Originally said by Roy Moore, as reported by CNN.com
I have no intention of removing the monument of the Ten Commandments, the moral foundation of our law. To do so would, in effect, be a disestablishment of the justice system of this state.
How are the Ten Commandments the moral foundation of our law?
How would it be a disestablishment of the justice system? If removed.
I mean, if it were removed would criminals, not be prosecuted?
Was there any less Justice before the installation of the Ten Commandments?
If it were not removed would there be any more justice than there is now?
FWIW, I’m with the people who think it disingenious to call the Ten Commandments the basis of our current justice system, given the fact that several of those commandments are not enforced, in fact their enforcement would be contrary to fundamental freedoms.
Well, there’s what Noah Webster said, regarding the Ten Commandments.
Historian David Barton, a recognized scholar on colonial history, has testified on how each of the Ten Commandments has impacted American civil law, and cites numerous historical examples of such. Now, I know that some people would find some of these examples objectionable, but that’s not the issue at hand. Rather, the question is whether these commands form a basis for the law, and Barton’s cites amply demonstrate the impact which they have had on American law.
Well, yes, but impact doesn’t equal being the moral foundation. I’m pretty sure the institution of slavery has had a strong impact on American law as well, but I’m also pretty sure it isn’t its moral foundation.
Doesn’t the OP make the assumption that Moore was correct in the first place?
Frankly, given his loud and public ignorance on the foundations of the Constitution, I wouldn’t trust Roy Moore to tell me what the weather outside the window is, much less what the moral foundations of American law are.
Thank you for posting the link to that affidavit , JThunder. It makes it quite clear what the ultimate agenda of the “Ten Commandments are the moral foundation of our law” crowd is:
Yes, JThunder (and David Barton), some of us are happy that the United States is a free country now, and not a Christian nation any more. We support the Bill of Rights, we think the enactment of the First Amendment was a good thing, and a great step forward for human liberty, and we favor not only keeping the Establishment Clause but–even more importantly–the Free Exercise Clause. In truth, it is the Free Exercise Clause which is the heart of the matter; the Establishment Clause serves as a hedge around the Free Exercise Clause to protect the fundamental right–freedom of religion. We–unlike the colonial jurists cited so enthusiastically by Mr. Barton (and therefore re-cited by JThunder)–don’t want to have worshippers of “false gods”, “idolaters”, and “blasphemers” put to death, any more than we want to re-establish monarchy in the United States, and make criticizing the king punishable by death. We want religious liberty, and we support the separation of church and state in order to uphold it.
Thank you, JThunder (and David Barton, as well) for framing this debate with such refreshing candor.
I’d just like to point out that all the examples from JThunder’s cite of religious laws derived from the Ten Commandments predate the Establishment of the United States and its Constitution. None of those laws can rightfully be said to have any significance to US law because the US didn’t exist yet.
Mr. MEBuckner, perhaps you missed the part where Barton said,
If the Koran had been instrumental in founding the laws of this nation, then I would be okay with citing passages from the Koran – provided that the Koran itself was not enforced as civil and criminal law. That is the point which Barton is arguing. He’s not advocating that we go back to the old colonial laws, or that we impose the death penalty on those who reject the Judeo-Christian God. Rather, he is emphasizing the special contribution which the Ten Commandments did make toward establishing the laws of this nation.
There is a HUGE difference between saying that the 1641 Massachusetts legal code contained religious prohibitions, and saying that we should do likewise. Barton is doing the former, but not the latter. It seems to me that you are ascribing to him a position which he has not advocated – and which he has in fact repudiated, as per my quotation above.
Balderdash. By that token, one could claim that English Common Law had no signfiicance to US Law, since the United States had not yet been formed when it was codified.
I should also poitned out that Diogenes’s claim (“all the examples from JThunder’s cite of religious laws derived from the Ten Commandments predate the Establishment of the United States and its Constitution”) is simply false. The Constitution was ratified in 1791, and several of those laws cited were enacted long after that date. Just page through the article and you’ll see what I mean.
In fact, Barton cited the 1922 Iowa Supreme Court, with regard to the observance of Sunday… not to mention the 1974(!!!) Indiana Supreme Court, which said,
So even if you grant the (erroneous!) claim that all these laws predated the Constitution, you still have Supreme Court statements regarding the Ten Commandments, issued long after the fact.
Sorry? This person dares to call himself historian? Poor America if such a “historian” who all to clearly can’t seperate his own personal agenda from his profession can freely “teach” young people.
And by the way, just a little detail for a non historian but a matter of the outmost importance for every historian, since without it you stand nowhere as historian to make any claim that you can give a comment about the historical truth/reliability of a researched historical fact or event or document:
Where is his historical proof that the version of the 10 commandments he displays is the historical correct one?
I have an other version and there are points he mentions that aren’t even remotely to be found in them. And from which I had never even heard before.
Oh, and before anyone corrects me on this matter, I’d like to point out my own error. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, rather than 1791. It’s the Bill of Rights which was ratified at that later date.
Of course, this further proves that, contrary to Diogenes’s claim, many of these laws were indeed passed long after the country had been formed.
