Biblical monument redux

Washington Times ^ | 1/20/04 | AP

[kattracks]

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP)

[orionblamblam]

>"This display is intended to acknowledge the undeniable role that the Ten Commandments and Bill of Rights have played in developing the American legal tradition,"

Ummm... do they have a similar display acknowledging the undeniable role that the pre-Christian European legal tradition (roman and Norse/Germanic) have played in developing the American legal tradition?

[MrJingles]

orionblamblam: Since Jan 8, 2004

Uh-oh, this isn't looking good...

[MrJingles]

As much as I hate to admit it, I think the atheists/pagans are right. The 10 Commandments is (at least interpreted as) a religious symbol, and thus has no place on government property.

As a born-again Christian, I wouldn't want some Buddah idol or a copy of the Koran in my local courthouse.

I think the solution, though, is not restricting religion, it's restraining government. Prayer in schools wouldn't be a problem if the Government wasn't in the education business.

[DesertSapper]

Your logic is a bit flawed. Neither the teachings of Buddha nor of the Koran had anything to do with our current legal system. The Bible/Torah and its 10 Commandments did.
The 10 Commandments are much, much more than a religious "symbol". Though a critical foundation for Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam (they are mentioned), these devine rules are the basis for secular law in 1/3 of the world.
Don't buy into the warped pseudo-logic of the anti-Christian, anti-establishment, amoral left.

[DesertSapper]

An A.R. Editorial
WHY SHOULDN'T WE KILL?
by Joe Shea
American Reporter Correspondent
Los Angeles, Calif.

Civilization sprang from law, and while there may have been earlier ones, the 10 Commandments - known to Jews as the Ten Declarations - pre-date Islam by 2,100 years, Christianity by 1,400 years, Confucianism by 850 years, and Buddhism by 775 years. They are the first Law of modern civilization, and while there may be a degree of religious and academic controversy about which version of these laws represents which religion, those differences are not carved in stone.

Moreover, there is a fundamental fact about the 10 Commandments: They are the reason we are a civilized people. For that reason alone, they do not merit exclusion from public places unless it is because they acknowledge the existence of God, as the Declaration of Independence also does, and to do so on that grounds is unconstitutional as a prohibition of religious expression - unless it is also unconstitutional to exhibit the Declaration of Independence in the National Archives and to teach it in our schools.

The 10 Commandments are the foundation of Western law, just as the Preamble (which is excluded from consideration as part of the Constitution but is very much part of it) is the foundation stone of the United States government. Even in Judaism, which recognizes 613 such commandments, or mitzvot, each of those is also recognized as a subdivision of the 10 that God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai The U.S. Constitution expressly permits the free practice of religion and expressly prohibits the establishment not of religion but of a religion. Therefore, anything construed as "establishing" a religion is tabu under the law, but no expression of it may be forbidden. The 10 Commandments belong to no religion, but to a religious tradition that must have a place of honor in American life..

An attorney cannot be forbidden to recite the Koran (which precisely reiterates all 10 commandments in Quranic verse) or the Bible or the Lotus Sutra in any courtroom should it otherwise be relevant when it is his or her right to speak in a courtroom, and no defendant can be sanctioned by any American court for invoking his or her religious belief as the basis for his conduct in a criminal action. It is in the mere scholarly and technical sense that the wording of the 10 Commandments are a preference of one religion or another, yet they are a fundamental expression of religious practice that may not be inhibited by courts.

The commandment "Thou shalt not murder" or "Thou shalt not kill" is the sole basis for any penal code section concernng homicide, and "Thou shalt not steal" is the sole basis for penalizing theft and robbery. Why, otherwise, would we not freely kill, and freely steal? Indeed, that is a right under Islamic law under certain circumstances, yet even that law says "If anyone has killed one person it is as if he had killed the whole of mankind." We permit people to kill others in self-defense - and so does the Old Testament. We kill at war and we kill at peace. So if we are otherwise free, what basis would our laws have to deny us the right to kill when we please? There are tens of thousands of laws that would be without an anchor unless the code of conduct that guided the development of Western and Middle Eastern civilization was present in them.

It is not trivial that a President swears his oath of office upon a Bible and uses the words, "so help me God." Even the United States Supreme Court begins its daily exertions only after hearing the declaration, "May God save this Honorable Court." U.S. currency proclaims "In God We Trust" because expressing our religious beliefs cannot be prohibited by law. These expressions of belief do not establish a religion.

The 5,300-pound block of granite containing the 10 Commandments located inside the Supreme Court building in Montgomery, Ala., is a protected expression of religion, and it moreover is an important and historic statement relevant to every law considered by the court. It is a document of Western civilization, of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and of America's profound acceptance of a Creator who orders our lives and destinies. The commandments are laws that no one is forced to obey, and indeed our criminal courts are clogged with those who freely reject them. Our courts must not.

[Junior]

The guy has a point: trial by jury is a pre-Christian concept, for instance. Just because he's been a Freeper for a little more than a week his opinions are suspect? I've been a Freeper for more than five years. Are my opinions suspect?

[orionblamblam]

>Uh-oh, this isn't looking good...

How so?

[orionblamblam]

>trial by jury is a pre-Christian concept, for instance

As are a great many othjer things basic to our system. it basically works out like this: our system of laws is based on English Common Law. English Common Law was based on Saxon Common Law. Saxon Common Law predates the Christianization of the Saxons by several hundred years. To quote: letter to Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814:

"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law...This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it...that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians...".

>Just because he's been a Freeper for a little more than a week...

