Brownstein aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu
To: Rick Duncan nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com; Law Religion issues for Law
Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments
monumentat Oklahoma Legislature
for Law
Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 4:32 PM
Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments
monumentat Oklahoma Legislature
Wow! Allowing local groups with longstanding ties to the community preferential
access
for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; Alan
Brownstein aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 8:36 PM
Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments
monumentat Oklahoma Legislature
I’m not Alan, but I would think
want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature
I think Doug is correct that preferential access probably triggers Allegheny
and the endorsement test.
But Justice O'Connor is long gone, and Allegheny is ripe for
re-consideration. I suspect the endorsement test would
may conclude that the purpose and effect do not
endorse religion, but merely recognize the historical significance of the Ten
Commandments in the local community).
If this is some kind of forum for private speech--even if it is a non-public
forum--Pl wins if this amounts to viewpoint
I think Doug is correct that preferential access probably triggers Allegheny
and the endorsement test.
But Justice O'Connor is long gone, and Allegheny is ripe for re-consideration.
I suspect the endorsement test would not survive re-consideration, given the
current lineup on the Court.
Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2013 9:46:54 PM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
Sunnum handles this, no?
Sent from Steve's iPhone
On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:43 PM, hamilto...@aol.com wrote:
Inevitable
: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature
Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in a
public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building?
- Original Message -
From: Steven Jamar stevenja
statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature
Isn't there a significant difference between placing a religious monument in
a public park vs placing a religious monument in a State capitol building?
From: Steven Jamar stevenja...@gmail.com
To: Law Religion issues
/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=363402
_
From: Len campquest...@comcast.net
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 5:31:33 AM
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at
Oklahoma Legislature
Isn't
434-243-8546
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Christopher Lund
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:43 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 10:36 PM
To: Law Religion Law List
Subject: Re: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
A county can surely do that - but the constitutional issue is clear
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edumailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
The result and logic of Summum make sense to me, but I’ve been a little
bothered by how far it’s gone
Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-be
side-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite
Joel L. Sogol
Attorney at Law
811 21st Ave.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Prediction: They won't get it!!
sandy
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 9:22 PM
To: Religionlaw
Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm
Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue
-0215
http://sol-reform.com
-Original Message-
From: Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com
To: Religionlaw religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Sun, Dec 8, 2013 9:24 pm
Subject: Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
Satanists want statue
Doesn't sound like anyone involved has read Summum -- not the Satanists, not
the legislator, and not the ACLU.
On Sun, 8 Dec 2013 20:22:14 -0600
Joel Sogol jlsa...@wwisp.com wrote:
Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news
Commandments monument at Oklahoma
Legislature
Satanists want statue beside Ten Commandments monument at Oklahoma Legislature
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/08/21820518-satanists-want-statue-beside-ten-commandments-monument-at-oklahoma-legislature?lite
Joel L. Sogol
Attorney at Law
811
True enough: but American Humanist Society recently persuaded a Florida county
to put up theirmonument as a counter to a Ten Commandments display. Marc
- Original Message -
From: Douglas Laycock [mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu]
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 09:47 PM
To: Law Religion
http://alm-editorial-us.msgfocus.com/c/1sMOqf8pe0q40kCFN Religious Sect's
Suit Over Ten Commandments Monument Dismissed
The Associated Press
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the city of Pleasant Grove,
Utah, over a monument displaying the Ten Commandments. The judge ruled
Click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/washington/11sect.html?em
From Tiny Sect, Weighty Issue for Justices - NYTimes.com
Joel L. Sogol
Attorney at Law
811 21st Avenue
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
ph (205) 345-0966
fx (205) 345-0967
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If religious strife is the touchstone, then I wonder: What
causes more religious strife: Government bodies posting the Ten
Commandments, or courts ordering their removal?
Sure, you can say that even the latter strife is caused by the
initial posting -- but this just further
I'm a few hours behind on these postings, so apologies in
advance if this point has been made: Suppose that the inquiry
into strife is not a direct touchstone, in the sense that asking
whether X causes religious strife is relevant to deciding whether X
is constitutional. Rather -- as I think
A terrific essay in the New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050321s=diarist032105
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
Subject: RE: Ten Commandments: My
Prediction
I
define discrimination against religion as treating people or organizations
worse because they are religious. (I don't think anything I have said
suggests that discrimination means denying [a group] permission to do
something that it wants to do
Jack Balkin's prediction:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/03/my-prediction-on-ten-commandments-case.html
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu
iginal Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Newsom MichaelSent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:53
PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: RE: Ten Commandments: My
Prediction
The cases you refer
to dont capture the social realit
I appreciate Mark's thoughtful post -- both for its substance and its tone.
