Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that the Ten Commandments have influenced American law. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. at 462. The influence of the Ten Commandments on our laws goes far deeper than the body of American law itself. The most important influence of the Ten Commandments concerns the nature of God and its impact on human rights. The Ten Commandments teach monotheism. Monotheism is the moral foundation for Western ideas of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Our concept of "Equal Justice Under Law" can be traced directly to the view that God is One. The belief in human equality is strictly a religious concept, it did not originate from secularism. Monotheism pervades American culture including our laws to such an extent that it is impossible to escape its influence. Virtually, everyone participating in this discussion thinks like a monotheist, whether they are conscious of it or not. Even atheists who deny the existence of God think like monotheism albeit unknowingly. I am reluctant to recommend a publication since I wrote it. But my publication is about the way monotheism and the Ten Commandments influenced Western law and culture. Feel free to read the Table of Contents at www.mytencommandments.us
David W. New Attorney at Law Washington, D.C. 202-333-2678. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system? > For those who are interested in this issue, I have written an amicus > brief for the McCreary case (with the valuable assistance of Paul > Finkelman) that argues against a close connection between American law > and the 10 Commandments. If you would seriously consider signing on to > such a brief (on behalf of historians and law scholars) and would like > to see a draft, please let me know: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > By the way, my article in the JLR is based on research from my > dissertation which pre-dated my association with Americans United. > > -- > Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. > Associate Professor > Director, Center for Law and Government > Willamette University College of Law > 245 Winter St., SE > Salem, OR 97301 > 503-370-6732 > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic "creator" or "nature's God." > > > > Paul FInkelman > > > > Quoting Francis Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >>Very good questions. I think one could teach the logic of the > >>Declaration > >>without saying that it is true. For example, I frequently > >>lecture on > >>thinkers and arguments that I don't think are correct, but I > >>do so because I > >>would not be a virtuous teacher. On the other hand, it may be > >>that some > >>religious beliefs are more consistent with a just regime than > >>others. For > >>example, from your perspective a religion that taught its > >>adherents that the > >>state should teach in its schools the true religion would be a > >>religion that > >>is mistaken about the nature of the state. > >> > >>Frank > >> > >>On 12/18/04 3:23 PM, "Ed Brayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Francis Beckwith wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>The declaration says three things about rights: > >>>> > >>>>1. That they are self-evident > >>>>2. That they are inalienable > >>>>3. That they have divine source > >>>> > >>>>So, Ed seems to be suggesting that we jettison teaching the > >> > >>third because > >> > >>>>there is no principled way to teach it with out implying > >> > >>the falsity of > >> > >>>>other takes on God and rights. But, as you know, there are > >> > >>many who > >> > >>>>challenge the inalienability and self-evidence of rights > >> > >>precisely on the > >> > >>>>grounds that if rights have these non-material properties, > >> > >>it seems that > >> > >>>>some form of non-naturalism must be the case and theism is > >> > >>a form of > >> > >>>>non-naturalism. So, there's good reason to ignore 1 and 2 > >> > >>as well since it > >> > >>>>may lead one to think that theism has a lot more going for > >> > >>it in grounding > >> > >>>>rights than let's say materialism. > >>>> > >>> > >>>I'm not suggesting that we not teach that this is the > >> > >>philosophy behind > >> > >>>the Declaration, I'm just saying that if we allow teachers > >> > >>to advocate > >> > >>>that the theological position is true, how do we prevent > >> > >>them from > >> > >>>advocating any other theological position? If we cannot do > >> > >>so, then > >> > >>>we'll have quite a mess on our hands as Muslim teachers > >> > >>teach their > >> > >>>students that the Quran is true, for instance, or atheist > >> > >>teachers teach > >> > >>>that the bible is false. From a practical standpoint, this > >> > >>clearly isn't > >> > >>>workable, but at the same time you cannot constitutionally > >> > >>say that we > >> > >>>will allow teachers to teach some theological positions but > >> > >>not others. > >> > >>>How would you address that question, which was at the core > >> > >>of what I said? > >> > >>>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. > >>> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>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 of Law > > Univ. of Tulsa College of Law > > 2120 East 4th Place > > Tulsa OK 74104-3189 > > > > Phone: 918-631-3706 > > Fax: 918-631-2194 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
