RE: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases

[Marc Stern]

Well for starters, the Orden monument left out the words “who took you out of Egypt” an omission which makes sense on two Protestant assumptions. 1. The sentence beginning “I am” is not a commandment and the phrase who took you out of Egypt has no normative content. 2. The commandments are universal in import, and not directed solely at Israel. See Mathew 19 Jews reject both assumptions. Hence the way the Orden monument inescapably casts the commandments amounts to a repudiation of Jewish teaching. And, of course, the focus on the commandments as such is rooted in a Christian rejection of the totality of the law. Marc stern   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Steven Williams case and the Ten Commandments cases   In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments. <>There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in  an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago. Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact.  The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are.    And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward "Finding Meaning" in those commands, differences arise.  But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.   At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found.  But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision.   Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.