Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

[Paul Finkelman]

Not to put too fine a point on these issues, but the for Roman Catholics 
and Lutherans, the 7th Commandment is a prohibition on stealing, not 
adultery.  That illustrates the whole problem of putting up these 
monuments.  What does it say to a child, for example, who passes the 
courthouse everyday and sees the 10 commandments and thinks they are 
"wrong" and is taught in Church that the list in front of the courthouse 
is wrong, but then is told by the government -- through the message of 
the courthouse -- that this is the "correct" 10 Commandments.

In general, I completely agree with Ed's other points.
Paul Finkelman
Ed Brayton wrote:
I must say, as it concerns the 10 commandments issue, that I'm not so 
concerned about the question of which text of the 10 commandments one 
uses as I am the question of why anyone rationally believes that they 
form the "basis of our laws" in the first place. At least 6 of the 10 
commandments would be entirely unconstitutional if turned into laws in 
this country, including all of the first five which are exclusively 
religious proclamations (thou shalt have no other gods before me, no 
graven images, taking god's name in vain, keeping the sabbath holy and 
honoring thy mother and father, and "coveting" they neighbor's stuff). A 
7th (thou shalt not commit adultery) would probably be unconstitutional 
under Lawrence, and is not in our system a legitimate law (though 
adultery is obviously wrong, it's not a criminal matter but a personal 
one). An 8th (not bearing false witness) can be made into law in some 
circumstances, such as perjury or libel, but not as a generalized rule. 
Only the injunctions against murder and theft are clearly a part of the 
law in the US and clearly constitutional as a general rule, and those 
laws are universal to all societies regardless of whether they've even 
heard of the Ten Commandments because no society could survive without 
them.

I've never understood this often repeated cliche that our laws are based 
on the ten commandments when at least 6 or the 10 are entirely forbidden 
to be laws at all under our constitutional system. And in all the years 
I've discussed this with people, I've never gotten a coherent answer to 
that argument. I don't think most people who make the initial argument 
even bother to think about it at all, it's just an empty truism.

Ed Brayton
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, Oklahoma  74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.