were imported from England, and Europe, and that the primary principles of modern "democracy" were developed in England, and certainly not by the Church of England.

So; can anyone concisely summarize what could be called the basis for our law and belief in personal rights, and what is the basis (if there is a logical one) for the O'Reilly/Moore position?

[Jet Grind]

The O'Riely/Moore position is pure historical revisionism. The 10C's are not the law and have nothing to do with it. Our constitution containes no mention is "God", "Jesus", "Christianity" or the "Ten Commandments" in our constitution. We are a secular nation, not a theocracy.

Bill O'Riely and Roy Moore are asshats.

[Yahweh]

However he repeatedly claims that the 10 commandments are the basis of our law, and constitution
He's full of s**t. :)

Edited to add smilie to make the post seem less negative.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Yahweh
He's full of s**t. I omitted the smilie to make the post more accurate.

For kicks, why not call up your local law school and ask to speak to a professor of constitutional law. Politely ask the professor whether the Ten Commandments really are the basis for the Constitution, as so many people seem to be saying these days.

As for O'Reilly, his credibility went into the crapper with Fox's suit against Al Franken.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Brown
For kicks, why not call up your local law school and ask to speak to a professor of constitutional law. Politely ask the professor whether the Ten Commandments really are the basis for the Constitution, as so many people seem to be saying these days.
I'm way ahead of you...

The "10 Commandments is ware da Law comes from" debate has been quite the ruse in the teacher's lounge. American History teacher (he also teaches American Government) says the 10 commandments have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Math Teacher (I figure he's got a brain on him if he teaches College Freshman level Calculus) agrees, the 10 commandments monument should have been moved because it was a violation of the "No promotion of religion" clause in the Alabama Constitution.

Even the new English Teacher (she is a Mormon, she came over from Oregon) says the people are overreacting.

Most (meaning 90% or more) of teachers belong to some denomination of Christianity, not a single one of them believe the monument had any place on a federal Courthouse (let alone a place in the Government), they also agree the Commandments have nothing to do with the Constitution.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Nice no/any edit there Yahweh. I was confused for a moment until I reread what showed up in the quote box when I replying. :)

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Elind
However he repeatedly claims that the 10 commandments are the basis of our law, and constitution, without getting specific about anything. Not being a scholar in these matters I can't refute this with facts and references, but I do know that most of the commandments are not crimes in our system (but they are in many others) and I know that most (all?) of the personal liberties we value were not granted by churches and priests in the past, and many are opposed by Christian groups even today. I also have trouble understanding how any 10 "commandments", which are essentially the same for all human cultures, can be described as a basis of our far far far more complex legal system.

I believe that our main legal and governmental principles were imported from England, and Europe, and that the primary principles of modern "democracy" were developed in England, and certainly not by the Church of England.

So; can anyone concisely summarize what could be called the basis for our law and belief in personal rights, and what is the basis (if there is a logical one) for the O'Reilly/Moore position? If you're interested in a more scholarly examination of the relationship between the Ten Commandments and U.S. legal tradition, you can check out this thread (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22874).

[Some Friggin Guy]

One thing that I have heard stated by the supporters of this nonsensical theory is that the intent was there.

According to them, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "Endowed by their creator" is a reference to god.

Am I the only person who thinks that phrase was carefully worded? If the founders of this country (apologies to anyone here from another nation) had meant that god had given them these rights, I think they would have said as much. I find it more plausible that they had some idea that they would run into people who believed in different gods, or possibily even no gods (Atheism, I'm sure was around then, though I have no evidence, it is an assumption. And I am sure it wasn't prevailant, even though I'm sure it was there.), and that these people should be afforded the same rights. To me, it's a bit of a fancier way of saying "Since your parents gave you life, you have these rights."

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Brown
As for O'Reilly, his credibility went into the crapper with Fox's suit against Al Franken.


He had credibility before that?

[mummymonkey]

"Endowed by their creator" certainly infers (or at least allows for) the existence of more than one creator. "Endowed by The Creator" would be more appropriate for a single creator God.

[Dymanic]

Creating threads with really long titles (with no spaces) like "Commandments/Moore/O'Reilly " screws up the way the front page formats, pushing the posters' names off screen to the right (really long screen names like "ManfredVonRichtoven" do the same thing.

I hope pointing this out doesn't inspire anyone to start a thread titled "Antidisestablishmentarianism", although I have to admit to being a little curious as to the effects of a really long title ('course, that would only be one more character. But anyway.)

This is an interesting topic though. I'd make a contribution, but I have to go check to see if anyone's left the cap off the toothpaste tube again.

[Pahansiri]

http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/article.JPG

"Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary,"

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm
actual article 11 of the Treaty

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
One thing that I have heard stated by the supporters of this nonsensical theory is that the intent was there.

According to them, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "Endowed by their creator" is a reference to god.

Am I the only person who thinks that phrase was carefully worded? If the founders of this country (apologies to anyone here from another nation) had meant that god had given them these rights, I think they would have said as much. I find it more plausible that they had some idea that they would run into people who believed in different gods, or possibily even no gods (Atheism, I'm sure was around then, though I have no evidence, it is an assumption. And I am sure it wasn't prevailant, even though I'm sure it was there.), and that these people should be afforded the same rights. To me, it's a bit of a fancier way of saying "Since your parents gave you life, you have these rights." If I understand you correctly, you think Jefferson meant something like "endowed by their respective creators", but that seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think it's hard to argue that "endowed by their Creator" is not a reference to God, albeit a nonsectarian one. Later on in the same document, Jefferson refers to "the Supreme Judge of the world". Some of Jefferson's other important political documents, such as Virginia's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, also contain references to "Almighty God" and the like. All of which is not to say that Jefferson thought that non-theists should not have the same rights, of course.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Darn, can't find the thread where I mentioned this but Roy Moore is on the 700 Club right now. If you have a decent download speed I hope that you will watch it starting at about 23 minutes in.

Apparently people aren't under the governance of the government (Supreme Court), the Alabama Constitution is supreme to the U.S. Constitution, and we're living under a tyrrany.

...I'm watching it live and I want to bang my head against the monitor...

The Constitution is about the acknowledgement of God. The 10 Commandments are about acknowledging God. The state of Alabama must acknowledge the Christian God according to Moore's interpretation...

Ahhhhh, I can't take much more...

If Moore and Robertson call each other "Chief Justice" and "Doctor" one more time I'm going to kill myself..

The entire first amendment is only about acknowledging the Christian God.. period.

The American people love you Roy Moore!!!

Feh... download todays show guys.. ugh...

[Pahansiri]

"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution." -- [Thomas Jefferson, 1776]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." -- James Madison . .

The day will come when the mystical generation of jesus by the supreme being will be classed with the fable of the generation of minerva in the brain of jupiter...Th.Jefferson,1787.


'The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.' - Thomas Jefferson


'I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.' - Benjamin Franklin

"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of [hu]mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamaties that engine of grief has produced! -- John Adams

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my
neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- [Thomas Jefferson]

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion?
To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Thomas Jefferson
(ref. Bartlett's 16th Ed., p.343)

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity. -John Adams-

[Upchurch]

I was listening to O'Reilly a day or two ago and hist now starting to call his (and presumably Moore's) position as "The War Against Secularism(tm)". :rolleyes:

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin
This one bears repeating. It's the same idea found in my "God on welfare" thread.

I have yet to hear a fundie address this one at all.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Yahzi

This one bears repeating. It's the same idea found in my "God on welfare" thread.

I have yet to hear a fundie address this one at all.

I'd imagine most fundies would find it an absurd point. They seem to want God reflected in our public life not to support God and religion, but rather so that God will be pleased with our country and will favor us in the future. Those darned athiests that want to take God out of public life are making God angry, etc. This is what Falwell seemed to be getting at with his infamous post 9-11 comments.