I think his post raises two issues -- 1. What is the social meaning of the
display of the Ten Commandments? and 2. Is this a social meaning that the
state is permitted to promote or endorse?
As to the first, I recognize
Moses is one of the figures in the Supreme Court. Of the Ten
Commandments, though, only 2 are included-- the prohibitions on murder and
adultery. The I-X on the front panel is the Bill of Rights, not the Ten
Commandments.
Steve Jamar wrote:
plus
Moses is on the mural in the Supreme
Even if that is true, to only put the Ten C. is historically
inaccurate and to claim it is "historical" is pretextual. Put up a
monument with great law givers from history and Moses gets in there
(not the Ten C. however); but he would be one of many. If you put up
the 10 C alone then you have
Just to make clear where I stand, again. I think the display of the 10 commandments is a violation of the establishment clause. Period.
I was responding to the question about predicting what the Court might do by in part sketching a way in which the Court might do it and justify itself in doing
On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 08:39 AM, Paul Finkelman wrote:
Even if that is true, to only put the Ten C. is historically inaccurate and to claim it is historical is pretextual.
Of course it is. But my point was, again, that the Court could well do exactly that no matter how much you
Commandments (like Roy Moore's in Alabama, and those in
Kentcuky) are unconstitutional. The beauty of this time-anchored
solution (which will be counterintuitive to many lawyers) is that most
of the existing Ten Commandments displays (Jay Sekulow says
there are over 4000 of them on public property
Title: Re: Ten Commandments
If it is going to be historical, perhaps the representation should be as in Exodus 32:15. Written on both sides of two tablets and probably in Hebrew.
Alan
Law Office of Alan Leigh Armstrong
Serving the Family and Small Business Since 1984
18652 Florida St., Suite
In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that either of the displays in these cases is constututional?
Of course both displays are constitutional.
After listening to oral
Jim-- I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's
historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome
lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but
rather the "Bill of Rights," by which he meant the first ten amendments, of
is the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments.
This is patent nonsense, and it was supercilliously silly of Justice Stevens to make the assertion today.
Why is it nonsense?
You, and he, say that it represents the Bill of Rights. I have a copy of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights
. Hendersons own proof would seem to
contradict him.
Jeff
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005
12:52 PM
To: Law Religion issues for
Law Academics
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments
The bill of rights refers
in common
on the front panel is the Bill of Rights,
not the Ten Commandments.
This is patent nonsense, and it was supercilliously silly of Justice
Stevens to make the assertion today.
Why is it nonsense?
You, and he, say that it represents the Bill of Rights. I have a
copy of the Bill
with European
views about displays of the Ten Commandments, and those seem to control
the meaning of the US Constitution.63c726.jpg
Rick Duncan
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com
When
: Ten Commandments: My Prediction
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think was important in 1776.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
It's a little hard
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mr. Henderson, what were the other two articles?
Article the First sets the number of representatives to at one for every thirty thousand until there is attained a total of 100 representatives, etc., etc.
was important in 1776.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
It's a little hard to predict because I am not familiar with European
views about displays of the Ten Commandments, and those seem to control
the meaning of the US Constitution.63c726.jpg
Rick Duncan
Those articles are not part of the bill of rights.
On Wednesday, March 2, 2005, at 02:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:55:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Mr. Henderson, what were
the other two articles?
Article the First sets the number of
Date: 3/2/2005 2:16:03 PM
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments: My Prediction
I think there is a difference between control and having a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind which some of the framers seemed to
think was important in 1776.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 10:08 PM 3/1/2005 -0800
For a narrative and pictorial explanation of the display of the bill of
rights, see
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/tour/frieze-east-from-courtroom-entry.
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get
)
Sent by:Subject: Re: Ten
Commandments
[EMAIL PROTECTED
US law on establishment is decidedly different from that of most of the world. Indeed, most states do not have a prohibition on establishment, just a guarantee of free exercise. I do not think that the US needs to have establishment law as it does to preserve religious freedom, but as it has
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather
In a message dated 3/2/2005 12:45:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't know what docent you are talking to, but the Court's historian took me on a personal tour andexplained to me atsome lengththat the tablets in the front are not the ten commandments, but rather
In a message dated 3/2/2005 1:11:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not only that, but if you click on Mr. Hendersons link, and then Read transcript, followed by clicking the link to Amendments 11-27, it eventually notes that
Constitutional Amendments 1-10 make up what is
Thank you, Gene, for your usual levelheadedness. Jim, I think the
link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended
by the Court. You, of course, may have your viewpoint.
