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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

[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]

Quote:

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]

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

Quote:

"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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

"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)".

[Yahzi]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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

Quote:

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/mo...c/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]

Quote:

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)".

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]

Quote:

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:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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" 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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Quote:

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?