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

[Dallas]

You gotta love this guy....

[betty boop]

Its amazing that so many otherwise intelligent people believe that western civilization began in One AD.

And even more amazing that there are folks out there who apparently believe it began sometime in the 18th century....

[usadave]

But then again, wouldn't that be mob rule and I thought that was something we are against here, after all isn't that why we formed a Constitutional Republic?

You have brought up an interesting point to ponder over.

[andy_card]

Of course! They are anathema to our laws and justice. Christianity is not.

Punishing someone, not for crimes, but for simply coveting what is not his is concordent with American jurisprudence? Huh? What are you smoking? Legal enforcement of the Ten Commandments flies in the face of the entire Anglo Saxon legal tradition.

[RobbyS]

The purging of religious symbols has gobe far enough. When you consider that our law is based on the English common law, and that the oldest expression of that law written in Latin by Catholic priests, extreme secular objections are just plain silly. Next they will try to replace all oaths by affirmations.

[E Rocc]

What is the origin of the phrase?

It doesn't matter. The Commandment says "shalt not" not "shouldn't".

-Eric

[1L]

but that concern would have been covered by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Well, obviously, 9 and 10 come AFTER one, but we are talking about constitutional action, not Congressional Action. 9 and 10 deal with the latter. Remember, these were AMENDMENTS to the constitution. While in some cases they didn't actually amend (i.e. change) anything, they sought to clarify, for example, the bill of rights. What the framers sought to do in the first amendment was prevent the constitution as being interpreted as meaning state establishments of religion (among other things) had to go. Whether Congress came back later and enacted laws dealing with this issue (that would have been covered by the 9th and 10th amendment) was secondary.

Further, redundancy is not exactly scarce in historical Washington D.C. (or New York). I have examples for this, but I think you probably agree with me.

[TLBSHOW]

how did I know you would be here! Sigh!

[RobbyS]

Legal enforcement of the Ten Commandments flies in the face of the entire Anglo Saxon legal tradition. Where did you get THIS idea?

[andy_card]

I will link you to two catholic sites that debunk your claim. I am not Catholic, so I will let the sites do the speaking.

There are strong semantic and numerological differences between the two sets of Commandments. These sites try to underplay those differences, c.f.:

There is a minor difference between Protestants and Catholics concerning the numbering of the commandments.

But the differences remain.

[stands2reason]

As were Abraham, Moses, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus of Nazareth (at least half, according to one's beliefs).

Huh? None of these people were Americans at all. What's with the non-sequitur?

[E Rocc]

The purging of religious symbols has gobe far enough. When you consider that our law is based on the English common law, and that the oldest expression of that law written in Latin by Catholic priests, extreme secular objections are just plain silly. Next they will try to replace all oaths by affirmations.

Is Christianity part of English Common Law? Thomas Jefferson sure didn't think so.

-Eric

[nicmarlo]

What do you mean by "free from religion"?

Liberals, left wingers, anti-God, athiests have twisted "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion" and attempted to take away protected rights given to all Americans under the Constitution. They have done this on the bench (Separation of Church and State---not in the Constitution); no displays of nativity scenes, displays of "Ten Commandments," attempts to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge, and on an on. These people want the law of the land to be Freedom FROM Religion (any religious displays, mention of God, public prayer, such as at graduation ceremonies, etc.). I think you well know what I mean by "Freedom FROM Religion."

[Mark Felton]

Indeed, I don't disagree. Just keep thinking Jeffersons statement and my point in post #241:

"Using a definition of moral behaviour (10 C's) that has been largely accepted by Western civilization for 1000's of years is a far more reasonable, rational, logical thing to do than to arrogantly attemp to create some new set of "commandments"

The history of mankind is a history in which God-given religions have been used to empower elite classes of men to rule over lesser classes.

Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence took the next step in the Reformation in which the people justified their independence from despots using the Bible and by declaring their supreme allegiance to God not the State.

For the first time, The Bible was used as justification for individual liberties instead of authoritative oppression.

THAT was the REAL revolution which makes the Declaration of Independence one of the most important documents in human history.

[Greek]

You are ovelooking the Biblical basis for civil disobedience, and that is any "law" that is in direct conflict with natural law and the laws of God, are nullified ipso facto and we have no obligation to follow such a law. For example, if the SCOTUS outlawed all prayer, we would have no obligation to follow such a law, in fact we would be obligated to disobey. Likewise, the President would have no obligation to enforce such a law. Here, the "ordering" of the removal of the Ten Commandments would clearly violate the judge's inalienable right.

[XJarhead]

The practice of taking Sunday off, while religious perhaps in origin, was completely secular by the 18th century. They had one-day weekends, rather than two. That's no different than referring only to weekdays in official correspondence. Far from a promotion of religion, its simply the acknowledgement that folks don't work then. If that's the best you can do, your argument rests on awfully thin ice.

Andy, I agree with some of the points you've made, but this one goes too far. It wasn't completely secular by the 18th century. Sunday in particular was the day off because the majority of Americans were Christians who believed they were not supposed to work on Sunday. Or at least, believed that they should have the option of making it a day of rest. Folks who point out the mention of Sunday in the Constitution have a legit point, though I think its a pretty limited one.

[whattajoke]

Hey, pal. I'm a simple person. I've read the commandments a few times and can recite and explain them, but which one prhibits me and my wife from engaging in anal or oral sex and how does that relate to the sodomy laws you are quoting?

um, I'll let you go look up sodomy in the dictionary genius.

[stands2reason]

What does that have to do with who paid for the display or not? Taxpayers didn't pay for the monument or to install it. But since it's on public property, they somehow actually did... you are too much.

[Diamond]

while religious perhaps in origin

Perhaps?

...was completely secular by the 18th century.

There is no historical basis for your assertion.

Cordially,

[breakem]

uh, no need I read the laws you posted. Looks like no fun in Utah.

Your argument has now deteriorated to nothing. So I'll leave by saying that the first amendment seems to indirectly repudiate the first two commandments. So it seems the founders and state legislatures based our laws on "some" of the commandments. Is that your position, if not what is it?

[whattajoke]

Andy_Card and I are still patiently, oh-so-patiently, awaiting one person in this >400 post thread to tell us which commandment was necessary for the foundation of our constitution and laws...