Marci
___
To post, send message to
In a message dated 3/2/2005 2:45:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Those articles are not part of the bill of rights.
Professor Jamar, I am prepared to read and weigh an argument justifying the assertion. But the bare assertion is not sufficient. I don't dispute Doug
are not the ten
commandments, but rather the "Bill of Rights," by which he meant the
first ten amendments, of course.It is quite clear that Moses is on
the right with 2 Commandments, not ten. It would make no sense for the
Ten Commandmentsto appear twice on the friezes, given no other enti
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:25:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, I think the link that was provided to the Supreme Court will make it clear what was intended by the Court.
Well, to the contrary, and I thinkthe discussion of these issues is related to how we
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:35:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I'm reading Mr. Henderson correctly, he is actually arguing that the artist who carved them is wrong about what they represent? If the artist who carved the frieze isn't the authoritative source on what
that evolving notions of decency
require. What is intended by the dog-goned guy (gal) who crafted the
matter in dispute.
Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here. You appear to
have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the frieze
represent the Ten Commandments. Now you're saying
MSNBC has just published a somewhat detailed account of the oral arguments. I link to it here.
RickRick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902Red State Lawblog: www.redstatelaw.blogspot.com"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow
You think that at any time in the 20th century the term Bill of Rights referred to 12 articles instead of the first 10 ratified amendments? Let me see the history to prove that assertion. Your assertion on this list is the first time I have ever heard the US Bill of Rights as other than the
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here. You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the frieze represent the Ten Commandments.
I realize that foolish consistency
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:55:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, you are just wrong on this one in terms of what the "Bill of Rights" means.
Enough already, and no more. The term "Bill of Rights" means precisely whatever Humpty Dumpty says it means. After all, he
.
Alan Brownstein
UC Davis
At 06:25 PM 3/1/2005 -0500, you wrote:
The Pew Forum has posted the trancscript of their recent event with Doug
Laycock and Jay Sekulow on tomorrow's two Ten Commandments cases:
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=69http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=69
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2005 3:52:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jim, to be blunt, you're just not making much sense here.
You appear to have spent the last hour arguing that the tablets on the
frieze represent the Ten
Let me add one thing to my last reply. I would agree that where we have
a very clear understanding of the intent of the framers, we should
certainly refer there first in terms of constitutional interpretation.
I just don't think it's nearly as simple an application as many people
pretend, nor
M
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments
In a message dated 3/2/2005 4:15:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Given that he is willing to leave it to the majority's discretion to determine whether the religious liberty of minorities should be protected against government interference fr
Alan:
I think this would be appropriate in a document like the Declaration of
Independence, but not in every court decision that is handed down; doesn't it
suffice to know that we have different laws, and that's why we have different
results? The claim of the
Declaration, though, is a
of
religion (by which I assume he includes 10 Commandments displays).
(1) The MSNBC site that someone linked to earlier reports that [a]n
AP-Ipsos poll taken in late February found 76 percent [of Americans]
supportive of and 23 percent opposed to Ten Commandments displays (
http
Ok, but I've not seen Catholics or Jews or Muslims pushing for:
prayers starting school
prayers at football games
using religious arguments as superior to positive law
young-earther anti-evolution creationism
creches
I do not recall seeing any Catholics or Jews pushing this as part of their
, in effect, in
some common school religion cases. But exceptions tend to prove the rule,
somebody once said.)
On a different matter, I predict that the
Ten Commandments cases will be decided by OConnor, Breyer, and
Kennedy. I predict that Souter, Ginsburg and Stevens will say that both
displays violate
With all due respect, Mark, I don't know if the principles of the
Declaration support the display of the Ten Commandments. But I do agree
that the question is an important one.
-Original Message-
From: Scarberry, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 7:24 PM
it. Here is the cite and title:
The Ten Commandments on the Courthouse Lawn
and
Elsewhere,
73 Fordham L. Rev. 1477-1520 (2005).
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74105
918-631-3706 (voice)
918-631-2194 (fax
What federal building in Washington has something that would need to be sandblasted off? I spent a decade looking, and didn't find anything.