They think the country needs help from God, not vice-versa. Also, to think our country is so good we don't need God would be arrogant blashemy. To say this whole mess shows religion needs government is a bit of a strawman from the fundy perspective.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
One thing that I have heard stated by the supporters of this nonsensical theory is that the intent was there.

According to them, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence "Endowed by their creator" is a reference to god.

Am I the only person who thinks that phrase was carefully worded? If the founders of this country (apologies to anyone here from another nation) had meant that god had given them these rights, I think they would have said as much. I find it more plausible that they had some idea that they would run into people who believed in different gods, or possibily even no gods (Atheism, I'm sure was around then, though I have no evidence, it is an assumption. And I am sure it wasn't prevailant, even though I'm sure it was there.), and that these people should be afforded the same rights. To me, it's a bit of a fancier way of saying "Since your parents gave you life, you have these rights."
Also note the phrase Nature and nature's god in the D of I. Odd phrasing, what? It is influenced by Deism, not Christianity.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
If I understand you correctly, you think Jefferson meant something like "endowed by their respective creators", but that seems to be a bit of a stretch. I think it's hard to argue that "endowed by their Creator" is not a reference to God, albeit a nonsectarian one.

Non-sectorian "God" - Big G?

As noted below, there are problems with this. First of all, the originators seemed to really go out of the way to _not_ say "god," leaving it vague enough that we argue about it. Highly unusual for a government document at the time. Why, if they meant God, wouldn't they just say "God"? Maybe because they wanted to make sure they didn't.

Second, from a more simple perspective, the phrases that are used are _far_ more consistent with a deistic reference than christian. Thus, even if you want to insist that it is religion based, what would be the basis for claiming it is judeo-christian? Lots of religions have creators, so it can't just be that.

If they meant God, why didn't they say God. It was a common thing at the time, so it would have been very easy for them.

[pupdog]

O'Reilly is whining because some reporter pointed out that, contrary to what O'Reilly said, he did NOT win a George Foster Peabody award for an Inside Edition show (after he left, Inside Edition did win a George Polk award).

But more to the point, when God created America, didn't Charlatan Heston hand the tablets of the Ten Commandments over to President John Wayne after the evolutionists were drowned while chasing the creationists across the Mississippi River?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Non-sectorian "God" - Big G?

As noted below, there are problems with this. First of all, the originators seemed to really go out of the way to _not_ say "god," leaving it vague enough that we argue about it. Highly unusual for a government document at the time. Why, if they meant God, wouldn't they just say "God"? Maybe because they wanted to make sure they didn't.Capitalizing the word "God" doesn't make it a sectarian reference. Granted, there are some religious faiths for which "God" would not be an appropriate reference, but "God" is still nonsectarian in that it does not specifically attach to any particular denomination (even if it attaches better to some than to others). It would seem to extend to just about all varieties of monotheism (including deism), however.

"Creator" is, all things considered, a relatively common way of referring to God in many religious faiths. It simply accentuates one aspect of his nature (his role in creating things), which especially in the context of a discussion of the endowment of natural rights, is an entirely consistent and plausible reference. If Jefferson intended to refer to something other than God, why would he use an arguably loaded term like "Creator" at all?
Originally posted by pgwenthold
Second, from a more simple perspective, the phrases that are used are _far_ more consistent with a deistic reference than christian. Thus, even if you want to insist that it is religion based, what would be the basis for claiming it is judeo-christian? Lots of religions have creators, so it can't just be that.It's not that it theoretically couldn't be just that, it's that it's consistent with other things as well.

I agree that the apparently God-related references in the Declaration of Independence are generally at least as consistent with deism as they are with any other form of monotheism. I am reluctant to agree that they are far more consistent with deism than with Christianity, however, because I do not detect any formal inconsistency with Christianity at all.

The only reservation I have regarding the foregoing, insofar as deism is concerned, involves the reference in the Declaration of Independence to a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence". Deism is certainly consistent with one understanding of divine providence - that is, God's established plan for the universe. However, the wording "reliance on the protection of" providence is more suggestive of another sense of the term providence - that is, some form of active guardianship. This second sense appears less consistent with traditional deism than with certain other monotheisms. I hesitate to make too much of this inconsistency, however.

[UnrepentantSinner]

ceo_esq,

I was going to try and PM you, but you apparently don't want personal correspondance. ;) I did just want to say that I do enjoy your contributions on Church/State legal and legal tradition issues. I'm not sure if we agree on the general lack of Christian influence on the Framers, but we do agree on the fact that a lot of our civil and tort tradition is drawn from the Bible... a fact that thankfully is being challenged.

[Elind]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Darn, can't find the thread where I mentioned this but Roy Moore is on the 700 Club right now. If you have a decent download speed I hope that you will watch it starting at about 23 minutes in.

Apparently people aren't under the governance of the government (Supreme Court), the Alabama Constitution is supreme to the U.S. Constitution, and we're living under a tyrrany.

...I'm watching it live and I want to bang my head against the monitor...

The Constitution is about the acknowledgement of God. The 10 Commandments are about acknowledging God. The state of Alabama must acknowledge the Christian God according to Moore's interpretation...

Ahhhhh, I can't take much more...

If Moore and Robertson call each other "Chief Justice" and "Doctor" one more time I'm going to kill myself..

The entire first amendment is only about acknowledging the Christian God.. period.

The American people love you Roy Moore!!!

Feh... download todays show guys.. ugh...

Purely by accident, I caught perhaps the last half of this. Frankly I thought it was scary. Robertson in particular made many references to what I thought were hints of commiting acts of insurrection against the federal government and courts. Any Paul Hill out there could easily take this as a call to arms.

When Robertson heals at a distance we can laugh (since his own prostrate is presumably too close to do the same to), but when he calls for the death or resignation of judges who he claims are destroying our legal system, then he is becoming a budding Bin Laden.

[Elind]

I don't doubt your integrity, but quotes like this can morph on the internet. Could you provide any source references?

Thanks



Originally posted by Pahansiri
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution." -- [Thomas Jefferson, 1776]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." -- James Madison . .

The day will come when the mystical generation of jesus by the supreme being will be classed with the fable of the generation of minerva in the brain of jupiter...Th.Jefferson,1787.


'The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.' - Thomas Jefferson


'I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.' - Benjamin Franklin

"The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. -- Benjamin Franklin

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of [hu]mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamaties that engine of grief has produced! -- John Adams

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." Thomas Jefferson

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my
neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- [Thomas Jefferson]

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion?
To make half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites."

Thomas Jefferson
(ref. Bartlett's 16th Ed., p.343)

The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity. -John Adams-

[Pahansiri]

Here are a few site wich give quote and doc/date etc.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/JefCycl.html

http://www.atheism.org/~godlessheathen/Founders.html

http://afgen.com/nochurch.html

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html



also a good site as to the 10 commandments and US law.
http://www.skepticreport.com/tools/10command.htm

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I was listening to O'Reilly a day or two ago and hist now starting to call his (and presumably Moore's) position as "The War Against Secularism(tm)". :rolleyes:
War on Secularlism... you better watch out kiddies, otherwise those mean old Secularists might... uhhh... think rationally and openmindedly... they might even remain tolerant to those of other religions *gasp*...

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Elind
Purely by accident, I caught perhaps the last half of this. Frankly I thought it was scary. Robertson in particular made many references to what I thought were hints of commiting acts of insurrection against the federal government and courts. Any Paul Hill out there could easily take this as a call to arms.

When Robertson heals at a distance we can laugh (since his own prostrate is presumably too close to do the same to), but when he calls for the death or resignation of judges who he claims are destroying our legal system, then he is becoming a budding Bin Laden.

I'm sorry for your channel surfing taking you to such a mezmerizing intellectual abortion as the 700 Club. I usually seek it out just to see what the enemy is up to.

