RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Is there any reason at all to believe that Roman Law owed anything at all to the Ten Commandments? I take it that Roman Law is the basic source of most European civil law. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:20 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position 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 lawsare derived historically, conceptually, and so forth in a unique mannerfrom 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 LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Title: Message In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the "basis of our laws" position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments "are the basis of our laws," then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God.Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation ofWestern order. So, first, the position is thatthe fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (beingwritten with the finger of God) are the basis for many of thefundamental common law propositions, beginning with "no man isabove the law." 2. Theologians, includingAugustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made directconnection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, "all law" in a sense is based on or-- maybe this isbetter put-- summarized bythe Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still "law" in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are "based on the Ten Commandments." I can't speak for everyone who might use the phrase, but this is my understanding of what it means to say that "our laws" are based on the "Ten Commandments." -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:01 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases I want to second Ed Braton's thoughtful post, and inquire of anyone who knows whether the laws, rules, customs of the Jews prior to the acquisition of the Ten Commandments included prohibitions against murder and theft, for example.If the answer is yes then all those who agree with Robert Bork's remark, and I'm paraphrasing perhaps unfaithfully, that liberal society lives off the moral capital of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are historically inaccurate. Indeed, it opens up the anthropological question whether the Judeo-Christian religious traditionlives off the moral capital of prior secular societies if any existed, orprior pagan societies. 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Title: Message MikeSchuttwrites: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact. If anything is a theological proposition (that should not be taught by the state) it is this. It is perfectly fine with me to teach that "manypeople believe'that law is not merely a human artifact,' though, of course, there is wide-scale disagreement on which'non-humans' are the architects of law.Many settler-Americans refer to a particular God, thoughsome Native Americans have a different view of the matter. Hindu theology is especially interesting on this point, . [and so on ad infinitum]." sandy ___ 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: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
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 lawsare derived historically, conceptually, and so forth in a unique mannerfrom 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 LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Title: Message Of course it would follow, to Christians and Jews alike, that the entire Torah comes from outside humankind. The uniqueness of the Ten Commandments is that it is their "giving" is conveyed bya narrative demonstration of that fact, because,in the Scripture passage, God literally writes the Ten Commandments. Again, if the Ten Commandments area summaryof the entire moral, religious, and civil law, the Torah is also from outside humankind. The Ten Commandments are only unique in the sense that Scripture relates their giving in a dramatic way. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A.E. BrownsteinSent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:11 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" PositionWhen Mike writes that "The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact," he is expressing a position with significant sectarian implications. For traditional Jews, the entire Torah is law that "comes from 'outside' humankind." The contention that the Ten Commandments is unique in this regard is a position on which Jews and Christians seriously disagree. If Mike is correct that this is the sense in which the statement that "the Ten Commandments is the basis for our laws is meant", it would seem to be an explicitly faith specific religious idea.Alan BrownsteinUC DavisAt 11:21 AM 12/16/2004 -0600, you wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the "basis of our laws" position is the following:1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments "are the basis of our laws," then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God. Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation of Western order. So, first, the position is that the fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (being written with the finger of God) are the basis for many of the fundamental common law propositions, beginning with "no man is above the law." 2. Theologians, including Augustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made direct connection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, "all law" in a sense is based on or-- maybe this is better put-- summarized by the Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still "law" in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are "based on the Ten Commandments." I can't speak for everyone who might use the phrase, but this is my understanding of what it means to say that "our laws" are based on the "Ten Commandments." -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:01 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases I want to second Ed Braton's thoughtful post, and inquire of anyone who knows whether the laws, rules, customs of the Jews prior to the acquisition of the Ten Commandments included prohibitions against murder and theft, for example. If the answer is yes then all those who agree with Robert Bork's remark, and I'm paraphrasing perhaps unfaithfully, that liberal society lives off the moral capital of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are historically inaccurate. Indeed, it opens up the anthropological question whether the Judeo-Christian religious tradition lives off the moral capital of prior secular societies if any existed, or prior pagan societies.BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware___To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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
Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Title: Message Mike Schutt wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the "basis of our laws" position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments "are the basis of our laws," then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God.Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation ofWestern order. So, first, the position is thatthe fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (beingwritten with the finger of God) are the basis for many of thefundamental common law propositions, beginning with "no man isabove the law." What you call a "demonstration" and "a fact", I call an unsupported assertion. The mere fact that Moses, or whoever wrote on his behalf, claimed that the laws came from God is no more compelling an argument than the fact that Mesha, king of the Moabites, said the same thing about the laws he allegedly got from Chemosh. More importantly, as I said, most of those laws not only don't form the basis of our laws, they would be entirely forbidden as laws under our Constitution. The fact is that we could explain and trace the reasoning for virtually every provision in the Constitution without ever once referencing the bible or "judeo-christian" tradition or theology. Take away the theological references, and nothing much changes in the Constitution. This hardly seems a compelling case for such traditions being the basis of our system of government. 2. Theologians, includingAugustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made directconnection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, "all law" in a sense is based on or-- maybe this isbetter put-- summarized bythe Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still "law" in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are "based on the Ten Commandments." No, I did not point out that those parts of the Ten Commandments that cannot be civil law should still be considered "moral law". I may agree, on different grounds, that adultery is immoral (and I do), but that does not mean that this constitutes "moral law", and it certainly doesn't mean that civil laws should be "based on, modeled after, and in conformance with" this "moral law". In fact, I strongly disagree with that position. Again, all of those prohibitions found in the ten commandments could never have existed, and it would not change our civil and criminal law in the slightest. Indeed, even without the few commandments that do find analogs in our civil law, the laws would still be the same simply because prohibitions against murder and theft are universal in nature and found in every non-biblical legal or ethical system as well. 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.
Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Sandy: There is NO reason to believe that Roman law was affected by the Ten C. Nor is there much evidence that American law was affected by the 10-C; except perhaps to reject portions of it. The First Amendment is a clear rejection of 10-C provisions on one God, the ban on sculpted images (including by the way all those angels hanging from Christmas trees (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth). As long as we do not do it in court we are constitutionally free to swear falsely by the name of the Lord (take the Lord's name in vain) Paul Finkelman Sanford Levinson wrote: Is there any reason at all to believe that Roman Law owed anything at all to the Ten Commandments? I take it that Roman Law is the basic source of most European civil law. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position 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. -- 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Ed, are you suggesting that believing the 10 commandments are from God is irrational? If so, not only should the 10 commandments be banned from public places, we should be telling our young people that its divine source is suspect and to believe that way shows a lack of intellectual virtue. But if it isn't prima facie irrational to believe that God is the source of the 10 commandments, then it seems to me that to require that the state not permit that account to be offered as one of many accounts of the grounding of our law would deny our young people the opportunity to appreciate a way of thinking inspired people as diverse as James Wilson and Martin Luther King, Jr. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:55 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position Mike Schutt wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the basis of our laws position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from outside humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments are the basis of our laws, then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God. Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation of Western order. So, first, the position is that the fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (being written with the finger of God) are the basis for many of the fundamental common law propositions, beginning with no man is above the law. What you call a demonstration and a fact, I call an unsupported assertion. The mere fact that Moses, or whoever wrote on his behalf, claimed that the laws came from God is no more compelling an argument than the fact that Mesha, king of the Moabites, said the same thing about the laws he allegedly got from Chemosh. More importantly, as I said, most of those laws not only don't form the basis of our laws, they would be entirely forbidden as laws under our Constitution. The fact is that we could explain and trace the reasoning for virtually every provision in the Constitution without ever once referencing the bible or judeo-christian tradition or theology. Take away the theological references, and nothing much changes in the Constitution. This hardly seems a compelling case for such traditions being the basis of our system of government. 2. Theologians, including Augustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made direct connection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, all law in a sense is based on or-- maybe this is better put-- summarized by the Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still law in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are based on the Ten Commandments. No, I did not point out that those parts of the Ten Commandments that cannot be civil law should still be considered moral law. I may agree, on different grounds, that adultery is immoral (and I do), but that does not mean that this constitutes moral law, and it certainly doesn't mean that civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with this moral law. In fact, I strongly disagree with that position. Again, all of those prohibitions found in the ten commandments could never have existed, and it would not change our civil and criminal law in the slightest. Indeed, even without the few commandments that do find analogs in our civil law, the laws would still be the same simply because prohibitions against murder and theft are universal in nature and found in every non-biblical legal or ethical system as well. 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Unless the Lord is a member of a group protected by anti-hate speech laws. :-) Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:45 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position Sandy: There is NO reason to believe that Roman law was affected by the Ten C. Nor is there much evidence that American law was affected by the 10-C; except perhaps to reject portions of it. The First Amendment is a clear rejection of 10-C provisions on one God, the ban on sculpted images (including by the way all those angels hanging from Christmas trees (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth). As long as we do not do it in court we are constitutionally free to swear falsely by the name of the Lord (take the Lord's name in vain) Paul Finkelman Sanford Levinson wrote: Is there any reason at all to believe that Roman Law owed anything at all to the Ten Commandments? I take it that Roman Law is the basic source of most European civil law. sandy -- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position 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. -- 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. ___ 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: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Francis J. Beckwith wrote: Ed, are you suggesting that believing the 10 commandments are from God is irrational? If so, not only should the 10 commandments be banned from public places, we should be telling our young people that its divine source is suspect and to believe that way shows a lack of intellectual virtue. No I am not arguing that believing the 10 commandments are from God is irrational, nor do I think it would logically follow that if I did, they should be banned from public places or that the government should be telling our young people that they're irrational. I obviously don't believe that the Ten Commandments come from God, but that doesn't mean I think government should be teaching that, or that this idea should somehow be eradicated from public places (whatever that might mean). I don't think government should be taking any position on their validity whatsoever, either mine or yours. And I think the first amendment requires exactly that kind of neutrality. But if it isn't prima facie irrational to believe that God is the source of the 10 commandments, then it seems to me that to require that the state not permit that account to be offered as one of many accounts of the grounding of our law would deny our young people the opportunity to appreciate a way of thinking inspired people as diverse as James Wilson and Martin Luther King, Jr. I don't believe anyone here has ever taken the position that the state not permit that account to be offered as one of many accounts of the grounding of our law. I just don't think our government should be endorsing the idea through their exclusive display. Is that unreasonable? 