I think the current use of the claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, or at least the way I understand this phrase in its strongest sense, is that the Ten Commandments are our law's foundation in two senses: (1) Our laws are derived historically, conceptually, and so forth in a unique manner from the Ten Commandments, so that if the Ten Commandments never existed our law would be recognizably different, if it would exist at all, and (2) because of (1) (perhaps or as a separate manner), justification of our laws must refer to the Ten Commandments. (I'm not entirely sure (1) and (2) are distinct in any interesting way). By "current use" (above) I mean how the contention functions in political discourse today. Bobby Robert Justin
Lipkin
Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ 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.
