Re: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
My response is interspersed below in square brackets. Very truly yours, Ross S. Heckmann Attorney at Law Arcadia, California Eugene: Sure the three things you mention are at the moral foundation of our law and *every* other legal system and are found everywhere. Surely you are arguing that but for the 10 C we would not have such rules. Furthermore, of course, of the three that you offer, only 1 (robbery)is in the 10 C. Murder is not in the 10 C used on the monuments around the country. (although it is in the Jewish 10 C, and is the correct translation). The monuments around the countyr use the very incorrect not kill of the King James Bible. We in fact know, from the use of the death penalty, that Thou shall not KILL has never been part of the moral foundation of our law. [Heckmann's response: There is nothing inconsistent about there being a generalized statement of a rule (Thou shalt not kill) with there appearing elsewhere exceptions to that rule (capital punishment).] Rape is NOT prohibited by the 10 C. The Biblical punishment for rape was to pay the father for the violation of his virgin daugher. Now, is THAT the moral foundation of law that you would like to propose for the United States? I rape your daughter and pay you some cash? I doubt it. [Heckmann responds: The punishment for rape was death. Deut. 22:25. The punishment for fornication was payment of the bride price, with or without a shotgun marriage (please pardon the anachronistic reference to firearms), subject to a veto by the bride's father. Ex. 22:16-17. At one time (and even today in many parts of the world), virginity was highly valued; an unfortunate corollary that has wrongfully been drawn from this is that, once a woman is violated, nobody else will marry her--period. At one time (and even today in many parts of the world), a woman without a husband as provider and protector might be in great destitution and peril. Life was short and the family might not be there forever to provide for an unmarried daughter.] You seem to want to load all good things on to the Ten Commandments and then ascribe them as the moral foundation of American law. Go read them and see what is there. The 10 C ban graven images (or sculpted images) of birds, fish, elephants and angels, now is that part of the moral foundation of law? [Heckmann responds: It has been so long since it was common to violate this law, that it has been all but forgotten. Seems to me that this denotes success, not failure.] Does our law require us to honor our father and our mother -- on the contrary, the Supreme Court says we do not even have to support them in their old age. [Heckmann responds: Perhaps there is no duty under the U.S. Constitution for a person to support his parents in their old age, but there certainly is under California law (Family Code section 4400), and I would be surprised to find any jurisdiction that doesn't require it.] Is the moral foundation of our law that we cannot covet our neighbor's house? What would happen to the real estate industry or the home building industry if that were truly the basis of our law. [Heckmann responds: Covetousness in this country had led us into public and private debt so great that is difficult to see how we will be able to emerge without severe economic dislocation. Again, this shows the law's salience, not its irrelevance.] From the very beginning of the country we had Sunday mail delivery as a way of showing that the US did NOT follow religious law. [Heckmann responds: The elimination of Sunday mails was one of the most noteworthy achievements of antebellum Evangelicalism. To this day, mail is not delivered on Sunday. Whether people think it's a good idea or not, it show that the U.S. did follow religious law.] Sunday closing was once part of our law, but most of the Sunday laws came from the labor movement in the late 19th century; and of course, none of the laws dealt with the Sabbath in the Bible (Saturday), so that was not the moral foundation of our law. [Heckmann responds: In the 19th Century, Sabbatarianism was far stronger than the labor movement, which at that time was more focused on limiting work to eight hours per day. Rightly or wrongly, most religious persons believed that the Sabbath day had been changed from Saturday to Sunday.] ___ 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.
