For those who are interested in this issue, I have written an amicus
brief for the McCreary case (with the valuable assistance of Paul
Finkelman) that argues against a close connection between American law
and the 10 Commandments. If you would seriously consider signing on to
such a brief (on
To the best of my knowledge that Court has never cited the TenC as legal
authority for anything. On the other hand, I don't know any serious
scholar who would deny that the 10 C have influenced American law.
The issue is HOW MUCH influence. Chief Justice Moore asserted it was
the moral
In a message dated 12/17/2004 11:31:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Surely, an exhaustive anthropology should reach back into those primitive societies that survived because they embraced such rules as no killing, no stealing, etc.
Well, I wonder about this.
Why should
Richard Dougherty wrote:
My question is a simple one, I think: regardless of the facts of this case, do
you think it is unconstitutional to teach the Declaration of Independence --
that is, not as a historical document, but as if it were true, and that it is
legitimate to tell students that it
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
In a message dated 12/18/2004 3:51:16 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But, as
you know, there are many whochallenge the inalienability and self-evidence
of rights precisely on thegrounds that if rights have these non-material
properties
Why are
"inalienability"
Francis Beckwith wrote:
The declaration says three things about rights:
1. That they are self-evident
2. That they are inalienable
3. That they have divine source
So, Ed seems to be suggesting that we jettison teaching the third because
there is no principled way to teach it with out implying the
Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a
diestic creator or nature's God.
Paul FInkelman
Quoting Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Very good questions. I think one could teach the logic of the
Declaration
without saying that it is true. For example,
I'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
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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
