Replies

It is a major stretch to say that laws which prevent mistreatment the elderly are derived from the commandment "Honor thy Mother and Father". When kids become legal adults (18 or 21, whatever), they have absolutely zero legal responsibility for their parents. The parent needs help and the kid refuses...the law can't make them help. Any decent person would help their parents, but there is no legal obligation. The laws preventing abuse of the elderly apply to anyone, not just the kids. And before the kids turn 18, they don't have to "honor" their parents either.

Wow, No mail delivery on Sunday...and most government agencies are closed on weekends. Yep, that is remnant of Judeo Christianity. But it hardly rises to the level of "Keeping the Sabbath Holy". There is no law which says I can't work my butt off on Sunday. Many people do. I can drink liquor, watch football, go diving, and do any manner of 'unholy' things and there isn't a darn thing our laws can do to stop me. Darn that First amendment which says the Government shall make no law respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion. It is by Tradition, not by adherence to the Commandments that we take off on weekends.

Yes, the first Commandment says "Thou shall have no other Gods before me". And Our National Motto does say "In God We Trust". But what kind of lame law is that? Am I forced to Trust in a God? Absolutely not. The first amendment guarentees that I don't.

Again, SIX of the TEN Commandments are specifically excluded from our legal system. I am extremely grateful that our founding fathers intended to keep the government out of my spiritual life. I'll fight like hell to keep the fundamentalists of any religion from imposing a favored religion.

Gone to bed. Thanks for your reply! Your friend, Diverdogz.

While it my be a stretch to say that the elderly abuse laws derived stright from the ten commandments the basis is still there.

As for government agencies being closed on SAunday, the basis is still there.

Just because the motto is "lame" the basis is till there.

As Elsie pointed out in her post, there used to be laws against swearing in public. Again the basis is there.

That is what you asked for. The basis. That is what you got. Just because you disagree or what have you does not negate that that the basis of the principles of our legal system is deeply rooted in the Judeo Christina ten commandments.

Again, SIX of the TEN Commandments are specifically excluded from our legal system. I am extremely grateful that our founding fathers intended to keep the government out of my spiritual life. I'll fight like hell to keep the fundamentalists of any religion from imposing a favored religion.

You are right. I believe Judge Moore is doing Christianity a diservice.
Not only is he wrong in principle, but he is turning people off with his hostile defiant and angry rhetoric. This is not attracting people to Christianity. Quite the opposite.

Early in our history the Justices were strict constitutionalists. Today they tend through their decisions to be molders of culture, makers of law in contrast to the original intention of our founders who set up the three branches of government: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. They may be taking out of the hands of the American people the most basic moral and cultural decisions.

In 1892 our Supreme Court Decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States said, "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian...This is a religious people.
This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation...we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth...These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." The Supreme Court studied this for 10 years before writing this unanimous decision which clearly states that we are not a pluralistic, but we are a Christian nation.

In 1931, in the case of United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 the court said, "We are a Christian people...according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledge with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God."

In 1952 the Supreme Court, in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 307 313 stated: "We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion."

In 1963 the Supreme Court, in the case of School District of Abington Township v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,212,225 pp.21, 71, records: "The State may not establish a 'religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

The latter is just what is happening to America.