Re: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
My response is below in square brackets. Very truly yours, Ross S. Heckmann Attorney at Law Arcadia, California In a message dated 12/18/2004 4:52:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: They would maintain that The Ten Commandments embody in uncorrupted form what was originally written on the conscience of each andall. If I understand Mr. Heckmann's response correctly,the Ten Commandments become morallysuperfluous. We need only to consult conscience for the basis of morality. If one replies that conscience is socially corrupted, we have no way of guaranteeing that our understanding of the Ten Commandments orofconscience of that matter isn't also socially corrupted. If so,the idea of"social corruption" engenders an intractable form of skepticism regarding the basis of morality. [Heckmann responds: I am sorry I did not make myself clearer. The conscience in conjunction with the Ten Commandments is far clearer than the conscience by itself. TheTen Commandments should not be regarded as engenderingmoral skepticism; they should be regarded as helping to retard it.] ___ 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
In a message dated 12/17/2004 6:57:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The foundation of American law, especially the *moral* foundation, begins with the Declaration of Independence, and continues at least through the adoption of the Bill of Rights. The Americans of 1776-1791 were clearly rejecting a great deal of their English heritage, including and established Church, an official religion, and the assumption that "God" made laws. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed," as Jefferson noted. Chief Justice Moore put up the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama because he claimed there was a high law which he had to obey. That may his personal theology, but it not the basis of our law. When did the state constitutional provisions adopting the common law of England, as it existed on a specified date, as the decisional law of the State get struck down by someone's Establishment Clause challenge? Paul ignores substantial elements of the thinking that undergirded the duty to revolt. The revolution was justified because, as Englishmen, their right to be represented was being denied to them (see the Declaration's specifications; the first six wrongs committed against the colonies involve denying representation or burdening its effective use). While the colonists clearly broke with the Parliament and the Crown, they did not utterly abate their affiliation with their own law and their own history. True the product included the ultimate devise of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but those were the subsequent developments of a new Nation seeking an effective form of governance. The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of representation, etc. Jim "And you were there" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
Jim writes: The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of representation, etc. So, what does the Ten Commandments have to do with representation? Nothing of course. That is the point. Paul F. 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.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
In a message dated 12/18/2004 9:47:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of representation, etc. So, what does the Ten Commandments have to do with "representation"? Nothing of course. That is the point. To the contrary, if the Ten Commandments form the basis of English law, and if the rights of Englishmen were denied by Crown and Parliament, and if Englishmen suffered that train of abuses until other recourse was unavailable, then what the colonists did was act upon principles of English law that ran deeply rooted in them and that sprang from the concepts previously discussed by some on this list. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
In response to Prof. Lipkin's post set forth below, I believe it would more
precise to say that law is ultimately based on conscience rather than what is
thought of as religion. Many of the more conservative and traditional
believers would say thatcross-cultural similarities exist because the same
ethical principles have been written upon every person's conscience. They would
account for cross-cultural differences through individual and societal
corruption. They would maintain that The Ten Commandments embody in
uncorrupted form what was originally written on the conscience of each
andall.
Additionally, it appears that underlying the Ten Commandments is a much
broader definition of "law" then that which is current. Law might be
defined as commandswith sanctions that may result from violation of
thosecommands. We moderns tend to confine "law" to those commands to
which are annexed sanctions imposed by the government; it appears to me that at
least some of the ancients would also count as laws those whose violations
result insanctions imposed only in the forum of the conscience, sanctions
that naturally result from violation of the law (e.g., "what goes around comes
around," etc.), and/or sanctions imposed directly as a result of Divine
justice. Even with respect to the Ten Commandments themselves, one will
search in vain through the rest of any version of any Bible for a sanction
imposed by the government for violating the commandment(s) against covetousness
that did not result in any overt act. The mere fact that there are no
sanctions imposed by the government does not mean that the commandment(s)
against covetousness are not laws in this broader sense. Perhaps the Ten
Commandments could more readily be viewed as the foundation of American law if
law were viewed in this broader sense.
Finally, it should be noted that in Christendom (including England
the U.S.)each of the TenCommandments has been given a far broader
application than might be apparent merely from the face of the
commandment. See, e.g., Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5: 21-23 (anger or
name-calling treated as violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not
kill") In the Lutheran tradition, each law was classified under one of the
commandments:
". . . . Like [Martin] Luther and [Philip] Melancthon,
[Johann] Oldendorp traced all laws for ordering the earthly kingdom (weltliches
Regiment, 'the secular regime') to what later came to be numbered as the Fifth
Commandment ('Honor thy father and they mother'--the prince being the
parent). More clearly than Melancthon, he traced all penal laws to the
Sixth Commandment ('Thou shalt not kill'), the law of private property to the
Eighth Commandment ('Thou shalt not steal'), and the law of procedure to the
Ninth Commandment ('Thou shalt not bear false witness.'). He also (unlike
Melancthon) traced family law to the Tenth Commandment ('Thou shalt not covet .
. . thy neighbor's wife') and the law of taxation to the general commandment
'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself'.
"Oldendorp placed special emphasis on the Eighth
Commandment ('Thou shalt not steal'), in which he saw the source not only of
private property but also of contract law. . . . "
(Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution II: The Impact of the Protestant
Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (2003) 89-90 (footnotes
omitted).)
Johann Oldendorp's principal treatise was in the library
of United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and Story
quotedOldendorp in Story's own his "Commentaries on Equity
Jurisprudence." (Berman, supra, 413 n. 111.)
If the Ten Commandments are each given a broad
interpretation, then the Ten Commandments might encompass a wide enough area so
that they might be regarded as the foundation of American law.
