Judge Moore Ain't Removing Ten Commandments (FOX NEWS)

[Dallas]

You gotta love this guy....

[breakem]

I am glad there is no commandment against bad spelling. LOL!

[Jael]

"Did the Commandments influence our laws? Yes"

The display in question is a historical display regarding the history of law. So I can see from your above comment that you couldn't possibly have any objections!!!!

[FreeTally]

He made it clear that this was the Law his people must live by, and to adopt it as a basis of Civil Law is what has allowed civilization to continue to exist.

Please let me know your definition of "Civil Law" since it doesn't seem to be the same as the legal definition. "Civil" implies no criminal penalties, thus to gain recourse, an INDIVIDUAL(not the State) must prove harm in front of an unbiased jury. I dont think this is what you mean.

[nicmarlo]

BTW, what you're suggesting be followed is moral relativism....exactly why we're experiencing all the moral decay throughout this country.

[OPS4]

So now we play the game of Bible interpetation and get off the subject of the Ten Commandmendts coming from the word of God and being adopted as the Civil Law foundation.

I am glad you agree! Jesus was not the subject! The Ten Commandmendts were in the Old Testament not the New.

But since you bring it up let me say that Jesus enhanced the Law and made it clear to us all on the best way to
follow them, By the Golden Rule, and I wish all the people in the world, (not just America) would follow the Ten Commandmendts, and the example of Jesus Christ and his Golden Rule!

Ops4 God Bless America!

[Dave S]

What I find scary about your compromise is that a religious based idea can only be expressed if no one can be exposed to it. If that were to be accepted, then we would soon lose all our religious freedoms

So your idea of religious freedom and your ability to practice your religion means you have to be free to be in my face about it. Sounds similar to what the gay activists believe, they are only free if they can force us to accept their lifestyle.

[ppaul]

I'm not so sure that the founding fathers would have agreed. Most did not believe in a personal God.

Au contrare.
Most did.
Almost all of them have affirmed the phrase so often declared by the colonists
who took up arms against the Crown: "We have no king but King Jesus!"

[RetiredArmy]

Thank God that the loosing Democommie governor just threw in the towel and is backing down on his recount garbage. The new Republican governor can now begin his process of taking office. Nice of my old home state finally doing something right! Roll Tide!

[rwfromkansas]

Bush attacked the ruling that voluntary prayer in Texas was not okay, so I am positive there is not a chance in the world he would even think of enforcing this order if the SCOTUS goes along with it.

[SkyPilot]

We are either ruled by God or we are ruled by men.

That is a completely false assertion.

Judeo-Christian history is bursting with examples of men bowing their knee to the Almighty as the supreame authority, while simultaneously establishing laws and codes to function (and to submit to) here on earth.

Examine this statement written by Paul in the New Testament. It has served as a guidepost for centuries:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Romans 13:1

[Dallas]

well that certainly clears things up...LOL

[Dave S]

"We should include other documents that formed the inspiration for our form of government"

I must have misunderstood, I thought the issue was freedom of religious expression.

Gee and here I thought that Churches were places of religious expression, not courthouses or other government offices. How stupid of me.

[rwfromkansas]

yawn (it gets tired listening to ignorant people).

[pgyanke]

"Exactly. And yes, we do have laws prohibiting adultery, murder, and theft, and there are Commandments that relate to the underpinnings of those laws. BUT, there are plenty of non-Christian societies that have those same laws. And because those laws exist in the absence of the Ten Commandments, it is incorrect to assume that we have those laws because of the Ten Commandments. We'd have had them anyway even if we weren't Judeo/Christians."

---

Would we? Does anyone really care about adultery anymore (even in the highest official of the land)? As we fight against our own heritage, we gradually erode our standards as a nation.

Law and morality without God as the author are maleable. Law and morality based on God are immutable. I'll take the rule of law any day.

[rwfromkansas]

There are some things we can't submit to. For the most part, we are to submit.

[E Rocc]

Did the Commandments influence our laws? Yes. Are our laws based upon them as a whole? Absolutely not.

Exactly. And yes, we do have laws prohibiting adultery, murder, and theft, and there are Commandments that relate to the underpinnings of those laws. BUT, there are plenty of non-Christian societies that have those same laws. And because those laws exist in the absence of the Ten Commandments, it is incorrect to assume that we have those laws because of the Ten Commandments. We'd have had them anyway even if we weren't Judeo/Christians.

Very true. Throw in the fact that the right to have Gods other than the Judeo-Christian one, to take the JC God's name in vain, and to make "graven images" are protected and the supposed "foundation" of the Constitution on the Commandments gets much weaker.

-Eric

[breakem]

The link you sent me to is out of date. In the US we no longer have the state upholding commandments like no adultry. And as I have said before, most of the commandments are not codified in law. So your link only strengthens my argument.

I know you want this to be true, but your problem is that history is against you. Suffice to say the Roman influence and law was ahead on the Christian one in Europe.

[alancarp]

Official State Religions in colonial/early U.S. History:

Connecticut: Congregationalism
Massachusetts: Congregationalism
New Hampshire: Congregationalism
Virginia: Anglicanism (Church of England)
North Carolina: Anglicanism
New York: Dutch Reformed
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware: Quaker colonies, though not "officially" so.
Rhode Island: "openly tolerant of all sects."

Haven't found references on the other three colonies

Now why is this information relevant? Because the writers of the Constitution - and the Bill of Rights - made sure that CONGRESS would not trump the rights of the states by establishing a NATIONAL religion. Thus the states were free to do as they wished in the realm of religion, and many of these states did continue their state religions well into the 19th century (Mass. was last: 1833).

Those who believe that government and religion should never mix based upon their reading of the 1st Amendment are buying into the revisionist history brought about by courts that have re-interpreted the original intent of that writing... which all started after the Civil War (states' rights began to be equated with the breakup of the union).

[Jael]

I'm glad you are starting to understand. Whether or not you personally believe in God, you are still subject to the laws of the land.

Historically, the foundation for law is derived from the 10c.

The display is a historical in nature, regarding the history of law in the US.

Very appropriate.

[Sacajaweau]

It's a whole different issue when the government demands that you not work on the Sabbath.

You're ignoring the whole process of law:

Laws are proposed and legislated by and for the people. The Blue laws were established by the people and it is what the people wanted. It was a "business oriented" law, not a religious law.