# How are the Ten Commandments the moral foundation of our law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343 "2003-08-24T17:02:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![zipper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/5f8ce5/32.png) [@zipper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zipper)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/1 "2003-08-24T17:02:14Z")
Originally said by Roy Moore, as reported by [CNN.com](http://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? ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/2 "2003-08-24T17:24:59Z")
Some of your questions have been discussed in this recent thread: [10 Commandments as the basis for our legal system](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=206221). Enjoy! 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. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/3 "2003-08-24T20:18:15Z")
Well, there’s what Noah Webster said, regarding the Ten Commandments. > [@](#): > > “The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.” Historian David Barton, a recognized scholar on colonial history, has testified on how [each of the Ten Commandments has impacted American civil law](http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41), 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. ---
**Author:** ![Tusculan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecd19e/32.png) [@Tusculan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tusculan)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/4 "2003-08-24T20:35:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/5 "2003-08-24T21:00:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by zipper \* > How are the Ten Commandments the moral foundation of our law? 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. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/6 "2003-08-24T21:55:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by JThunder \* > Historian David Barton, a recognized scholar on colonial history, has testified on how [each of the Ten Commandments has impacted American civil law](http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=41), 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. 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: > [@](#): > > _From an affidavit filed by David Barton_ > …Modern critics, while conceding “six or five Commandments are moral and ethical rules governing behavior,” also point out that because the remaining “four of the Ten Commandments are specifically religious in nature,” that this fact alone should disqualify their display. They assert that only one of the two “tablets” of the Ten Commandments is appropriate for public display. > > 1. In an effort to substantiate this position historically, critics often point to the Rhode Island Colony under Roger Williams and its lack of civil laws on the first four commandments to “prove” that American society was traditionally governed without the first “tablet.” However, they fail to mention that the Rhode Island Colony was the _ **only** _ one of the thirteen colonies that did not have civil laws derived from the first four divine laws -the so-called first “tablet.” Significantly, every other early American colony incorporated the _ **entire** _ Decalogue into its own civil code of laws… > > 2. A subsequent 1641 Massachusetts legal code also incorporated the thrust of this command of the Decalogue into its statutes. Significantly, the very first law in that State code was based on the very first command of the Decalogue, declaring: > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Deut. 13.6, 10, Deut. 17.2, 6, Ex. 22.20. > > 1. The 1642 Connecticut law code also made this command of the Decalogue its first civil law, declaring: > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death (Duet. 13.6 and 17.2, Ex. 22.20). > > …24. Typical of the civil laws prohibiting idolatry was a 1680 New Hampshire idolatry law that declared: > > > [@](#): > > > > Idolatry. It is enacted by ye Assembly and ye authority thereof, yet if any person having had the knowledge of the true God openly and manifestly have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death. Ex. 22.20, Deut. 13.6 and 10. > > …27. Reflecting the civil enactment of these two categories embodying the third commandment, a 1610 Virginia law declared: > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. That no man speak impiously or maliciously against the holy and blessed Trinity or any of the three persons . . . upon pain of death. > > > > 2. That no man blaspheme God’s holy name upon the pain of death. > > 1. A 1639 law of Connecticut similarly declared: > > > [@](#): > > > > If any person shall blaspheme the name of God the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, with direct, express, presumptuous or high-handed blasphemy, or shall curse in the like manner, he shall be put to death. Lev. 24.15, 16. > > …106. The fact that some may not agree with all of the commandments of the Decalogue does not mean it should be prohibited from display any more than does the fact that not everyone agrees with all of the protections in the Bill of Rights requires that the Bill of Rights should not be displayed-or that because not everyone agrees with what the American flag represents requires the flag should not be displayed… > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by JThunder_ > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/7 "2003-08-24T23:27:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/8 "2003-08-24T23:34:04Z")
Mr. **MEBuckner** , perhaps you missed the part where Barton said, > [@](#): > > To prohibit the display of the Decalogue simply because the first four commandments are more religious in nature than are the other six is like permitting the display of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” or Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” speech or the “Mayflower Compact” only if each document is displayed without its religious portions. b]In a display of any of the aforementioned works,\*\* it is not the advocation of religion that is occurring but rather the recognition of a significant historical contribution made to America that also happens to include religion.\*\* (Emphasis added) 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. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/9 "2003-08-24T23:36:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*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. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/10 "2003-08-24T23:45:11Z")
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, > [@](#): > > “Virtually all criminal laws are in one way or another the progeny of Judeo-Christian ethics. We have no intention to overrule the Ten Commandments.” 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. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/11 "2003-08-24T23:50:56Z")
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. Salaam.A. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/12 "2003-08-24T23:51:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/13 "2003-08-24T23:54:05Z")
JThunder, Are you saying that the USA is a Christian nation? Salaam. A. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2003, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/14 "2003-08-24T23:55:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > **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.** Would you care to disprove his historical claims, then? > [@](#): > > \*\* > 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?\*\* You’re kidding, right? Barton specifically said, > [@](#): > > “11. This affidavit will demonstrate that, historically speaking, neither courts nor civil officers were confused or distracted by the so-called “various versions” of the Decalogue and that each of the Ten Commandments became deeply embedded in both American law and jurisprudence. This affidavit will establish that a contemporary display of the Ten Commandments is the display of a legal and historical document that dramatically impacted American law and culture with a force similar only to that of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.” … 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. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/15 "2003-08-25T00:01:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Aldebaran \* > \*\*JThunder, > > Are you saying that the USA is a Christian nation? > . \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/16 "2003-08-25T00:02:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/17 "2003-08-25T00:15:43Z")
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. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/18 "2003-08-25T00:21:37Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![stick\_monkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@stick\_monkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stick_monkey)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/19 "2003-08-25T13:54:30Z")
\*\* > [@](#): > > 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. \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343/20 "2003-08-25T14:39:11Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-the-ten-commandments-the-moral-foundation-of-our-law/197343.md?page=2)