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Title: Message I'm sorry, Ed, I must not have been clear. I was addressing your question, which I thought was sincere, about what people mean when they say that "our laws are based on the Ten Commandments." When I said "the fact that," I was asserting thatthe narrative description in Exodus of God doing the writing makes the Ten Commandments a significant event (for those who hold the position and believe it to be a true story). I was not asking youor anyone else to believe it.It's pretty clear what your position is, and I wasn't trying to characterize it. (I apologize for characterizing your belief that adultery is immoral as a belief in moral "law.") Mike -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed BraytonSent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:55 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" PositionMike Schutt wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the "basis of our laws" position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments "are the basis of our laws," then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God.Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation ofWestern order. So, first, the position is thatthe fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (beingwritten with the finger of God) are the basis for many of thefundamental common law propositions, beginning with "no man isabove the law." What you call a "demonstration" and "a fact", I call an unsupported assertion. The mere fact that Moses, or whoever wrote on his behalf, claimed that the laws came from God is no more compelling an argument than the fact that Mesha, king of the Moabites, said the same thing about the laws he allegedly got from Chemosh. More importantly, as I said, most of those laws not only don't form the basis of our laws, they would be entirely forbidden as laws under our Constitution. The fact is that we could explain and trace the reasoning for virtually every provision in the Constitution without ever once referencing the bible or "judeo-christian" tradition or theology. Take away the theological references, and nothing much changes in the Constitution. This hardly seems a compelling case for such traditions being the basis of our system of government. 2. Theologians, includingAugustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made directconnection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, "all law" in a sense is based on or-- maybe this isbetter put-- summarized bythe Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still "law" in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are "based on the Ten Commandments."No, I did not point out that those parts of the Ten Commandments that cannot be civil law should still be considered "moral law". I may agree, on different grounds, that adultery is immoral (and I do), but that does not mean that this constitutes "moral law", and it certainly doesn't mean that civil laws should be "based on, modeled after, and in conformance with" this "moral law". In fact, I strongly disagree with that position. Again, all of those prohibitions found in the ten commandments could never have existed, and it would not change our civil and criminal law in the slightest. Indeed, even without the few commandments that do find analogs in our civil law, the laws would still be the same simply because prohibitions against murder and theft are universal in nature and found in every non-biblical legal or ethical system as well. 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Title: Message But how do you explain the fact that law and morality flourish in some societies that are neither Christian nor Jewish? -Original Message- From: Mike Schutt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:22 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the basis of our laws position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from outside humankind-- that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments are the basis of our laws, then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God.Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation ofWestern order. So, first, the position is thatthe fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (beingwritten with the finger of God) are the basis for many of thefundamental common law propositions, beginning with no man isabove the law. 2. Theologians, includingAugustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made directconnection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, all law in a sense is based on or-- maybe this isbetter put-- summarized bythe Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still law in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are based on the Ten Commandments. I can't speak for everyone who might use the phrase, but this is my understanding of what it means to say that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases I want to second Ed Braton's thoughtful post, and inquire of anyone who knows whether the laws, rules, customs of the Jews prior to the acquisition of the Ten Commandments included prohibitions against murder and theft, for example.If the answer is yes then all those who agree with Robert Bork's remark, and I'm paraphrasing perhaps unfaithfully, that liberal society lives off the moral capital of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are historically inaccurate. Indeed, it opens up the anthropological question whether the Judeo-Christian religious traditionlives off the moral capital of prior secular societies if any existed, orprior pagan societies. 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.
Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
and don't flourish in some places that are very Christian Paul Finkelman Newsom Michael wrote: Message But how do you explain the fact that law and morality flourish in some societies that are neither Christian nor Jewish? -Original Message- From: Mike Schutt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:22 PM To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: Ten Commandments "Basis of Our Laws" Position In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the "basis of our laws" position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from "outside" humankind-- that is, that lawis not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments "are the basis of our laws," then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God.Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation ofWestern order. So, first, the position is thatthe fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (beingwritten with the finger of God) are the basis for many of thefundamental common law propositions, beginning with "no man isabove the law." 2. Theologians, includingAugustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made directconnection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, "all law" in a sense is based on or-- maybe this isbetter put-- summarized bythe Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still "law" in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are "based on the Ten Commandments." I can't speak for everyone who might use the phrase, but this is my understanding of what it means to say that "our laws" are based on the "Ten Commandments." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases I want to second Ed Braton's thoughtful post, and inquire of anyone who knows whether the laws, rules, customs of the Jews prior to the acquisition of the Ten Commandments included prohibitions against murder and theft, for example.If the answer is yes then all those who agree with Robert Bork's remark, and I'm paraphrasing perhaps unfaithfully, that liberal society lives off the moral capital of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are historically inaccurate. Indeed, it opens up the anthropological question whether the Judeo-Christian religious traditionlives off the moral capital of prior secular societies if any existed, orprior pagan societies. 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Dear Sandy: The idea of the state IS a theological proposition, friend. God bless you. JL -- John Lofton 313 Montgomery St., Laurel, Maryland 20707 Home Phone: 301-490-7266 Work Phone: 410-766-8591 Cell Phone: 301-873-4612 Fax: 410-766-8592 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [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.
Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
When Mike writes that The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from outside humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact, he is expressing a position with significant sectarian implications. For traditional Jews, the entire Torah is law that comes from 'outside' humankind. The contention that the Ten Commandments is unique in this regard is a position on which Jews and Christians seriously disagree. If Mike is correct that this is the sense in which the statement that the Ten Commandments is the basis for our laws is meant, it would seem to be an explicitly faith specific religious idea. Alan Brownstein UC Davis At 11:21 AM 12/16/2004 -0600, you wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the basis of our laws position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from outside humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments are the basis of our laws, then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God. Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation of Western order. So, first, the position is that the fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (being written with the finger of God) are the basis for many of the fundamental common law propositions, beginning with no man is above the law. 2. Theologians, including Augustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made direct connection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, all law in a sense is based on or-- maybe this is better put-- summarized by the Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still law in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are based on the Ten Commandments. I can't speak for everyone who might use the phrase, but this is my understanding of what it means to say that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases I want to second Ed Braton's thoughtful post, and inquire of anyone who knows whether the laws, rules, customs of the Jews prior to the acquisition of the Ten Commandments included prohibitions against murder and theft, for example. If the answer is yes then all those who agree with Robert Bork's remark, and I'm paraphrasing perhaps unfaithfully, that liberal society lives off the moral capital of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition are historically inaccurate. Indeed, it opens up the anthropological question whether the Judeo-Christian religious tradition lives off the moral capital of prior secular societies if any existed, or prior pagan societies. 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. ___ 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: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
The Decalogue has certainly provided religious and moral support for laws against murder, theft, fraud, and perjury (though such laws probably would have existed in any event). It may also have had other substantial indirect effects on our law. For example, the command to honor the Sabbath may well be responsible for our society's view that workers should have some time off; I think it was revolutionary in its day and that workers' rights might be very much less but for the concern shown for workers in the Jewish scriptures (including the Ten Commandments). I suspect that our overtime pay laws, and laws setting maximum hours that an employer can demand, can be traced back to the commandment. Another possible example: the centrality of the family in our law (e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters) may be connected to the commandment to honor parents and to the tradition that was supported by the commandment to do so. Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law ___ 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.
