Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Melkor · 03-07-2003, 08:47 AM

This blatant disregard for reality pisses me off TO NO END!

Quote:

A panel from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday sounded skeptical of an argument that an image of the Ten Commandments on the seal of Richmond County, Ga., Superior Court is unconstitutional.

The three judges sharply challenged points made by Robert L. Tsai, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who maintained that the Richmond court's seal, which shows two rounded tablets containing the Roman numerals I through X, violated the First Amendment's ban against state-endorsed religion.

Tsai ran into trouble early in his 15-minute presentation when he cited ACLU v. Rabun County, a 1983 decision in which the 11th Circuit ruled that a 35-foot cross placed in a state park ran afoul of the Establishment Clause. The Richmond County case was different, said Senior Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch, who was on the panel that decided Rabun County.

While a cross is a purely religious symbol, she added, "all our laws are derived from the Ten Commandments."

EXCUSE ME!!?

"Thou shalt not have other gods before Me."

That's a commandment. Where and how does our legal system find any kind of derivation from that?

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain."

That's a commandment too. What the flying HELL does that have to do with our legal system?

"Thou shalt remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy."

So what now... since our legal system is supposedly derived from the 10 Commandments, and that's one of them, that supercedes the establishment clause, and gives our government the authority to declare some days "holy", arbitrarily? WHAT PART OF "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" do they not understand?

It gets better...

Quote:

[Chief Judge J.L. Edmondson] said the cross "does not have nearly the same level" of secular content as the Ten Commandments, which are "tied to legal history."

HOW!?

The Ten Commandments are irrefutable COMMANDMENTS (not laws, not suggestions, not rules, but COMMANDS) laid down by one small, religious society's GOD.

COMMANDMENTS are imperative. They do not a legal system in any way make. There are no appeals, there is no representation, there are no safeguards, there are no acknowledgements of rights, there is no arguing, there are no judges. They are inflexible imperatives that supposedly were carved in stone and were intended to be the "be all end all" of every situation for a people. They do not represent JUSTICE... they represent "do this or die". Period.

Our legal system is based on laws made by MEN AND WOMEN. Upheld by MEN AND WOMEN. Judged by MEN AND WOMEN. Changed and altered and amended by MEN AND WOMEN. Not any imaginary beings, not invisible, supposedly omnipotent father-figures in the sky. As such, our legal system is flexible, constantly changing, rights-based, not morality based. Not religion based. Not imperative. Laws can be changed. Laws can be questioned. Laws can be open to interpretation. Laws are based on reason.

The 10 Commandments are the direct opposite of legality. They are the opposite of "reason". They CANNOT be changed. They CANNOT be questioned. They are the opposite of "due process". They are the opposite of "debate". They are the opposite of "fair and unbiased". They are the direct opposite of "justice".

Laws and our legal system derive authority from the CONSTITUTION, not the bible, not a god, not a devil, and most certainly not from the Ten Commandments.

Hell, most people can't even agree on which commandments belong in the "Ten".

But I'd like anyone to point out to me where in the Constitution (which establishes the cornerstone of our legal system) God is mentioned, and where the Ten Commandments are mentioned. Because no matter how many times I read it, I'm not seeing anything even REMOTELY related to some ridiculous stone tablets that some guy who may or may not have even existed brought down off of some mountain four thousand years ago.

Right.

When I see the 10C posted outside of a courthouse, I don't see "legal history". I see a non-secular institution that only provides "fair, equitable treatment" to those that hold certain beliefs.

The quotes from these remarkably ignorant judges only solidifies and confirms that further to me.

Zimyatin · 03-07-2003, 09:15 AM

Anyone who states that our law (anglo-american) is based on the ten commandments did not study their history. Our law dates back to 1066 and William the Bastard, soon to be William the conqueror. It is from him and his descendands that notions of property rights, contracts, torts, etc flow. "Fundamental" rights, or "natural" law, comes from 18th century enlightment philosophs. Now, to be fair, England did have ecclesiastical courts. But they were separate from civil courts and are presently abolished.

But what do you do when a circuit justice is ignorant about history?

Melkor · 03-07-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zimyatin
But what do you do when a circuit justice is ignorant about history?

What do you do when a circuit justice is willfully ignorant about history?

crazyfingers · 03-07-2003, 09:43 AM

Anyone who says that the 10Cs are the basis for our legal system should be asked to point out in the bible where the following can be found:

Representative democracy (The bible has Kings)
Freedom of religion (vs the 1st commandment)
Separation of powers (It's all in the king)

Godless Dave · 03-07-2003, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zimyatin
Anyone who states that our law (anglo-american) is based on the ten commandments did not study their history. Our law dates back to 1066 and William the Bastard, soon to be William the conqueror. It is from him and his descendands that notions of property rights, contracts, torts, etc flow.

And he got them from Anglo-Saxon common law, which predates the introduction of Christianity to northern Europe.