Ed Darrell
Dallas (now)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 3/1/2005 6:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hesitate to
The Pew Forum has posted the trancscript of their
recent "event" with Doug Laycock and Jay Sekulow on tomorrow's two Ten
Commandments cases:
http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=69
I haven't read through the whole thing, but Doug's
opening presentation is terrific --
I think the Court could dividedly say that the 10 Commandments are part of our juridical heritage and we use history and tradition to justify some things and we have no coercion here and some accommodation could creep in, and state sponsorship is attenuated; plus Moses is on the mural in the
I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that
either of the displays in these cases is constututional?
Marty:
Do you mean are they constitutional, or will they pass muster with the current
Court's understanding of what is consitutional? Those can be very different
issues for Law Academics religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments
I hesitate to ask this, but does anyone on the list genuinely think that
either of the displays in these cases is constututional?
Marty:
Do you mean are they constitutional
displays constitutional; Justice O'Connor will split the baby, holding that Ten Commandments displays are simply cultural icons in Red counties, but that they are endorsements of religion in Blue counties, and everyone will be happy except people who are living in the wrong color.
Art Spitzer
ACLU
Since the court has NEVER cited the 10 C or hte Bible as legal
authority for anything, I am curious how it can be part of our judicial
heritage?
Steven Jamar wrote:
I think the Court could dividedly say that the 10
Commandments are
part of our juridical heritage and we use history and
, 2004 10:51 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation ofthe
Anglo-Americanlegal system?
... Lincoln resurrected the promise of the D of I at
Gettysburg and in his five years as President
Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation ofthe
Anglo-Americanlegal system?
... Lincoln resurrected the promise of the D of I at
Gettysburg and in his five years as President. ...
___
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation ofthe
Anglo-Americanlegal system?
I suspect that Lincoln's extremely complicated views on race, and his
actual policies towards blacks are well beyond the scope of this list
serve. I will simply point out that Lincoln was the first president
, for example.
Lincoln had little to nothing to do with the real defenders of racial
justice in America.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 3:37 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments
In a message dated 12/23/2004 2:13:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Paul, you give Lincoln far too much credit, I fear. Take a look at his
relations with African-Americans, his condescension, and worse. On the
subject of race, he was a bad man, pure and simple.
Lincoln was
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Paul
Finkelman
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 7:51 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation ofthe
Anglo-Americanlegal system?
Ok, I think I now understand Eugene's point. I also
disagree with him
on what
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
My response is below in square brackets.
Very truly yours,
Ross S. Heckmann
Attorney at Law
Arcadia, California
In a message dated 12/18/2004 4:52:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
They would maintain that The Ten Commandments embody in uncorrupted
form
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
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
Commandments have
influenced American law. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. at 462. The
influence of the Ten Commandments on our laws goes far deeper than the body
of American law itself. The most important influence of the Ten
Commandments concerns the nature of God and its impact on human
Chief Justice Moore put up the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama because he claimed there was a high law which he had to obey. That may his personal theology, but it not the basis of our law.
When did the state constitutional provisions adopting the common law of England, as it existed
building. If the docent does not proffer an explanation, inquire about those tables, centered over the Chief's head, that are numbered from 1 through 10: "Are those the Ten Commandments?" If you do, this is the reply you will get: "Actually, although numbered 1 through 10, those tabl
Jim writes:
The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why
Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of
representation, etc.
So, what does the Ten Commandments have to do with representation? Nothing
of course. That is the point.
Paul F.
Paul
and established Church, an official religion, and
the assumption that 'God' made laws. I responded that (1)
other principles such as no killing, stealing, defaming,
battering, etc. (including both those mentioned in the Ten
Commandments and those not so mentioned) -- are a far more
important part
In a message dated 12/18/2004 9:47:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The Declaration, on the other hand, demonstrates why
Englishman everywhere, even in colonial lands, are not subject to denial of representation, etc.
So, what does the Ten Commandments have to do
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
as the groundwork of
morality in American society is undercut. The claim that morality derives from
and is justified bythe Ten Commandments, or some other
Judeo-Christiantext cannot be sustained if anthropology reveals that prior
secular societies or priornon-Judeo-Christian societies had the same
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
the same
ethical principles have been written upon every person's conscience. They would
account for cross-cultural differences through individual and societal
corruption. They would maintain that The Ten Commandments embody in
uncorrupted form what was originally written on the conscience of each
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
