And what is it that you call Adams’ citation of two of the Tens as commanded from Heaven? Do you think “not a factor at all” is the phrase to describe it and dispel ignorance? Are you suggesting that we be recklessly ambiguous and inaccurate?
No one misread your argument. Just because they were invoked, doesn’t mean they were a factor. They were used as a minor rhetorical device. For you to use that phrase as an indication that they were a factor, it would have had to show Adams appealing to the authority of the Ten Commandments, which he clearly is not. He’s appealing to the universal necessity of protecting property rights, and using them as an illustration that he knew everyone would be familiar with.
I think “not a factor at all” is a pretty damn accurate phrase to use. You’re being petty and nitpicky and, quite frankly, wasting everyone’s damn time on pathetic minutae.
In other words, par for the course for a Lib post.
Just let him claim victory on that argument and drop it. The discussion will not progress otherwise.
You did.
Yes it does.
What device would that be?
Well, no it wouldn’t, but he did. He said they came from Heaven.
If they’re not a factor, why would he use them as illustration?
It’s “minutiae”. And I don’t think the phrase or the assertion is accurate at all. If you don’t appreciate my contributions, don’t read them.
But hurling personal attacks at me in Great Debates is somehow not a waste of “everyone’s dam time”?
Well, let me see if I can make a statement that will satisfy Liberal’s exacting standards:
By the time of the foundation of the United States, the leaders of the new country still sometimes cited passages from the Bible in support of some criminal laws in this country. However, they had clearly abandoned a very important part of the Decalogue as a guide for secular law, rejecting the idea that civil government should have any jurisdiction over what God a person ought to worship, or whether or not a person ought to make idols. The founders of the United States clearly did not treat the Ten Commandments as if “God insisted they be followed” when drafting secular laws; nor does it really seem fair to say they used them even as a “rough guide”, since they drafted important laws and constitutional documents (the “no religious tests” clause of Article VI, the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment) which are diametrically opposed to the very important principle of Biblical law found in the First and Second Commandments.
Under American law, murder, theft, and perjury are illegal. Adultery is increasingly decriminalized, but many jurisdictions do still have adultery laws on the books. Respect for one’s father and mother are not generally compelled by civil law; we certainly have nothing like the Old Testament laws making disobeying or cursing one’s parents punishable by death. Covetousness as such was not subject to civil penalties even under the Mosaic code. Laws against “blasphemy” are incompatible with our principles of both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. We still have Sunday “blue laws” on the books in a lot of places, but no one can actually be compelled to “keep the Sabbath day holy” by attending church or engaging in any religious rite, nor would any blue law banning all secular activity in order to encourage Sabbath-keeping be constitutionally acceptable. Worshipping gods other than the God of the Bible and making or worshipping idols are both constitutionally protected rights, which civil government must not only hinder but most protect from any attempt at forcible infringement.
The Ten Commandments have been used as a foundation for a legal system before, including in colonial America, but they have been abandoned as such in this country, and in fact our legal code is based on very different principles from those found in the Ten Commandments. This country long ago rejected the Ten Commandments as a basis for civil law (and I would say rightly so).
I think that was impeccably stated, Buck. I don’t believe that, in all my years here, I have ever invoked the nitpicker defense. For me, it is a capitulation amounting to, “You knew what the words meant, and I didn’t.” I very much appreciate your rising above any nitpicker defense. Instead, you reformulated your argument into an unassailable evaluation of the very balance that government at least ought to consider in this matter.
Doesn’t the Lemon test amount to “You can have religious displays on public grounds only if you surround them with enough secular stuff to dilute any religious meaning? In other words, a Christmas manger can be displayed by the government only if it is surrounded by Santa, Frosty and Rudolph?” That test is easy enough to follow, and fits neatly into the Ten Commandments argument. The commandments can be displayed on public grounds only if surrounded by enough other items to dillute any notion that any one particular religious point is being advocated by the government.
Don’t these guys have better things to do than to continually rehash this stuff? First, I fail to see how displaying a tablet with Roman numerals I-X does anything to “promote the establishment of religion”. Most people going to court don’t want to be there-they are trying to get their business done and get out of there. Second, public buildings are decorated with all kinds of crap-including (in the case of courtrooms) depictions of the greek goddess of justice (“blind justice”). I usually don’t pay any attention to the walls of courtrooms anyway.