Of course the whole idea of laws being written down and enforced by a government comes from the Romans, who had a legal system (and an elected government) centuries before Jesus was born. And their written laws can ultimately be traced back to the Babylonian king Hammurubai, who developed his code before the Israelites wrote down their commandments.

And I learned all this is HIGH SCHOOL. Assuming that circuit court judge went to high school and college before going to law school, he has no excuse for his ignorance.

Toto · 03-07-2003, 10:15 AM

Judge Kravitch is 83 and attended law school in the 40's, but that's no excuse. A more positive note on her and .this decision looks good.

gravitybow · 03-07-2003, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crazyfingers
Anyone who says that the 10Cs are the basis for our legal system should be asked to point out in the bible where the following can be found:

Representative democracy (The bible has Kings)
Freedom of religion (vs the 1st commandment)
Separation of powers (It's all in the king)

Habeus corpus
Freedom of speech
Free press
The right of the people to peaceably assemble
The right to bear arms
Protection of private property
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure
Trial by jury
Bicameral legislation
Limited executive power

themistocles · 03-07-2003, 04:02 PM

Well, William the Conquerer really was a bastard.

ashibaka · 03-07-2003, 05:05 PM

Of course the Ten Commandments are the basis of our legal system. Perhaps we need to review them:

1. Thou hast the right to remain silent.
2. Thou shalt be tried by jurie.
3. Thou hast a right to a lawyer.
4. Thou shalt be given a punishment that fitteth the crime.
5. Thou art innocent until proven guiltie.
6. Thou shalt hold the Bible over the law of thy country. It is a sin to remove "under God" from thy Pledge of Allieganse. Similarly, thou shalt remove Science from the Science Classroom.
7. Thou shalt not kill, unless if thou art killing Iraqis.
8. Thou shalt ban human cloning.
9. Thou shalt not make copies of music records, for I am the Lord your God.
10. Further terms and restrictions apply, see New Testament for details.

See, all of the Ten Commandments have been used in modern society.

You may also remember the excellent standard set for justice in the Bible. For example, God tells us that if a woman is raped and she does not cry out, then the rape should be tried in a public court before a jury of peers. Also, when the prophet Elijah was ridiculed by some young children, the children were not jailed or submitted to some cruel humiliation; they were sent back home to their parents to be given a lesson in respect.

themistocles · 03-07-2003, 05:12 PM

What if we just dropped one of the tablets and say we only have three commandments?

And really, what was a Jew in 1800 BC or so doing with Roman numerals. If English is good enough for....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-07-2003, 09:15 AM	#2
Zimyatin Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Michigan Posts: 308	Anyone who states that our law (anglo-american) is based on the ten commandments did not study their history. Our law dates back to 1066 and William the Bastard, soon to be William the conqueror. It is from him and his descendands that notions of property rights, contracts, torts, etc flow. "Fundamental" rights, or "natural" law, comes from 18th century enlightment philosophs. Now, to be fair, England did have ecclesiastical courts. But they were separate from civil courts and are presently abolished. But what do you do when a circuit justice is ignorant about history?

03-07-2003, 09:43 AM	#4
crazyfingers Contributor Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 13,699	Anyone who says that the 10Cs are the basis for our legal system should be asked to point out in the bible where the following can be found: Representative democracy (The bible has Kings) Freedom of religion (vs the 1st commandment) Separation of powers (It's all in the king)

03-07-2003, 10:15 AM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Judge Kravitch is 83 and attended law school in the 40's, but that's no excuse. A more positive note on her and .this decision looks good.

03-07-2003, 04:02 PM	#8
themistocles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: las vegas, nevada Posts: 670	Well, William the Conquerer really was a bastard.

03-07-2003, 05:05 PM	#9
ashibaka Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Cloudy Water Posts: 443	Of course the Ten Commandments are the basis of our legal system. Perhaps we need to review them: 1. Thou hast the right to remain silent. 2. Thou shalt be tried by jurie. 3. Thou hast a right to a lawyer. 4. Thou shalt be given a punishment that fitteth the crime. 5. Thou art innocent until proven guiltie. 6. Thou shalt hold the Bible over the law of thy country. It is a sin to remove "under God" from thy Pledge of Allieganse. Similarly, thou shalt remove Science from the Science Classroom. 7. Thou shalt not kill, unless if thou art killing Iraqis. 8. Thou shalt ban human cloning. 9. Thou shalt not make copies of music records, for I am the Lord your God. 10. Further terms and restrictions apply, see New Testament for details. See, all of the Ten Commandments have been used in modern society. You may also remember the excellent standard set for justice in the Bible. For example, God tells us that if a woman is raped and she does not cry out, then the rape should be tried in a public court before a jury of peers. Also, when the prophet Elijah was ridiculed by some young children, the children were not jailed or submitted to some cruel humiliation; they were sent back home to their parents to be given a lesson in respect.

03-07-2003, 05:12 PM	#10
themistocles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: las vegas, nevada Posts: 670	What if we just dropped one of the tablets and say we only have three commandments? And really, what was a Jew in 1800 BC or so doing with Roman numerals. If English is good enough for....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.