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,
In a message dated 12/16/2004 5:14:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
namely that teaching and proselytizing religion tend to go hand in hand.
Another very good reason for eliminating public schools, or as my liberal friends so often want to do, relying on the canadian
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"
As I read Jim's post, he is not denying what Bobby says, that there is a
difference between objectively teaching about religion on the one hand, and
trying to persuade on the other. In fact, Jim's post says that he accepts
that distinction. Jim's point is that persuasion with which one agrees is
In a message dated 12/17/2004 10:59:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim's
point is that persuasion with which one agrees istypically not labeled
"proselytizing". Rather, that term is reserved forpersuasion which is
thought to be improper--and such impropriety
On Friday, December 17, 2004, at 12:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question of how much it is being used/abused I reflected on anecdotally from my experience litigating these cases for nearly twenty years. A very quick electronic search on Lexis, of Supreme Court briefs, reveals some 300
In a message dated 12/17/2004 12:20:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Its importance in communication is not subject to dispute. My
messages on this subject have been to the effect of its incalculable value in
steering the hearer from rational considerations of
Welcome to the list, Steve. Seems I keep running into you all over the
place. G
Ed Brayton
Steve Sanders wrote:
Friends and colleagues,
Im new to the list, so I
hope this first contribution
will be something useful. My friend Richard Katskee at Americans United
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
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
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
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.
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
I'm not sure this is quite right. Surely principles such as no
killing, no stealing, no beating people up, no defaming people, no
destroying their property, and so on -- both those mentioned in the Ten
Commandments and those not so mentioned -- are a far more important part
of the moral
Just as an aside, the Mosaic laws are much more than 10 and they track suspicously with the so-called 42 Negative Confessions of Egypt of the time Moses is supposed to have left Egypt with the Jews.
Of course it might just be that a number of the ideas about living a good, moral life have little
But the greatest level of
generality does not produce any solutions to the problem of how to treat
members of minority religions. So the abstract notion that teaching
religion is somehow constitutional flies in the face of the hard facts of life:
namely that teaching and proselytizing
In a message dated 12/17/2004 7:11:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Surely
principles such as nokilling, no stealing, no beating people up, no
defaming people, nodestroying their property, and so on -- both those
mentioned in the TenCommandments and those not
I actually agree with Bobby on this point; I've written in the past (on my
blog, not in any scholarly work) that the Ten Commandments don't form much of a
basis for modern American law, and that it's not clear to what extent they even
formed a but-for cause of American law historically, partly
For the Ten C. to be the foundation of law we would at least have to imagine
that without the 10 C we might not have these rules; but of course ALL
societies ban murder (not killing, which is a problem with the (incorrect) King
James translation of the 10 C;), stealing, and perjury. The 10 C
I'm puzzled here. Paul wrote that 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
Ed:
I think this is stated very clearly, and I think you have done an excellent job
of laying out your position -- others have, too, including those who disagree
with you, but I want to focus on this one a bit.
This discussion started some days ago about whether the CA Steve Williams suit
was
21 matches
Mail list logo