Finally, with all the real decisons that the SC could be spending its time on, it is simply ridiculous to keep blowing public funds debating something this stupid.
ralph124c, what was the outcome of their last ruling on the issue?
If only the use of the subjunctive were as simple as you make it out to be. 
The subjunctive has many uses, and countless shades of meaning, and while English grammar is not my strong point - my linguistics studies have generally tended in other directions - it’s hard to draw a definitive conclusion about any usage of the subjunctive. (In fact, some grammarians claim that English has no subjunctive; that the mood we call by that name is not easily parallel to other languages’ subjunctive moods. Some call English’s “subjunctive” the irrealis instead.)
Adams, regardless, may have been arguing that they were divine rules, but he also clearly argued that, divine or not, they were necessary. According to my reading of what he said, it doesn’t matter whether or not God commanded them, because they are necessary to the functioning of a society either way.
Besides, resorting to private quotes is running off into the irrelevant, as the Constitution makes clear that the State shall establish no religion. I think our freedom as a society depends heavily on the state not mandating our core beliefs. I’m surprised you disagree. But rather, if your claim is that Christian law is a basis of our civil law, well, prove it. Explain which principles of law first were elucidated in the Bible. It may well be true that some of them were not established in writing prior to the Bible’s being written down, but the importance of oral law obviously shouldn’t be denigrated. So you’ll need to demonstrate that ideas like the forbidding of theft were not common prior to the Bible; one angle might be to investigate societies that have remained thoroughly isolated from the West and see if they have strictures against theft. I suspect you won’t find many that don’t, even among people for whom the Bible holds no sway at all.
I agree wholeheartedly. Please let me know when folks have stopped trying to trample on my religious freedoms, and I’ll shut up about the issue.
No one disagrees with that. No one is saying that Adams was invoking the Tens for the purpose of instituting them as law. We’ve already been over that. Why you are raising it again is a mystery.
Me too. Mainly because I don’t. What I disagreed with was the premise that, listen carefully, “I don’t think [the Tens] were a factor at all”. Got it?
Maybe because the first four commandments read like this:
Sure sounds like establishment of religion to me.
Except that if they don’t clarify the rules, city councils and county commissions all over the country are going to keep wasting taxpayers’ money by putting up these displays and inviting big, expensive litigation just so local politicians can get their names in the newspapers as defenders of the ten commandments. Those are the money-wasting bastards in this drama.
No, I don’t get it…if you are a Christian or a Jew, a tablet with I-X means something to you (ie. the Ten Commandments). But if you are a Hindu, Muslim, Bhuddist (or athiest), unless you studied the aforementioned religions, such a display would be as meaningless to you, as the goddess Shiva would be to a follower of Zoroaster.
Like I say, most people in court have much more serious things to worry about, than the chance of being harmed by seeing a tablet with roman numerals on them.
It’s not Roman numerals, it’s a government endorsement of monotheism. The government has no right to say whether gods exist or don’t exist.
However, The monument on the lawn in Austin displays a list of the commandments rather than just Roman numerals I to X, ex-Justice Moore’s was also a plinth with the (Evangelical Protestant numbering of the) actual Ten Commandments (abridged) with a trite declaration regarding “Nature’s” laws and “Nature’s” God. I am fairly sure that the two Kentucky displays are also more than a simple icon of Roman numerals.
I’m not sure what point you had hoped to assert, but it seems to be based on an error of fact in any case.
As was pointed out, it’s not the Supreme Court decorations described in the files I linked to (with their tablets with the Roman numerals I-X and statues of Greco-Roman goddesses of justice) which SOCAS activists object to; it’s the monuments in courthouses which start off with “Thou shalt have no other gods before the LORD” in big bold letters.
Musicat actually linked to the Lemon test in the OP:
(The full text of the original decision: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).)
I believe the “religions icons are OK if you surround them with enough plastic candy canes and snowmen” test was later backsliding by the court.
[steve martin]
And I believe in eight of the Ten Commandments.
And I believe that sex is the most beautiful and meaningful human experience that money can buy.
And people say I’m crazy for believing this – but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage!
[/steve martin]
Which - listen carefully - I went on to demonstrate is a groundless viewpoint until evidence is produced to support it.