Very truly yours,
Ross S. Heckmann
Attorney at Law
Arcadia, California
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:18
AM
Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the
foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
In a message dated 12/18/2004 9:09:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why
should an anthropology of angles and saxons rely upon developments of
neolithic cultures in the pacific rim? And what of the cultures that
survived because they adopted the no killing us, no stealing from us,
versions of these rules.
Oh, because often the
claim that American law is based on religion is offered as an explanation and
justification of religion's salience in American society. In other words, the
claim is that were it not for religion, society would consist of a war of all
against all.Consequently, if anthropology reveals that those
pre-religious societiesor those pre-Judeo-Christian societies also had
laws against murder, theft, and forth, or if anthropology shows that only
societies that
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
Speaking for myself, none of this discussion has been about Anglo-American law, it's been about American law. The Constitution was obviously a radical break from English law on many levels. It established an entirely different basis upon which legitimate lawmaking was based, and upon which a legitimate lawmaker might rule. The notion of a government instituted solely to protect the rights that each individual is endowed with from birth was monumentally different than the notion of a nation ruled by the divine right of the king, to whom one must plead for whatever recognition he chooses to give our claims of liberty. The distinction is as basic as the one Madison draws so vividly, with the European governments that preceeded ours being charters of freedom granted by power, while ours was a charter of power granted by a free people. Hence, the notion of combining Anglo- and American together for the purposes of this discussion seems entirely unwarranted to me. Under the English law prior to our constitution, the King could have declared any of the Ten Commandments to be legally in force and prescribe whatever punishment he chose upon it; in our system after the Constitution, most of the commandments could not be legitimately made into laws without violating it. I can't think of a more obvious reason not to combine the two as one. Ed Brayton Ross S. Heckmann wrote: This list has recently discussed the issue of whether the Ten Commandments are, or ever have been, the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. A book was published earlier this year that sheds light on this issue. It is entitled "The Ten Commandments in History." It was based on a manuscript left behind by the late Professor Emeritus Paul Grimley Kuntz, "a distinguished member of the Emory philosophy faculty and an ardent supporter of the Law and Religion Program." (From the book's "Acknowledgments," p. xiv, by Professor John Witte, Jr., writing in his capacity as general editor of Emory University Studies in Law and Religion.)The Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Graham was for the late Prof. Kuntz "the catalyst for almost ten years of research and thought about the Decalogue and its role in American life." (From the book's Foreword, p. viii, by the late Prof. Kuntz's spouse, Prof. Marion Leathers Kuntz.) The book itself is primarily a history of ideas, how various thinkers throughout history have been reacted to the Ten Commandments, but the book doestouch upon the issue of whether the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. Chapter 5 is entitled, "King Alfred: The Decalogue and Anglo-American Law." Alfred the Great lived from 849 to 899. (Book, p. 46.) Prof. Kuntz writes: ". . . . The hostility between the Roman Empire and Christians ended with tolerance from Constantine, and then he gave to the church the support of the state. The pattern of Roman conversion was followed in all the nations of Europe--among Latin nations, Germanic, Scandinavian, Slavic, etc. Does this mean that the Mosaic Decalogue became part of the law of these peoples when they were converted to Christianity? And how did changes introduced by the gospel affect the legal code? "Political historians and historians of law do not offer us a general and comparative study [too bad--maybe somebody on this list can remedy this deficiency--R.S.H.], but one notable case is the code of King Alfred the Great. This is particularly of interest since it shows the Decalogue as basic to the civil religion of England, and of the many colonial offspring, which build upon the traditions of common law. Thanks to Alfred the law is also the king's law." (Book, pp. 46-47.) In the book's later chapter on Jeremy Bentham, the book states that in response to Jeremy Bentham, ". . . . a historian might object that Alfred the Great prefaced his collection of Saxon laws with the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20, that the monarch of Great Britain takes a sacred oath at coronation to enforce God's law." Thus, the Ten Commandments are, or at least used to be, the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. I will stipulate that it would be no small challenge to reconcile this proposition with the Supreme Court's post-World War II jurisprudence. But even assuming that American law is no longer founded upon the Ten Commandments, but on some other basis of some sort or other, for well over a thousand years, the Ten Commandments werethe foundation of Anglo-American law. Moreover, it is by no means clear that the Supreme Court's post-World War II jurisprudence will endure, either as it currently exists, or in modified form. Very truly yours, Ross S. Heckmann Attorney at Law Arcadia, California ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