I posted a thread a few weeks back (and I'm too lazy to look it up) about Pat's call for the death of "liberal" Supreme Court Justices (o.k. he called for their retirement, I just used hyperbole in tossing in the death thing) but yes, it's truly scary that religios want to use the legislation and courts to make their religion reign supreme within our government.

Theocracy is bandied about a lot, but I'm still not convinced it's not to harsh a word for the vision of the U.S. that people like Robertson, et. al. want.

[Fun2BFree]

WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

The laws of this country are based on the US CONSTITUTION drawn up and ratified 13 years after the D of I...in the Constitution the only mention of God is the units of the year it was signed "year of our Lord" --so apparently one can assume that our Lord of course is Jesus and the US Constitution mandates such observation..or that is just he way people indicated years back then.....

but back to the original question---the ideas of our laws definitely do NOT come from the 10 Commandmants they come from the ideas of the Enlightenment- Locke, Kant, Montesquieu etc. who did not draw their ideas out of any of the Lord's Commandmants but observed man's interactions with man and proposed how men work together in society...our founders were hugely interested in the Enlightenment and it's MAN not God centered apporach to the real world...

[Pahansiri]

One last quote:


Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and the state forever separate.Ulysses S. Grant, 1875

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

The laws of this country are based on the US CONSTITUTION drawn up and ratified 13 years after the D of I...That is is not entirely true; in fact it is more false than true. The Constitution is basically a political framework with a handful of substantive legal principles added in (almost entirely relating to the relationship between the individual and the state). Constitutional law accounts for only a tiny fraction of the substantive law of the United States, the content of which is generally not derived from the Constitution. The vast majority of the nation's substantive law (e.g. penal, contractual, tort and property law, among others) is descended from the common law of Great Britain as it existed at the time of the founding of the United States, and the Constitution has essentially nothing to say about such matters (in fact, it was intentionally drafted to accommodate the continuity of this pre-existing body of law). That body of law, in turn, was in fact historically influenced to a considerable degree by the reception, transmission, interpretation and elaboration of Mosaic law over roughly 1500 years in the Christian West.

[Fun2BFree]

ceo_esq-
nothing like responding to comments out of context...the comment about the Constitution related to contrasting the discussion which kept referencing the Declaration of Independence....

The discussion is also about whether the 10 Commandmants -not Mosaic law--are the basis of our government and our laws..they are not..
your assertion that we are based on Mosaic laws is an incredible stretch to bring into this discussion--where in common law in Britain or the US are we required by law to follow Commandmants 1-thru-4??? Please cite examples to the contrary...
your statements that the Constitution is not the basis of our laws is laughably false---it is "the law of the land." That is in the document itself---all laws are subordinate to it--pretty sure that God would not like it that his laws have to pass Constitutional muster-....but that is the basis of our laws and could hardly be said to be consistent with the Bible, the 10 Commandmants or Mosaic law which overlaps common law in some areas--does not define it.

Buzz- try again..too bad the facts don't support your biases.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
ceo_esq-
nothing like responding to comments out of context...the comment about the Constitution related to contrasting the discussion which kept referencing the Declaration of Independence....Nothing like laypeople expounding on the nature of the legal system... I understood the context of your comment, Fun2BFree. You made a valid point inasmuch as the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in the sense the Constitution is. However, you also made a misstatement about the Constitution, which I merely undertook to correct.
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
The discussion is also about whether the 10 Commandmants -not Mosaic law--are the basis of our government and our laws..they are not..
your assertion that we are based on Mosaic laws is an incredible stretch to bring into this discussion--where in common law in Britain or the US are we required by law to follow Commandmants 1-thru-4??? Please cite examples to the contrary...My post did not assert that the Ten Commandments - which are, of course, the most influential and representative expression of Mosaic law - were "the basis of our government and our laws". I suggested that they exerted a historical influence on the development of the legal tradition inherited by the United States. This obviously does not imply a one-to-one correspondence between the Ten Commandments and common law such that we would be legally required to follow Commandments 1 through 4, which is a rather shabby strawman. If you would like a crash course in the historical aspects of the relationship between the Ten Commandments and that legal tradition, refer to the thread I linked in my first post.
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
your statements that the Constitution is not the basis of our laws is laughably false---it is "the law of the land." That is in the document itself---all laws are subordinate to it--pretty sure that God would not like it that his laws have to pass Constitutional muster-....but that is the basis of our laws and could hardly be said to be consistent with the Bible, the 10 Commandmants or Mosaic law which overlaps common law in some areas--does not define it.The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all inferior laws must comport with it, but that does not make the Constitution the substantive basis for the content of most U.S. laws. To understand why this is true, consider that following the ratification of the Constitution there was essentially no practical change from the pre-ratification common law landscape in this country, except as to the relatively small number of legal matters actually addressed in the Constitution - important though those few changes were.
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Buzz- try again..too bad the facts don't support your biases.Whatever you imagine my biases to be, I daresay you are probably mistaken about them. On the other hand, I am speaking here as to facts within my field of expertise, whereas you are merely showing off your ignorance of that field (and simultaneously reading a great deal more into my posts than they actually contain). You're free to disagree, of course, but please drop the condescending tone.

[Brown]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Nothing like laypeople expounding on the nature of the legal system...Hoo-hah! We do see a lot of that, don't we?

FWIW, I thought Fun2BFree made some very good points. But ceo_esq is correct in that many laws pertaining to particular practices basically do not originate from the Constitution, but are carryovers from English law.

In Property classes today, law students still learn about statutes and decisions from England that predated the formation of the USA by more than a hundred years, in order to understand how some of the peculiarities of Property law (some of them still in effect) came about.

[Fun2BFree]

The name of the thread refers to the 10 C's Judge Moore and O'reilly...

my comments relate to that topic and to federal law which is based on the US Constitution-period---and get to the heart of the matter--our laws are NOT based on the commandments--period...arguments about the influence of Mosaic law are misleading and incomplete -it would appear to be to intentionally try to give such influences more prominence than others equally important in the formation of our laws--and that is the same thing that is done when you hear about the Supreme Court friezes that show Moses and the 10 Commandments---this is true--they do--they also show other law giver/bringers-Hammurabi, Menes, Confucius, Octavius...etc....

ceo_esq really invites ridicule but suggesting supposed expertise-----about US laws, common law and mosaic law...when what ceo_esq has written is utter nonsense--

Common law is based on precedent and custom both--not divine rules. It is not the law of the land- in fact in Louisiana the laws are based on the Napoleonic code---how could they ever let them in the Union!!!---Some laws are also based on Roman law... the idea of laws period is the Sumerians---trying to single out the influence of Old Testament laws as somehow supreme in their influence reflects not just a lack of expertise but either a willful desire to mislead or a willful ignorance--or both.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...arguments about the influence of Mosaic law are misleading and incomplete -it would appear to be to intentionally try to give such influences more prominence than others equally important in the formation of our laws--and that is the same thing that is done when you hear about the Supreme Court friezes that show Moses and the 10 Commandments---this is true--they do--they also show other law giver/bringers-Hammurabi, Menes, Confucius, Octavius...etc....
...
Common law is based on precedent and custom both--not divine rules. It is not the law of the land... trying to single out the influence of Old Testament laws as somehow supreme in their influence reflects not just a lack of expertise but either a willful desire to mislead or a willful ignorance--or both. I agree.

I wonder if there are any lawyers or law students out there who learned in law school that the Ten Commandments served as a basis for law of any type. In my experience, the Ten Commandments were never mentioned as being the basis for any law of any kind.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
The name of the thread refers to the 10 C's Judge Moore and O'reilly...

my comments relate to that topic and to federal law which is based on the US Constitution-period---This comment raises another point, which is that federal law forms but a small (though growing) portion of American law. Most of the laws that govern our day-to-day behavior and well-being are state laws - and while all such laws are subject to the Constitution, they cannot be said to be based on it. I'm not sure how restricting your comments to federal law serves your rhetorical purposes.

