The Oklahoma Supreme Court rules against 10 Commndment monument

[shunyadragon]

LittleJoe had a much better answer.

As usual nothing of substance in response.

The separation of religion and state is not in the 'Ten Commandments.'

The commandments that do not involve a religious commandment are the commandments common to all successful cultures of the world in history, and yes, they share a common history with the origin of American Law.

[shunyadragon]

Well well yes, but...












http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html




http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html

BTW Tass, you don't want to get into a quote war with me on this, I know way more about this subject than you.

Unfortunately our history often trashed and abused the concept of the separation of religion and state. With time we may learn our lessons better.

[seer]

I argue that the "historical context" of our American Law has a broader source of influences then the 'Ten Commandments.' The influence is older and broader including Vedic origins, pre-Babylonian, Babylonian, European Celtic, Greek and Roman sources. There is even Native American Influence at the time of our writing of the Constitution.

Really? Our law was based primarily on English Common law, which was influenced by Christian principles via Alfred the Great.

The Foundation of English Common Law

Anglo – Saxon law

The law of the Anglo – Saxons prior to the invasion of the Normans in 1066 A. D. was a legal political system similar to the Old Testament Israel. In their decentralized government, a head of ten families was called a “tithing man.” The head of fifty families was a “vil-man”. The head of a hundred families was named a “hundred-man” while the head of a thousand families was known as an “eolderman”. The term "eolderman" may be related to the Scandinavian term “jarl.” Eventually the “eolderman” became known as an “earl” and governed a region called a “shire.” A “shire reef” was his assistant and became known as a “sheriff.”

The Code of Alfred the Great

Alfred the Great codified biblical law throughout his kingdom. He became known as the "Father of English common law."

“The Laws of Alfred (about A. D. 890) start with a recitation of the Ten Commandments and excerpts from the Mosaic Law; and in restating and revising the native Anglo – Saxon laws. Alfred includes such great principles as: ‘doom (i.e. judge) every evenly; doom not one doom to the rich, another to the poor, nor doom one to your friend, another to your foe.’” (Cf. Exodus 23: 1-3; Deut. 1:16 – 18)

http://liberty-virtue-independence.b...ommon-law.html

About a fifth of the law code is taken up by Alfred's introduction, which includes translations into English of the Decalogue, a few chapters from the Book of Exodus, and the "Apostolic Letter" from Acts of the Apostles (15:23–29). The Introduction may best be understood as Alfred's meditation upon the meaning of Christian law.[66] It traces the continuity between God's gift of Law to Moses to Alfred's own issuance of law to the West Saxon people. By doing so, it links the holy past to the historical present and represents Alfred's law-giving as a type of divine legislation.[67]

This is the reason that Alfred divided his code into precisely 120 chapters: 120 was the age at which Moses died and, in the number-symbolism of early medieval biblical exegetes, 120 stood for law.[68] The link between the Mosaic Law and Alfred's code is the "Apostolic Letter," which explained that Christ "had come not to shatter or annul the commandments but to fulfill them; and he taught mercy and meekness" (Intro, 49.1). The mercy that Christ infused into Mosaic Law underlies the injury tariffs that figure so prominently in barbarian law codes, since Christian synods "established, through that mercy which Christ taught, that for almost every misdeed at the first offence secular lords might with their permission receive without sin the monetary compensation, which they then fixed."[69]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred...t#Legal_reform

[seer]

Unfortunately our history often trashed and abused the concept of the separation of religion and state. With time we may learn our lessons better.

Nonsense, we are speaking of what the founders believed and did. And they did not the trash the separation of religion and state, neither did they believe that a society could function without it.

Washington's farewell speech:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

John Adams:

It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, we are speaking of what the founders believed and did. And they did not the trash the separation of religion and state, neither did they believe that a society could function without it.

Washington's farewell speech:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp



John Adams:

As I said, it takes a long time to separate religion and state so we would not have a state religion. Still a work in progress.

[seer]

As I said, it takes a long time to separate religion and state so we would not have a state religion. Still a work in progress.

No Homer, it is clear that the Founders believed that religion was necessary to maintain a free society of moral men. A belief I share.

[Cow Poke]

As I said, it takes a long time to separate religion and state so we would not have a state religion. Still a work in progress.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was very clear that there would be no "state religion". That's from whence cometh all this "separation of Church and State" stuff.

[seer]

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was very clear that there would be no "state religion". That's from whence cometh all this "separation of Church and State" stuff.

Yes, but this is my state, and when he wrote that we actually had a tax payer supported - state church.
.

[shunyadragon]

No Homer, it is clear that the Founders believed that religion was necessary to maintain a free society of moral men. A belief I share.

The founders owned slaves and the Constitution originally do not forbid slavery, provide equality of women and all races, nor specifically separate religion and state. I do not support everything the founders believed, but I still have reverence and respect for the founders and the Constitution. I believe the Constitution evolves and the interpretation changes over time. In the colonial period and early national history it was not unusual for laws to 'enforce strict religious observance' and advocate an official church in states and locally. requiring tithing to that church. In my region of North Carolina the Quakers were driven out by this method. Thank God things change.

[seer]

The founders owned slaves and the Constitution originally do not forbid slavery, provide equality of women and all races, nor specifically separate religion and state. I do not support everything the founders believed, but I still have reverence and respect for the founders and the Constitution. I believe the Constitution evolves and the interpretation changes over time. In the colonial period and early national history it was not unusual for laws to 'enforce strict religious observance' and advocate an official church in states and locally. requiring tithing to that church. In my region of North Carolina the Quakers were driven out by this method. Thank God things change.

No, the point is Shuny. The Founders believed that society, or freedom, could not survive apart from a strong religious atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt that.

[shunyadragon]

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was very clear that there would be no "state religion". That's from whence cometh all this "separation of Church and State" stuff.

I am very thankful to Thomas Jefferson, but it was a long hard road to separate religion from the government.

[shunyadragon]

No, the point is Shuny. The Founders believed that society, or freedom, could not survive apart from a strong religious atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt that.

I do not either, but that is not the issue. You can have a free 'strong religious atmosphere' for those that believe and still have the separation of religion and state, which again is slow sometimes torturous process. Up into the 20th century some churches were allowed to have schools with forced church education on Native American Reservations where the children were forbidden to speak their native tongue.

Christianity should not be the state religion supported by 'Ten Commandment' monuments on state property. The best place for the monument is in front of a church where many such monuments are located.

It is the fact of history that the 'Ten Commandments' are not specifically the foundation of American Law. It is more diverse complex origin then that.

[seer]

I am very thankful to Thomas Jefferson, but it was a long hard road to separate religion from the government.

You can not separate religion from government if the majority of the population is religious.

[seer]

It is the fact of history that the 'Ten Commandments' are not specifically the foundation of American Law. It is more diverse complex origin then that.

That is false, I already showed that biblical law influenced English Common law and that English Common influenced US law.

[shunyadragon]

That is false, I already showed that biblical law influenced English Common law and that English Common influenced US law.

Influence is very different. I never said that the Ten Commandments did not influence American Law.