Well... rather longer, actually. Got booted off a year or so ago. Hmm. Got booted off a year or so ago, *just* *after* pointing out that the American legal system is based on pre-Christian common law... maybe I should say my goodbyes now...

[orionblamblam]

>The 10 Commandments are much, much more than a religious "symbol".

"Thou shallt have no other gods before me."

Uhhh... where can I find that in the Constitution?

The ten commandments is actually pretty lean on things that would make up the basis of a system of laws. Don't murder, don't steal, don't purjor yourself (but it's hardly alone in being against these things).

After that, it gets rather fuzzier... committing adultery is clearly not a good thing, but it's arguably not something the government should be concerning itself with; and not covetting your neighbors stuff? That's downright anti-capitalist and unAmerican, dagnabit!

Don't make paintings/sculptures of gods, men or critters... well, there goes most of art. Remembering the sabbath is again not something the government gets involved with to the point of arresting those who don't, nor is there anything in the legal code that punished those who don't honor their parents.

Shouting "Jehovah" after whacking your thumb with a hammer won't get you sent to jail.

[The_Eaglet]

Campaign finance initiative fails to make ballot -Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 39

[orionblamblam]

> They are the first Law of modern civilization

What about the code of Hammurabi?

>the Preamble (which is excluded from consideration as part of the Constitution but is very much part of it) is the foundation stone of the United States government

Uhhh... no. That would be the Constitution. For the first several years, the US ran under the Articles of Confederation, and they didn't work out; the founders retooled and came up wioth the Constitution, which has worked well ever since. The Declaration was NOT a foundation for a form of government; it was what it was... a declaration of independence.

The Ten Commandments are what they are. Claims that they are what they are not diminishes them.

[Modernman]

Mr. Robinson said he had no authorization to place the monument on public property

Then what gives him the right to do this? At least Judge Moore could argue that, as Chief Justice, administration of the courthouse was his responsibility.

This guy is just grandstanding.

[orionblamblam]

> Then what gives him the right to do this?

The same right *you* have to put, say, a monument to Wendell Wilkie in the courthouse of your choice. And that right is enumerated in, um....

Errrr.....

[MrJingles]

Neither the teachings of Buddha nor of the Koran had anything to do with our current legal system.

Neither is the Bible. Our legal system is derived from English Common Law, which in turn was derived from Anglo-Saxon Common Law, which pre-dates the spread of Christianity into Germania.

Just because our system shares certain basic rules with the Old Testement does not mean that the former came from the latter. All advaned civilizations have established that theft and murder shoudn't be allowed, if only because the presence of such is not conducive to social stability.

Also, the 10 Commandments/American Law parallels are pretty slim. Our laws (for the most part) only enforce 2.5 of the 10 Commandments. (As they should.) Stealing and Murder are illegal, as is bearing false witness, but only when under oath. When's the last time you saw someone charged with not keeping the Sabbath? Or taking the Lord's Name in vain? Or for not honoring their parents?

2.5 out of ten is not evidence of a strong link.

[MrJingles]

When I see a newbie posting statements that will inspire (how should I put this?) a "robust" reaction from cetain members of this community, I instantly assume: "disruptor" or at the very least, "flame-bait."

I suppose the fact that Orion is still around detracts from this notion.

I apoligize.

(At least I never bet on baseball.)

[D Rider]

It is no longer about the 10 commandments religious or otherwise. It is now about the courts circumventing our laws and the rights of the people through their elected lawmakers, by a bunch of appointed oracles from on high.

Come the revolution, come the revolution! Using the ten commandments to flip the bird. Hmmm...

[orionblamblam]

>a newbie posting statements that will inspire ... a "robust" reaction from cetain members of this community

"This community" agrees on certain things, disagrees on others... and to conclude that someone takes one of the alternate positions does not make him *not* a member of "this community."

The facts are what they are; and the facts are that Saxon common law had a far broader and deeper impact on the formation of American law than the Ten Commandments... of which only two (don't kill anyone who didn't have it coming, don't take stuff that ain't yours) have any real bearing on American jurisprudence. And even with these two, the 10C are hardly unique.

So... why not simply hang a sign above the Judge that reads, "Don't murder and don't steal?" If you think that the 10C will ahve some special impact... consider the popularity of graven images.

Many people are convinced that there is an assault on Christianity, and that taking the 10C out of courts is a part of it. What was that Cromwell line... "I beg you, in the bowels of Christ, consider that you may be wrong."

[NutCrackerBoy]

Saxon common law had a far broader and deeper impact on the formation of American law than the Ten Commandments.

Granted, the history of common law is of under-appreciated importance, and you allude to aspects of history not usually commited to monuments. Still, yours is essentially a technical argument. That the Ten Commandments form a basis and frame the legitimacy of the laws of men in Western Civilization is beyond question. To hold that it is an unfit subject for commemoration is ludicrous.

[orionblamblam]

> That the Ten Commandments form a basis and frame the legitimacy of the laws of men in Western Civilization ..

*A* basis, not *the* basis. Men of Western Civilization were getting along just fine with their own successful system of laws long before the 10 C showed up on their particular scene. Western civ is *not* the story solely of Judeo-Christianity, but the story of everything from ancient Egypt through Greece, Rome, the Germans, Franks, Britons, Celts, Norse and more... none of whom were Christian when they made their biggest marks. Christianity is a fairly late development in terms of western civ.

> To hold that it is an unfit subject for commemoration is ludicrous.

Huh. And where did I say that, again? And do you hold the Havamal in equal importance in terms of commemoration down at City Hall?