That said, two different lawyers in this thread are pointing out to you that your insistence on a Constitutional basis for all (or even a majority of) American laws is simplistic and flawed. Why you are so resistant to correction on this point is puzzling.
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
and get to the heart of the matter--our laws are NOT based on the commandments--period...arguments about the influence of Mosaic law are misleading and incomplete -it would appear to be to intentionally try to give such influences more prominence than others equally important in the formation of our laws--and that is the same thing that is done when you hear about the Supreme Court friezes that show Moses and the 10 Commandments---this is true--they do--they also show other law giver/bringers-Hammurabi, Menes, Confucius, Octavius...etc....I realize you haven't bothered to actually read my arguments, but what makes you think they are necessarily misleading? Believe it or not, not all cultural influences and antecedent ideas in the development of Western juridical traditions are equally prominent. Moses often appears in conjunction with other lawgivers not because they all exerted a comparable influence on our legal system, but in order to emphasize his capacity as a lawgiver rather than a religious figure, as the Constitution requires for such displays.
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
ceo_esq really invites ridicule but suggesting supposed expertise-----about US laws, common law and mosaic law...when what ceo_esq has written is utter nonsense--This is just rude and uninformed. Could you point to something I've actually said that is utterly nonsensical and explain why?
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Common law is based on precedent and custom both--not divine rules. It is not the law of the land- in fact in Louisiana the laws are based on the Napoleonic code---how could they ever let them in the Union!!!---Did you think that those precedents and customs evolved in a vacuum? They were influenced by religious traditions to a not-inconsiderable degree, particularly in the Middle Ages. No one is saying modern legal codes are "based on" Biblical precepts in the sense you seem to be using the term.

I am well aware that Louisiana state law is a historical exception in the United States, but much of what I have said in respect of common law applies also to the historical civil law traditions of Continental Europe. Your comment here, at any rate, is inane.
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Some laws are also based on Roman law... the idea of laws period is the Sumerians---trying to single out the influence of Old Testament laws as somehow supreme in their influence reflects not just a lack of expertise but either a willful desire to mislead or a willful ignorance--or both. I'm disinclined to repeat in this thread my exposition of these issues in the "Ten Commandments and legal tradition (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22874)" thread, including pertinent aspects of the evolution of modern common law from Anglo-Saxon, Romano-Christian and canon law sources. You can lead a horse to water…

At any rate, you really don't have more than the vaguest notion of the complex way in which Western legal systems evolved, do you? Why are you so eager to air your opinions on the subject?
Originally posted by Brown
I wonder if there are any lawyers or law students out there who learned in law school that the Ten Commandments served as a basis for law of any type. In my experience, the Ten Commandments were never mentioned as being the basis for any law of any kind.It’s not too likely to come up in the core JD curriculum, since the Ten Commandments influence issue is essentially of historical interest only. After all, no existing laws derive their legal authority from any religious source, even where the content of such laws may be descended from religious sources. However, the Judeo-Christian historical dimension is something that often comes up in legal history and jurisprudence classes (depending on the period covered), and of course it does turn up in historical discussions about particular laws in the caselaw as well.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Brown
I agree.

I wonder if there are any lawyers or law students out there who learned in law school that the Ten Commandments served as a basis for law of any type. In my experience, the Ten Commandments were never mentioned as being the basis for any law of any kind.

The guy who was president of the county bar association where I used to practice (the presidency rotated by seniority, he wasn't elected) once told (to my shock and horror) a bunch of high school students at a career day that "all law comes from the Bible." This guy wasn't a bad lawyer in practice, but he was a serious holy roller. I think he went to Liberty, and I assume they push this angle there.

He once told me about his favorite professor. This professor had been active in the ACLU during the sixties, but then, according to this lawyer, the professor "found Jesus" and seeing the error of his ways quit the ACLU and now is thankful that he has been delivered from his evil past. This was related without a hint of irony.

The real kicker is that he related this to me just before we went to trial where we were representing co-defendants in a battery case. Not the time you want to hear your co-defendant's lawyer thinks the ACLU is evil. I wound up winning the case on a technicality and he seemed pleased with the result.

[Fun2BFree]

ceo_esq-

you claim to have no religious axe to grind which only implies that you are unaware of the incredible logical backflips and circuitous reasoning you put yourself through to try to justify your position that certain religious ideas deserve special mention in their influence of our laws--all of which make you look ridiculous to any impartial and reasoned observer --you and those you cite are all similarly blinded by a narrow if not pro -Christian worldview a worldview and view of history that is seen after distilled thru Christian smokescreens--as if Christianity invented the ideas that it includes---you try to trace everything that was not Judeo Christian as somehow influenced so much by Judeo Christian that it is actually just a reflection of Judeo-Christian laws....but
why stop with Judeo Christian when those traditions were derived and incorpoirated and adapted from others---you rreally think that it came from God???? Really? That is the basis of common law and by extension, American law???? You ignore the most important aspect and founding principle of common law which is that it is not handed down by God- it is adapted from whatever the people had been doing by custom--this is anti-thetical to the entire tradition of Judeo-Christian "laws" which come from on high--Mosaic law came from the mountain---that people generally followed and accepted Christianity was more the marketing and refinement of Christianity to suit the people's tastes and mores than it was following of God's law...how else to explain the absence of tons of biblical laws that do not carry over to common law? But for someone like you, who calls it not the West but the "Christian" west --it is not surprising that you find what you are looking for and then stop looking and stop thinking..because of the biases I mentioned before evident from such slips--Western Civilization begins long before the fairy tale of Jesus...and much of what Jesus and Moses taught existed without them and much of what they taught is completely and appropirately ignored.. (stone any adulterers lately? have any slaves? sacrificed any animals?).--you say you agree that the court was correct in ordering that the monument be moved then argue -ineffectively- that actually the 10 Commandments are the basis of American law--your arguments are lame...just because you are a lawyer does not make your arguments correct or logical-- in this case they fail....citing other Christian biased thinkers does not get past the fundamentals---the laws of this nation must all conform to Constitutional principles...common law conforms to customs some of which coincide with religious custom all of which must pass the first order of acceptance among MEN not related or dependent on God's wishes in the Bible. In the Bible it s is well understood by the Jehovah's Witnesses, the difference between laws of governments and those of God are clear "My kingdom is not of this world."

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
ceo_esq-

you claim to have no religious axe to grind which only implies that you are unaware of the incredible logical backflips and circuitous reasoning you put yourself through to try to justify your position that certain religious ideas deserve special mention
What? More evidence this isn't just Yahzi's quirky little impression?

Gosh jee golly whiz, who woulda thought?

[Fun2BFree]

What do the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and common law all have in common?

The fundamental idea that the power of the law derives from the consent of the governed--from the people...that is more John Locke--- not Moses.

Judeo-Christian ideas come the notion that laws are divine, immutable and come from above...like the divine rights of kings. Opposing such ideas is the foundation of the United States of America...sorry...that does not fit with some people's wishful thinking about the importance of religious thought in America--but quoting all the religious people in the world about their warped view of our history does not change our nations fundamental founding legal principle--the power of the people to rule themselves according to those rules they see fit-- not as it is writ in sacred texts-but according to democratic principles more akin to ancient Greece than ancient Judea.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Yahzi

What? More evidence this isn't just Yahzi's quirky little impression?

