Please note that Mr. Heckmann's post is a response to Paul Finkelman's argument, not to mine.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ross > S. Heckmann > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:54 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Re: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of > theAnglo-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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