Would you care to disprove his historical claims, then?
You’re kidding, right? Barton specifically said,
… and his reasoning is outlined in rather meticulous detail. Moreover, quibbling over the exact version of the Ten Commandments used does nothing to prove that it was NOT used as a foundation for U.S. law. At the risk of sounding cliche, such tortured reasoning amounts to missing the forest for the trees.
No, I’m not, and neither is Barton. I’m saying that the Ten Commandments were instrumental in the formation of United States Law.
Mind you, I’m not taking any stance on whether federal courts should display the Ten Commandments or not. Frankly, that’s a debate which holds little interest to me. However, I do object to the rejection of the Ten Commandments as the moral foundation for U.S. Law, as the historical evidence shows it had tremendous influence indeed. I also think it’s foolish to say (or insinuate) that displaying these commandments amounts to enforcing them on the public, or infringing upon the religious liberties of others. They are being displayed for historical reasons, much as one might display the entirety of George Washington’s farewell address, or Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” speech – both of which were filled with religous references.
The laws concerning worshipping false gods and idolatry were damned well not passed after the Constitution was ratified. And unlike the English Common Law, theocratic laws based on the Mosaic Code have been specifically repudiated by the post-Revolutionary Constitution. Official “acknowledgement” of the Ten Commandments as some historical source of American law would be like Congress singing “God Save the Queen” every morning.
A historian never lets his religion or personal motives or personal background interfere with his profession.
You are introcuded in that skill from the first class you take as future historian and you are trained in that skill every day again. You are trained that much in this that this skill becomes your second nature. It is with you whenever you speak or write or even think.
Therefore a historian shall also never use his academic title to promote, underscore or defend his personal ideas and views and his personal beliefs or religion.
Surely a historian can refer to his research at all times and rely on it at all times. Yet he shall never act as if his version or comment or conclusion - which always remains an interpretation of historical facts even when this is the result of years of study and research - is the only one and has to be accepted as the only right one because coming from him. Excluding with such statement or insinuation all other interpretations done by other historians. Acting as if they are all false and misleading.
This is the way this person acts.
And no, he doesn’t give any form of even remotely solid historical evidence to his claim that he comes up with the historical correct version of the Ten Commandments.
And as I said: he comes up with points I even never heard of before.
JThunder, I specifically singled out religious laws (i.e. the stuff about false gods, idolotry, blasphemy, etc) as predating the constitution.
Structurally, US law borrowed from Brisitish common law just as they borrowed from Greek and Roman democratic models. What they deliberately and explicitly excluded from those models was any hint of state mandated religion, official state endorsement of a specific religious view or any state interference with the free practice of religion by the people. Those important exclusions from precedent models is what set US law apart and distinguishes it from all those colonial antecedents.
I aggree that from a purely historical standpoint, that even as an atheist/agnostic (I am somewhere between the two), the display of the ten commandements is neither offensive nor out of line in a government building.
However, because of the religous nature of the document, and our constitutions insentence on the separation of church and state, this is an action in which intent should be determined.
If, as Barton suggests, the intent is of a historical nature, displaying the ten commandments along with other documents, like the mayflower compact, or the bill of rights, I would find no problem with said display. However, in the case of the judge in alabama, who I believe this debate was started over, the intent was to display the ten commandments as the only foundation for morality and law (nevermind the billions of people who do just fine without it), and to intimidate the non-believers in this judges juristiction.
He was never displaying them as a historical reference point. He is trying to win a governor’s seat on a token issue that many in his state feel strongly over. He refused to display any other documents along side his monument because they would ‘deract from the holiness and supercedence of the ten commandments’ (paraphrased quote). This particular case is a blatent conflict with the 1st/14th ammendments.
David Barton is not in any sense a respected academic historian, as he presents himself. His primary activity is heading up an advocacy group (Wallbuilders Inc.) and releasing promotional phamplets and videos, not studying or publishing works in peer reviewed journals. His list of awards all come from organizations with similar agendas. Worse, he was caught fabricating quotes from the Founding Fathers to support his views. The idea that you would present this man at face value as a historian, and that we could rely upon his testimony without very carefully checking it over, is laughable. Especially because he has caught in fraud before, we certainly cannot consider him a legitimate authority, and should require actual cites and arguments beyond what he provides.
Though, should we bother? The majority of cites involve him simply repeating the views of people who, throughout American history, have agreed with his view on the Scripture. But this is neither a complete nor comprehensive overview, nor does he attempt to elaborate on the context of these quotes (in some cases, he quotes with authority the opinions of people who’s views were explicitly REJECTED, their demands that the Constitution contain passages explicitly founding the country on God’s authority voted down and out, without noting that this was the case), nor is he helpful with cites for at least half of quotes. I simply don’t see how the fact that a handful of pre-constitutional states outlawed blasphemy, nor the fact that Barton can find a few people who echo his views, suggests that the authority of the laws are based on the Ten Commandments, or thta they would be void without them. The plain fact of the matter is that this is not how American jurisprudence functions: it isn’t “authorized” by any divine command, but by human compacts.