Gosh jee golly whiz, who woulda thought? Thanks for chiming in, Yahzi. I think the lesson here is that, in an environment such as this forum where many (though not all) of the non-religious people are extremely unfavorably disposed toward all things Christian - people tend to leap to the conclusion that someone who presumes to critique arguments directed against Christianity must be either be Christian or harbor a pro-Christian bias. Of course, shooting down many such arguments presented here is like shooting fish in a barrel - it's neither very difficult nor does it require Christian credentials. Leaping to a conclusion is still leaping to a conclusion. In my case, I thought you had purported to accept the fact that the conclusion was wrong, but your persistent attempts to justify your mistake (which these days focus less on my actual statements than on citing other people who have made the same mistake) indicate otherwise.
Originally posted by Fun2BFree
But for someone like you, who calls it not the West but the "Christian" west I referred to the Christian West (precisely once, by the way) because I was emphasizing that Judaic sources were largely interpreted, retained (or discarded), and transmitted in the West (from late antiquity at least up through 18th-century British common law) with a particularly Christian slant (rather than, say, a Jewish one). That should have been clear if you had been paying attention to what I was actually trying to say. It was neither a slip nor evidence of bias.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
What do the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution and common law all have in common?

The fundamental idea that the power of the law derives from the consent of the governed--from the people...that is more John Locke--- not Moses.That is certainly the case with modern common law, although it was not precisely true of earlier versions of common law. But more importantly, you are now addressing the philosophical question of whence the authority of laws is derived, which is distinct from the historical question of whence their content is derived.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
That is certainly the case with modern common law, although it was not precisely true of earlier versions of common law. But more importantly, you are now addressing the philosophical question of whence the authority of laws is derived, which is distinct from the historical question of whence their content is derived.

I think you put your finger on the larger problem. It seems many are unable to make a distinction between the two concepts you outline. Assuming our present law developed at least in part from biblical influence, it does not follow that the authority for the law stems from the bible.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think Ceo is right that the mosaic tradition may have had some small influence on our legal tradition however there are many other influences as well on display in the Supreme Court. Greco-Roman, Feudal, Spartan, that from Enlightenment ideology, Cannon Law, Common Law (which existed before Cannon Law) etc. I mean Mosaic law never just dropped down at any time and was absorbed by the masses. Mosaic law had to always be interpretated and re-interpreted (as well as evaluated) at its time. We for example don't make lying illegal, nor adultery, nor not honering thy parents, nor working on the Sabbath, nor do we stone rebelious children to death. Such a change did not occur over night.

Deism played a large role into the ultimate formation of our laws and legal system.


Other European Deists were Anthony Collins (1676-1729), Matthew Tindal (1657-1733). J.J. Rousseau (1712-1778) and F.M.A. de Voltaire (1694-1778) were its leaders in France.

Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system, including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/deism.htm


Though I would really like to hear CEO's view on Church-State separation issues.

1) Do you CEO think that Church and State should be separated?

2) Should there be prayer in school?

3) Should the Ten Commandments have been left up in Judge Moore's court?


CEO also has once stated that whoever attacks the idea of the Ten C's being the foundation for the constitution as false, is attacking a straw man. CEO are you really saying nobody on the religious right thinks the ultimate authority in US legal matters is the Ten Commandments? Are you honestly saying nobody on the religious right adheres to the viewpoint that our Founding Father's based our constitution on Christian law?


I'm just wondering because CEO does not really, if he believes in Separation of Church and State, make himself clear enough on such matters.

He seems a bit more concerned with the "harmful atheists" that may be ignoring the role of the Ten C's in legal tradition or saying it plays a smaller part then it actually did (something truely unforgivable), then he is with the religious right that seems to want to tear the constitution to shreds and make america a "Christian Nation".

[DialecticMaterialist]

Nothing like laypeople expounding on the nature of the legal system...

Nothing like a self-proclaimed expert resorting to insults. CEO even if you are a lawyer, that doesn't necessarily make you an expert on all aspects of the legal system, let alone legal history. Especially a history with such scope, beggining over two thousand years ago. That's like someone saying that because he is an engineer, he can comment on the history of physics, quantum mechanics or the big bang. Such a person can of course make comments, but they will never carry the weight by themselves as lets say, Stephen Hawkings or a theoretical physicist. This is because such a person is more a practitioner then a researcher or historian (and they mainly do research in so far as it helps their practice.)

This means if you make claims here you have to prove them and anyone should be able to challenge your arguments, whether they are laymen or not.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Though I would really like to hear CEO's view on Church-State separation issues.

1) Do you CEO think that Church and State should be separated?

2) Should there be prayer in school?

3) Should the Ten Commandments have been left up in Judge Moore's court?Hello DM.

I'm not at all persuaded that my views on those things are relevant to the argument, but since you and I dialogue quite a bit on (semi-)related issues I suppose it's a reasonable query.

The difficulty with the first two questions is that they're too abstract (absent any specific factual context) to really signify much.

1) I think that church and state are better off separated, obviously, and that in the United States they should remain separated to the fullest extent required by the Constitution. (I realize that this is not the fullest extent conceivable.) I reject theocracy and erastianism as political models for the country. That said, I think that religious (or non-religious) tolerance and liberty of conscience are the fundamental issues at stake, and I acknowledge that a nation can be fairly enlightened and progressive as to those issues while still lacking a formal separation (such as in the UK), although I would strongly disfavor any such politico-religious establishment in my own country.

2) Only on pop quiz days. Seriously, though, I vigorously oppose prayer in school under unconstitutional circumstances. Apart from that I have no strong views on the issue.

3) I've already said a couple of times that I thought Judge Moore's commandments had to go and that I agreed with the court decisions. What bothers me slightly about this question, though, is the idea that it would even be necessary. Only a fundamentalist Christian might be likely to answer "Yes" to the question, and you know that I'm not.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
CEO also has once stated that whoever attacks the idea of the Ten C's being the foundation for the constitution as false, is attacking a straw man. CEO are you really saying nobody on the religious right thinks the ultimate authority in US legal matters is the Ten Commandments? Are you honestly saying nobody on the religious right adheres to the viewpoint that our Founding Father's based our constitution on Christian law?With respect to the Constitution in particular, I have pointed out that arguing about the Constitution is not overwhelmingly relevant to a discussion of the origins of American law and legal procedure generally, because comparativle little of the law and procedure is addressed by the Constitution. I mention this one more time just in case that is one of the remarks you had in mind.

Obviously there are people who believe that the Ten Commandments were the foundation of U.S. laws. I have argued elsewhere that this claim is defensible if and only if numerous qualifiers are tagged onto it and if the entire claim is understood in a limited historical sense. Some people believe the claim is defensible without qualification and in an absolute sense, and I obviously disagree.

There are even people who believe that the Ten Commandments served as the foundation for the Constitution in particular. I think that this claim is even less defensible than the first one (see my earlier arguments regarding the distinction between U.S. law generally and the Constitution specifically), although I realize that a few of the people holding this viewpoint were themselves Founding Fathers. Some of Judge Moore's supporters believe it as well, and even some courts have essentially endorsed it from time to time. "A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem from the basic moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue," the Florida Supreme Court wrote in 1950. I think that is a gross overstatement.

Those views are, of course, extreme, and the arguments that are most susceptible to being productively discussed and engaged on an intellectual and academic level are not those arguments. Accordingly, although the viewpoints you referred to are not strawmen in an absolute sense (that is, not in the sense that no one anywhere subscribes to them), they are strawmen for the purposes of the type of serious discussions you and I have had, because our discussions do not entertain the validity of such extreme perspectives.

What I have tried to do elsewhere is to sketch out a basic and accurate case regarding the relationship between the Ten Commandments and our legal tradition that is historical rather than theological. One thing to remember is that acknowledging such a relationship need not have bad implications for Constitutional secularism. After all, the federal district court in Moore's case acknowledged the evidence presented on both sides establishing the historical relationship, and still ruled against him. What a lot of people seem not to realize is that Moore's case did not break down because he failed to persuade the courts of a sufficiently strong historical or thematic nexus between the Ten Commandments and U.S. law. It broke down because regardless of the extent of such a nexus the monument violated the Establishment Clause (via the Fourteenth Amendment).