This is really a critical part of the issue. Are we talking about distinctly American law or more generic Anglo-American law. I have no doubt that the American Tories, the British soldiers who shot down the Minutemen at Lexington, the Hessian mercenaries, and King George III himself all believed in the Ten Commandments as much Washington and the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If the question is whether belief in the Ten Commandments predisposes you to accept the American experiment in self-government, obviously it did not have that effect on a lot of believers. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 04:51 PM 12/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: Speaking for myself, none of this discussion has been about Anglo-American law, it's been about American law. The Constitution was obviously a radical break from English law on many levels. It established an entirely different basis upon which legitimate lawmaking was based, and upon which a legitimate lawmaker might rule. The notion of a government instituted solely to protect the rights that each individual is endowed with from birth was monumentally different than the notion of a nation ruled by the divine right of the king, to whom one must plead for whatever recognition he chooses to give our claims of liberty. The distinction is as basic as the one Madison draws so vividly, with the European governments that preceeded ours being charters of freedom granted by power, while ours was a charter of power granted by a free people. Hence, the notion of combining Anglo- and American together for the purposes of this discussion seems entirely unwarranted to me. Under the English law prior to our constitution, the King could have declared any of the Ten Commandments to be legally in force and prescribe whatever punishment he chose upon it; in our system after the Constitution, most of the commandments could not be legitimately made into laws without violating it. I can't think of a more obvious reason not to combine the two as one. Ed Brayton Ross S. Heckmann wrote: This list has recently discussed the issue of whether the Ten Commandments are, or ever have been, the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. A book was published earlier this year that sheds light on this issue. It is entitled The Ten Commandments in History. It was based on a manuscript left behind by the late Professor Emeritus Paul Grimley Kuntz, a distinguished member of the Emory philosophy faculty and an ardent supporter of the Law and Religion Program. (From the book's Acknowledgments, p. xiv, by Professor John Witte, Jr., writing in his capacity as general editor of Emory University Studies in Law and Religion.) The Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Graham was for the late Prof. Kuntz the catalyst for almost ten years of research and thought about the Decalogue and its role in American life. (From the book's Foreword, p. viii, by the late Prof. Kuntz's spouse, Prof. Marion Leathers Kuntz.) The book itself is primarily a history of ideas, how various thinkers throughout history have been reacted to the Ten Commandments, but the book does touch upon the issue of whether the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. Chapter 5 is entitled, King Alfred: The Decalogue and Anglo-American Law. Alfred the Great lived from 849 to 899. (Book, p. 46.)Prof. Kuntz writes: . . . . The hostility between the Roman Empire and Christians ended with tolerance from Constantine, and then he gave to the church the support of the state. The pattern of Roman conversion was followed in all the nations of Europe--among Latin nations, Germanic, Scandinavian, Slavic, etc. Does this mean that the Mosaic Decalogue became part of the law of these peoples when they were converted to Christianity? And how did changes introduced by the gospel affect the legal code? Political historians and historians of law do not offer us a general and comparative study [too bad--maybe somebody on this list can remedy this deficiency--R.S.H.], but one notable case is the code of King Alfred the Great. This is particularly of interest since it shows the Decalogue as basic to the civil religion of England, and of the many colonial offspring, which build upon the traditions of common law. Thanks to Alfred the law is also the king's law. (Book, pp. 46-47.) In the book's later chapter on Jeremy Bentham, the book states that in response to Jeremy Bentham, . . . . a historian might object that Alfred the Great prefaced his collection of Saxon laws with the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20, that the monarch of Great Britain takes a sacred oath at coronation to enforce God's law. Thus, the Ten Commandments are, or at least used to be, the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. I will stipulate that it would be no small challenge to reconcile this proposition with the Supreme Court's
RE: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
Yet it is also undoubtedly true -- is it not? -- that most of our American law was carried over or adopted from British law. We did not have a clean slate revolution; if I understand the matter correctly, most state law had continuity from the pre-revolutionary time to the post-revolutionary time. I think members of this list, who of course focus on federal constitutional law -- all of which was new -- may need to think a second time about the general continuity both of common law and (I believe) statutory law. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law -Original Message- From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 3:14 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system? This is really a critical part of the issue. Are we talking about distinctly American law or more generic Anglo-American law. I have no doubt that the American Tories, the British soldiers who shot down the Minutemen at Lexington, the Hessian mercenaries, and King George III himself all believed in the Ten Commandments as much Washington and the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. If the question is whether belief in the Ten Commandments predisposes you to accept the American experiment in self-government, obviously it did not have that effect on a lot of believers. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 04:51 PM 12/17/2004 -0500, you wrote: Speaking for myself, none of this discussion has been about Anglo-American law, it's been about American law. The Constitution was obviously a radical break from English law on many levels. It established an entirely different basis upon which legitimate lawmaking was based, and upon which a legitimate lawmaker might rule. The notion of a government instituted solely to protect the rights that each individual is endowed with from birth was monumentally different than the notion of a nation ruled by the divine right of the king, to whom one must plead for whatever recognition he chooses to give our claims of liberty. The distinction is as basic as the one Madison draws so vividly, with the European governments that preceeded ours being charters of freedom granted by power, while ours was a charter of power granted by a free people. Hence, the notion of combining Anglo- and American together for the purposes of this discussion seems entirely unwarranted to me. Under the English law prior to our constitution, the King could have declared any of the Ten Commandments to be legally in force and prescribe whatever punishment he chose upon it; in our system after the Constitution, most of the commandments could not be legitimately made into laws without violating it. I can't think of a more obvious reason not to combine the two as one. Ed Brayton Ross S. Heckmann wrote: This list has recently discussed the issue of whether the Ten Commandments are, or ever have been, the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. A book was published earlier this year that sheds light on this issue. It is entitled The Ten Commandments in History. It was based on a manuscript left behind by the late Professor Emeritus Paul Grimley Kuntz, a distinguished member of the Emory philosophy faculty and an ardent supporter of the Law and Religion Program. (From the book's Acknowledgments, p. xiv, by Professor John Witte, Jr., writing in his capacity as general editor of Emory University Studies in Law and Religion.) The Supreme Court's decision in Stone v. Graham was for the late Prof. Kuntz the catalyst for almost ten years of research and thought about the Decalogue and its role in American life. (From the book's Foreword, p. viii, by the late Prof. Kuntz's spouse, Prof. Marion Leathers Kuntz.) The book itself is primarily a history of ideas, how various thinkers throughout history have been reacted to the Ten Commandments, but the book does touch upon the issue of whether the Ten Commandments are the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system. Chapter 5 is entitled, King Alfred: The Decalogue and Anglo-American Law. Alfred the Great lived from 849 to 899. (Book, p. 46.)Prof. Kuntz writes: . . . . The hostility between the Roman Empire and Christians ended with tolerance from Constantine, and then he gave to the church the support of the state. The pattern of Roman conversion was followed in all the nations of Europe--among Latin nations, Germanic, Scandinavian, Slavic, etc. Does this mean that the Mosaic Decalogue became part of the law of these peoples when they were converted to Christianity? And how did changes introduced by the gospel affect the legal code? Political historians and historians of law do not offer us a general and comparative study [too bad--maybe somebody on this list can remedy this deficiency--R.S.H.], but one notable case is the code of King
RE: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-American legal system?
For all the broad assertions we'll be hearing in the coming months in the media and from amici about the profound influence of the Decalogue on law generally and American law in particular, it's surprising how few serious scholarly sources there appear to be out there to back them up. The petitioner's brief in McCreary County v. ACLU is full of these sorts of sweeping statements, yet it's very thin on any actual support -- mostly the conclusory pronouncements of various jurists (including the Chief Justice) and the portentous dicta of various state courts. At one point there's a footnote to an out of print 1999 book that appears to have been self-published (at least it's the only work ever produced by the obscure Christian publisher). Something I did find in a Westlaw search is Steven K. Greene, The Fount of Everything Just and Right? The Ten Commandments as a Source of American Law, 14 J.L. RELIGION 525 (1999-2000). He concludes, At best, the most that could be said about the relationship of the Ten Commandments to the law is that the former has influenced legal notions of right and wrong. (I recognize that Prof Greene used to work for Americans United, so may not be disinerested.) See also KERMIT L. HALL, ET AL., EDS., THE OXFORD COMPANION TO AMERICAN LAW 507 (2002) (noting that [a]nthropologists report that in every known culture there are rules forbidding some forms of the moral offenses proscribed by the last five of the Ten Commandments). This is the only reference to the Ten Commandments in that tome of more than 800 pp. Note that this is not the same as the argument its partisans make, which is that the Ten Commandments *influenced* almost all legal structures, or that the ideas the 10C expressed were so unique and original that the Decalogue must be regarded as their very wellspring. The most sensible thing I've ever read on this subject is a Findlaw column by Marci Hamilton, available at http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030911.html Steve Sanders University of Michigan Law School Blog: http://reasonandliberty.blogspot.com/ ___ 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.
