Francis Beckwith wrote:
An explanation doesn't have to be a theory. For example, if I were to claim
that "undefined designer operating at some point in the past had to
intervene in order for event X to occur since the event X exhibits the
characteristics of a designed entity," I am
Actually, it is too burdensome because far
too many teachers would refuse to utter those words. Would Williams ever say
those words?
-Original Message-
From: A.E. Brownstein
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
December 10, 2004 5:49 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law
This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of
fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten
Commandments.
There are significant differences
in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones.
There are important differences in
Well for starters, the Orden monument left
out the words who took you out of Egypt an omission which makes
sense on two Protestant assumptions.
1. The sentence beginning I am
is not a commandment and the phrase who took you out of Egypt has no
normative content.
2. The commandments are
I suspect we have a disagreement here that is verging on the
theological. The text of Exod 20 contains many commandments; so does
Denuteronomy 5. No matter how one counts them, or parses them, it there
are clearly more than ten separate commandments in these chapters. Jews
and Christians
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
Now you have made patent your concern: proselytization. But you seem to agree that teaching about religion is something other than proselytization. (As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are
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
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
C'mon, gang, I need some help here. Had only one reply to my Q: What is the
role of a judge; what MUST a judge do? And, please, briefly define your terms
if you use a word like justice. Thanks. God bless you all.
--
John Lofton
313 Montgomery St.,
Laurel, Maryland 20707
Home Phone:
The ADL has filed a very thoughtful brief elaborating on Marc and Paul's
points. A link to it can be found on the their web cite
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/4601_33.htm
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 11:09 AM 12/16/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Content-class:
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
My brief making these points is to be
found at our website sometime within the next few hours
www.AJCONGRESS.ORG
Marc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of A.E. Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004
1:56 PM
To: Law
Religion issues for Law
In a message dated 12/16/2004 11:54:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is not wrong to be concerned about stigma and exclusion, as some members of the Court have noted over the years.
But this is why education must including teaching about religion. Stigma and exclusion
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)
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
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
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:
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
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
is this a final exam question for all of us?
paul finkelman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C'mon, gang, I need some help here. Had only one reply to my Q: What is the role of a
judge; what MUST a judge do? And, please, briefly define your terms if you use a word
like justice. Thanks. God bless you
It's off-topic.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:53 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: John Lofton/Role Of Judges?
is this a final exam
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
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
In a message dated 12/16/04 5:25:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if we leave it to other non-public institutions to teach about it.
Well, nongovernmental institutions anyway. I admit to a bit of concern regarding the use of the terms public and government interchangeably.
On Thursday, December 16, 2004, at 12:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(As an aside, I always wonder that those with whom we agree never proselyze, they only offer irrefutable arguments, while those whose views are disagreeable are readily described as proselytizing. There is, it seems, a
Steve,
I will not limit that remark to myself. In fact I do not make this use of the term. But in a constitutional law career nearing the twenty year mark, I no longer feel tentative about expressing what I think candor would require most to admit: proselyzing is the ugly term (even though it is
In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:20:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The word
is used loosely often, this I grant, but there is a difference between
teaching about and proselytization howsoever easily one can drift from one
to the other if unwary or if not
In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:55:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you
think that experience requires a different conclusion, then you simply have
not read the opposing briefs of a variety of groups on the opposite side from
me in numerous constitutional
They are wrong be about it being unconstitutional
to teach religion because the Supreme Court-including its most liberal and separationist
justices have said so repeatedly beginning no later than Schempp. It is
also impossible to teach many subjects well without an understanding of
In a message dated 12/15/2004 4:53:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, that isnt the rub. There is nothing like the EC that speaks to either biology or oxygen.
Precisely. And there's nothing in the EC that speaks to teaching about religion.
Jim "Copies of the Constitution
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
Professor Steven Greene has an article about that very point in 14
Journal of Law and religion 525.The Orden court made the point about the
ten commandments as the foundation of American Law without citation of
supporting authority-legal or historical. Justice Rehnquist did the same
in his dissent
You are, of course, right in theory, but I
think that practical experience undercuts the theory. That is the point
that liberals, like me, make all of the time. More importantly, practical
experience teaches, I think, that if public schools were to teach what you
would have them teach,
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]
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
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
Actually, one could reach a different
conclusion about ignoring religion in the common schools:
religion is sufficiently important to so many Americans, but since we hold a
wide range of religious or philosophical views, that we respect religion, its
uniqueness and its diversity, if we
38 matches
Mail list logo