Therefore, those arguments are something of a red herring that has succeeded in distracting both sides. I think that a lot of the passion devoted to such arguments arises from a misconception on each side that the stronger and more sweeping the claim that the Commandments are part of the lineage of the secular law, the likelier it is that courts will give the fundies what they want and permit what are clearly encroachments on the Establishment Clause. They won't; the law doesn't work that way.

Suddenly's observation earlier that people have trouble distinguishing the historical content of laws from ideas about the authoritative power of those laws applies both to the Moore and the anti-Moore camps (if I may use those designations as a sort of shorthand). Even if everything I've said about the Ten Commandments and Western law is true (and of course, I believe it is), it makes no real difference to the separation of church and state as we generally understand the concept. It doesn't mean that any court is legally beholden to Christian theology. It doesn't mean that our political, civil and legal institutions have not fully and formally transcended the religious frameworks that may have influenced their development.

I sometimes wonder if certain people would be so hostile (even to the point of rejecting or ignoring significant historical and jurisprudential evidence) to the kinds of arguments I've made regarding the Ten Commandments if they realized this. Unfortunately, what seems to have developed is a sort of zero-sum mentality according to which any concession or acknowledgement having anything to do with religion (even if purely historical rather than theological) is viewed as a crack in the door barring the path to theocracy. Perhaps some religious fanatics share a similar mentality, but why should we adopt it? It only prevents us from approaching such issues in an objective, clearheaded and factually sound manner.
Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I'm just wondering because CEO does not really, if he believes in Separation of Church and State, make himself clear enough on such matters.

He seems a bit more concerned with the "harmful atheists" that may be ignoring the role of the Ten C's in legal tradition or saying it plays a smaller part then it actually did (something truely unforgivable), then he is with the religious right that seems to want to tear the constitution to shreds and make america a "Christian Nation". Well, perhaps my views are a bit clearer now. As I've stated before, however, my philosophical and political convictions about the separation of church and state are just as irrelevant as yours or anyone else's to the factual arguments I make. So when you suggest that I don't make myself clear enough on such matters, my question is, "clear enough for what"?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
2) Should there be prayer in school?

DM, to be honest - and don't forget, I'm a fervent seperationist - that's a totally loaded and unfair question within the contest of Church/State issues.

I for one would never suggest that any student be stopped from praying in school any time/any where. As ceo_esq has pointed out, I certainly wouldn't begrudge children asking for some devine help on a pop quiz (though a few more minutes of study might be more productive).

It would be more appropriate to phrase the question within the actual context of the controversy. Should organized or "official" prayer be in school? Obviously the answer is no - at least not in Public Schools.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Nothing like a self-proclaimed expert resorting to insults. CEO even if you are a lawyer, that doesn't necessarily make you an expert on all aspects of the legal system, let alone legal history. Especially a history with such scope, beggining over two thousand years ago. That's like someone saying that because he is an engineer, he can comment on the history of physics, quantum mechanics or the big bang. Such a person can of course make comments, but they will never carry the weight by themselves as lets say, Stephen Hawkings or a theoretical physicist. This is because such a person is more a practitioner then a researcher or historian (and they mainly do research in so far as it helps their practice.)

This means if you make claims here you have to prove them and anyone should be able to challenge your arguments, whether they are laymen or not. My comment about laypeople expounding on the nature of the legal system actually was made in the context of Fun2BFree's insistence on a substantive constitutional basis for all American law. This is an assertion that any lawyer would be well-equipped to dispute (note that Brown did as well).

The study and practice of law is, by its nature, more historically oriented than, say, engineering (Brown already mentioned how standard academic case studies delve far back into previous centuries). Of course, many lawyers have not devoted much study to some of the historical legal topics we discuss, although (similar to the engineer in your example) their training arguably makes them more likely than the average person to be able to grasp and evaluate scholarship in specialized legal disciplines (such as legal history) when they encounter it. You are entirely justified in pointing this out. On the other hand, the history of Western legal traditions has been an area of academic concentration of mine, although it intersects only occasionally with my professional practice in general. Nevertheless, I avoid making arguments that rely solely on my own authority in such matters.

I don't dispute the right of anyone to challenge any arguments here, although in my experience, the closer the argumentation is related to contemporary law and legal procedure (as Fun2BFree's constitutional arguments did) the more likely it is that a lawyer will reliably be able to detect errors in it. This occurs with sufficient frequency to become occasionally exasperating, as Brown suggested.

[Brown]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The study and practice of law is, by its nature, more historically oriented than, say, engineering (Brown already mentioned how standard academic case studies delve far back into previous centuries).Pardon me for interrupting, but I have to say that this remark made me smile.

In my studies of electrical engineering, nearly everything was developed within the past few years. Sure, fellows with names like Kirchhoff, Fourier, Bernoulli, LaPlace and Heaviside were mentioned, but most of the practical device information is relatively new.

Semiconductors are a relatively recent invention, and no one teaches vacuum tubes anymore. The slide rule is out, and the calculator and computer are everywhere. There is a lot less table-driven engineering (a big exception being Thermodynamics), and a lot less interpolation. Models are far more intricate than they were twenty years ago. Digital analysis is now important, and new digital techniques are being developed literally every day.

History place very little role in the study of engineering. (Historical events such as the humiliation of Fourier, and Fourier's vindication, are presented as sidelights and are not required reading.)

By contrast, legal history is very pertinent to the law of today. Law, as ceo_esq says, is "historically oriented." But not all history is equal. Doctrines such as strict product liability and comparative fault are relatively modern. The historical "bases" for these doctrines go back only a few decades. (Rules of liability pertaining to defective products and fault extend back much longer than that, but these rules are largely inconsistent with, and do not form the "basis" for, modern laws.)

The historical "bases" for other doctrines, however, extend back by centuries. In some cases, the roots of some state laws extend to English common law from the 1500s. Some of those roots, however, are being snapped or eroded in recent years, as today's courts conclude that some of the old rules don't work all that well in the modern world. In addition to being "historically oriented," courts are "practically oriented" as well.

And so it is with all branches of law. Old laws affect modern laws, and may be a part of the history of modern laws. But old laws are not necessarily the "basis" for modern laws. I suspect there is a consensus on this point.

[DialecticMaterialist]

CEO I would like to thank you for presenting your viewpoints and would like to point out that I think you and me agree on many things. I agree for example that the Ten Commandments had an effect on the evolution of our law(which is why I'm ok with it in the Supreme Court), what degree of effect I cannot really say, and I likewise agree that many of our Founding Fathers may have been very devout Christian men (almost all if not all were theist).

I also agree that emotions get heated up on the issue. Recognizing that, it would be somewhat constructive if you gave people this sort of information beforehand, while you posted. If need be by just briefly pointing out that you believe in Church-State separation. Like you said this is a loaded issue, and both sides are partial to assumptions.

I'm not saying you absolutely must do it. We can in a sense blame people for making such assumptions on this issue. But it would help a lot in avoiding controversy and making people more receptive to your viewpoint.

People naturally assume, that's human nature. Especially on a topic as controversial as this where the other side is very extremist.

Evolutionary psychologists for example, when they make books for lay men, go to great lengths to distance themselves from genetic determinism, racism, eugnics etc. This is not necessary and nobody should assume evolutionary psychology is the equivalent to racist theories of the past, but it does help a lot in avoiding needless controversy and needless accusations.

I'm not presenting this as a criticism but as a suggestion. I mean part of why you post is to have people entertain your view, be willing to accept it and they will do so more favorably if you calm them down and dispell certain fears they have built up. Sometimes by debating with a lot of fundamentalists on the issue who would quickly have taken many of your arguments as support for your side (and quoted you to no end, some even after you have made the calrification).

I mean all that would be doing is putting it in a context to help clarify things.

[ceo_esq]

I didn't know where else to express how bummed out I am that the "Ten Commandments and legal history" thread appears to have been pruned.

[Cleopatra]

I am terribly sorry for that ceo_esq :(

I blame myself because one of my last year's students in Law School remembered your introductory post that I have distributed them ( yes I have distributed this opening post of the JREF forums in the graduating students of the Law School --to 200 students) and asked me for a copy because he had lost it. I neglected to print out one.

Oh well. Maybe Claus has a copy.

[Cleopatra]

Ceo_esq, check this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php?s=). You might find it equally interesting. :)

[Cleopatra]

Claus had saved this thread among other things.

You can access it here (http://www.skepticreport.com/download/22874.htm). I know that you posted it to keep it here but the data is not lost. Maybe we can repost it.


Thanks Claus!

[RandFan,Jr.]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I'm not presenting this as a criticism but as a suggestion. I mean part of why you post is to have people entertain your view, be willing to accept it and they will do so more favorably if you calm them down and dispell certain fears they have built up. Sometimes by debating with a lot of fundamentalists on the issue who would quickly have taken many of your arguments as support for your side (and quoted you to no end, some even after you have made the calrification). :(

One would think that skeptics would be less likely to make such assumptions. That fundamentalists would use Ceo's text out of context or simply misapply them does not excuse those who should be critical thinkers.

Your suggestion is a pragmatic one Dialectic, I can't speak for Ceo_esq but I find it frustrating none the less. I guess it is the nature of humans and must be expected, allegedly skeptic or not.

Ceo,

Outstanding responses and my thanks to Cleopatra and Claus. I had not read that original post.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Thanks Claus!

Yes, a big thank you to Claus!

As I am from Alabama and have to deal with these "Moore" fans in day to day; I used the information in the thread to make good argument with them.

[ceo_esq]

Yes, many thanks to Claus.

Incidentally, there's been some further movement today in Roy Moore’s ongoing legal wrangles:Lawyers for Roy Moore filed court papers Thursday reiterating his contention that the special state Supreme Court that ousted him from office should have considered whether the federal court order Moore disobeyed was lawful.

The latest papers were filed in response to documents Attorney General Bill Pryor filed opposing Moore's reinstatement as chief justice.

"For this court to refuse to examine the unethical and unlawful nature of the underlying court order removes any ethical foundation of ethics proceedings, sets a dangerous precedent mandating unconditional obedience to unlawful and unethical court orders and denies Chief Justice Moore due process of law," Moore's lawyers contended in their filing Thursday.

The state Court of the Judiciary removed Moore from office in November, ruling that he violated state judicial ethics canons by refusing to obey U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson's order to remove a monument to the Ten Commandments from the state judicial building's rotunda.

(full story (http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1076669308241940.xml))Appealing his removal from office isn't the only thing that's keeping Moore busy these days, though:A measure introduced in Congress would bar federal courts from reviewing state court rulings that permit "acknowledgment of God."

The Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in the House and Senate in response to last year's court-ordered removal of a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building.

Much of the work on the legislation was done by Roy Moore, who was ousted as Alabama's chief justice after refusing a federal court order to remove the monument he installed.

(full story (http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=1643694))

[ceo_esq]

Check out this vengeful piece of legislative score-settling (http://www.morallaw.org/sb2082.pdf) drafted by Roy Moore and currently pending in committee before the U.S. Congress. I like how it not only justifies Moore's behavior but also provides for punishing all of the federal judges who done him wrong (technically it's not a bill of attainder, but it ensures that any future judges who presume to invoke the Constitution to prevent the public acknowledgement of God will suffer the same humiliating censure and job termination endured by Moore himself).

[Brown]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Check out this vengeful piece of legislative score-settling (http://www.morallaw.org/sb2082.pdf) drafted by Roy Moore and currently pending in committee before the U.S. Congress.What a load of crap. Shame on the lawmakers who introduced or sponsored this pompous nonsense.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Brown
Shame on the lawmakers who introduced or sponsored this pompous nonsense. From where I sit, all I see is "nonsense". A little help for us legally illiterate? What exactly are we looking at here?

[Agammamon]

The 10 commandments (http://www.the10commandments.info/)


As to why these aren't the basis for western law


Commandments 1-4 deal with solely with religious matters.
7 prohibits adultery which, while a huge concern in the past, is generally left up to the concsience of the parties involved.
10 seems to be a general prohibition against envy or jealousy, something that has never to my (admittedly limited) knowledge been illegal.

So that leave roughly 4 out of 10 (and #5's iffy) as the "basis" of western law, significatly less than 50%. 'Course we won't mention precedents from earlier sources since that just muddies this issue. Or the fact that there are at least 2 different versions of the decalogue in any particular version of the bible. Or that the decalogue is different depending upon which version of Christianity you subscribe to.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Upchurch
From where I sit, all I see is "nonsense". A little help for us legally illiterate? What exactly are we looking at here? Basically, the Act seeks to change the Constitution by preventing enforcement of the Constitution in the Courts. In particular, the Act seeks to repeal the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by making the Clause unenforceable in the courts.

Suppose some governmental official sought to acknowledge "God as the soverign source of law, liberty or government," whatever that means. It could mean, for example, a governmental official taking a blatantly unconstitutional action based upon something that the official deemed to be "God's Word." Under current law, that action would run afoul of the Establishment Clause.

The conventional remedy would be to seek redress in the courts.

This proposed legislation would remove that remedy.

Section 1260 would deprive the Supreme Court of jurisdiction "to review ... any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.’’

Section 1270 would make the deprivation applicable to the district courts as well.

The portion identified as section 301 removes the precedential value of any previous cases in which courts ruled upon issues in which a governmental official sought to acknowledge "God as the soverign source of law, liberty or government." In effect, this would effectively legislatively overturn all cases in which an official violated the First Amendment's Establishment clause.

The portion identified as section 302 is a "poison pill" that says that any judge who tries to exercise jurisdiction about such issues shall have committed an impeachable offense.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
From where I sit, all I see is "nonsense". A little help for us legally illiterate? What exactly are we looking at here? Quick background: the Constitution created only the Supreme Court and gave it limited jurisdiction, but gave Congress the power to create lower federal courts. One of the "checks and balances" in this scheme is that the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts is generally controlled by Acts of Congress (that is, Congress dictates what types of disputes can be heard by federal courts).

What the proposed law would do is use this congressional power to carve out an exception to the jurisdiction of the federal courts: no federal court could hear a case involving a challenge to the acknowledgement by a state or federal agency or official "of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." It's sort of a sneaky, indirect way of making sure that the unfavorable outcome in the Ten Commandments lawsuit against Moore is never repeated - because the next time a similar controversy arises, the federal courts might be powerless even to accept the case.

That's the main idea. The proposed law would also remove the precential weight of prior decisions (like the one in Moore's case) which, if they had arisen after the passage of the law, would have run afoul of it, and it stops federal courts from invoking laws or judicial decisions of foreign countries or international organizations except for English common law (which is already incorporated into the Constitution). Sometimes, American judges facing a difficult or novel legal issue will take into consideration how foreign courts have handled a similar issue. This really bugs people like Moore, because foreign legal institutions are often more hostile to religion than American legal institutions.

Finally, as an enforcement mechanism, the proposed law calls for judges who try to ignore its provisions to be removed from office.

[ceo_esq]

Oops - already ably answered by Brown.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Commandments 1-4 deal with solely with religious matters.
7 prohibits adultery which, while a huge concern in the past, is generally left up to the concsience of the parties involved.
10 seems to be a general prohibition against envy or jealousy, something that has never to my (admittedly limited) knowledge been illegal.

So that leave roughly 4 out of 10 (and #5's iffy) as the "basis" of western law, significatly less than 50%. 'Course we won't mention precedents from earlier sources since that just muddies this issue. Or the fact that there are at least 2 different versions of the decalogue in any particular version of the bible. Or that the decalogue is different depending upon which version of Christianity you subscribe to.

I agree.

Furthermore, don't the 10 Commandments reflect the Code of Hammerabi?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Agammamon
The 10 commandments (http://www.the10commandments.info/)


As to why these aren't the basis for western law


Commandments 1-4 deal with solely with religious matters.
7 prohibits adultery which, while a huge concern in the past, is generally left up to the concsience of the parties involved.
10 seems to be a general prohibition against envy or jealousy, something that has never to my (admittedly limited) knowledge been illegal.

So that leave roughly 4 out of 10 (and #5's iffy) as the "basis" of western law, significatly less than 50%. 'Course we won't mention precedents from earlier sources since that just muddies this issue. Or the fact that there are at least 2 different versions of the decalogue in any particular version of the bible. Or that the decalogue is different depending upon which version of Christianity you subscribe to. Let's not reinvent the wheel here:

http://www.skepticreport.com/download/22874.htm

(Unfortunately, the original thread in its entirety was pruned from the JREF site.)

[Brown]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The proposed law ... also ... stops federal courts from invoking laws or judicial decisions of foreign countries or international organizations except for English common law (which is already incorporated into the Constitution). Sometimes, American judges facing a difficult or novel legal issue will take into consideration how foreign courts have handled a similar issue. This really bugs people like Moore, because foreign legal institutions are often more hostile to religion than American legal institutions.I'm glad you commented on this section. The section struck me as unreasonably vague and I wasn't sure of its specific purpose. Perhaps it was part of an overall theme: to stop judges from being "activist" judges, whatever that means. Or perhaps it was meant as an insult to the judicial branch, by suggesting that the judicial branch didn't know how properly to interpret the Constitution.

Judges rarely mention foreign laws these days, and they never treat foreign laws as binding. The proposed legislation nevertheless says that a court of the United States may not "rely" on such foreign laws in interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States. "Rely" is an undefined and vague term in this context.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Brown
I'm glad you commented on this section. The section struck me as unreasonably vague and I wasn't sure of its specific purpose. Perhaps it was part of an overall theme: to stop judges from being "activist" judges, whatever that means. Or perhaps it was meant as an insult to the judicial branch, by suggesting that the judicial branch didn't know how properly to interpret the Constitution.

Judges rarely mention foreign laws these days, and they never treat foreign laws as binding. The proposed legislation nevertheless says that a court of the United States may not "rely" on such foreign laws in interpreting and applying the Constitution of the United States. "Rely" is an undefined and vague term in this context. I think what Moore and his ilk are worried about is some scenario in which a U.S. federal court one day cites a decision of, say, the godless European Court of Human Rights to support a conclusion that something (e.g. gay marriage) is an internationally recognized human right.

This also plays to general archconservative paranoia about international law being used to establish one world government and the loss of American sovereignty.

[spejic]

Originally posted by Brown
Basically, the Act seeks to change the Constitution by preventing enforcement of the Constitution in the Courts. In particular, the Act seeks to repeal the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by making the Clause unenforceable in the courts. So a judge can put a statue of a horned figure in his court with the enscription "Hail all-mighty Satan!" and there is nothing that could be done to stop him (except being voted out of office the next election)? Cool.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by spejic
So a judge can put a statue of a horned figure in his court with the enscription "Hail all-mighty Satan!" and there is nothing that could be done to stop him (except being voted out of office the next election)? Cool. Well, under the proposed law, official acknowledgment of God would be okay, but it doesn't extend the same protection to Satan.

[Gregor]

God, it must be an election year.

I gather that we'd see an interesting argument along the lines of Marbury v. Madison. Would the Supreme Court recognize a statute that held that the Supreme Court could not enforce the first amendment to the Constitution?

I'd guess the supremes would strike down such a statute.

I love a good persecution complex when I see one.

[ceo_esq]

Here's what the bill's supporters think of the constitutional issues:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/IntroToConstitutionRestorationAct.html

[Gregor]

CEO

Check the site more completely. The Yurica site looks like a uber-leftist site. That Yurica article cut and pasted a Q&A from the bill's author (i.e. Moore) from a separate site.


Back to Moore's paranoia. When asked who would favor the bill, the response was "those who oppose judicial tyranny."

Rrrrrriiiiigggggghhhhttttt.

[Cleopatra]

ceo_esq ( if you are still here)

I have a question regarding your opening post in the pruned thread " Ten Commandments and Legal Tradition".

In this very opening post you say:

First of all, consider the form of Roman Law that survived to be transmitted to successive traditions. By the mid-fourth century, the Roman Empire had become Christian. The sixth-century Codex Justinianeus that supplanted prior sources of Roman law reflected significant influence by and absorption of biblical legal precepts. The glosses to the Codex contain specific references to Mosaic law. Thus, the Roman vestiges you find in later Western legal traditions (including – importantly - canon law, which I’ll discuss a little further on) derive from this heavily Christianized form of law.

I am interested in reading more about the influence of the Ten Commandments on the Codex Justinianeus.Do you have any readings to suggest? Also, although you seem to consider the influence of TC on the Byzantine Law you don't discuss the matter analytically.

Thanks.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am interested in reading more about the influence of the Ten Commandments on the Codex Justinianeus.Do you have any readings to suggest? Also, although you seem to consider the influence of TC on the Byzantine Law you don't discuss the matter analytically.

Thanks. Cleo,

If I recall correctly, I believe this is discussed in Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion by Harvard/Emory professor and legal historian Harold Berman. That work might not be the best source, but it's the first one I can think off of the top of my head.

[Cleopatra]

Thank you very much. I traced the book this afternoon and it discusses the matter indeed. I still wonder though why scholars do not refer to that influence and people believe that the Roman Law is the only legal tradition on which the Justinian Code was based. Do you think that it has anything to do with the fact that the Ten Commandments are of Jewish origin?I don't wish to believe such things but I have learned to be suspicious I wasn't born suspicious.

The reason I am asking is because as I have told you before, some months ago I gave a copy of your post to some students in the Law School. One colleague ( but not so famous about his education, if I am allowed to say that) saw it and he almost accused me ( not in a direct manner of course) that I spread jewish-protestant propaganda at the University composed " by jewish-american lawyers".

This episode saddened me very much and I wish to explore the matter further.

Thanks for your help anyway.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Thank you very much. I traced the book this afternoon and it discusses the matter indeed. I still wonder though why scholars do not refer to that influence and people believe that the Roman Law is the only legal tradition on which the Justinian Code was based. Do you think that it has anything to do with the fact that the Ten Commandments are of Jewish origin?I don't wish to believe such things but I have learned to be suspicious I wasn't born suspicious.

The reason I am asking is because as I have told you before, some months ago I gave a copy of your post to some students in the Law School. One colleague ( but not so famous about his education, if I am allowed to say that) saw it and he almost accused me ( not in a direct manner of course) that I spread jewish-protestant propaganda at the University composed " by jewish-american lawyers".

This episode saddened me very much and I wish to explore the matter further.

Thanks for your help anyway. Anytime, Cleopatra.

Yikes, so now I'm a Jewish-American lawyer-propagandist? I think that many people (even many contemporary lawyers) are unfamiliar with the multiple Christian influences on Western law, and some of the people who are familiar with them are uncomfortable with the concept. The situation is further complicated by the fact that many people are neglectful of the Jewish legacy to Christianity, and some of the people who are familiar with it are uncomfortable with that concept. One consequence of these circumstances may be that, as you suggest, the subtle nexus between Mosaic law and subsequent Western civil-law and common-law systems tends to be obscured.

[Cleopatra]

I don't know how things are in USA or where you are right now but success among litigators in Greece is measured by the type of Mercedes they drive.

Many colleagues are not interested in the academic side of the profession something that it's totally their right but they feel obliged to attack those who see beyond the fee.

I do not understand either why some Christians feel weird when they discover the Jewish legacy of their religion as if this realization makes them feel more jewish!!