RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Ed, are you suggesting that believing the 10 commandments are from God is irrational? If so, not only should the 10 commandments be banned from public places, we should be telling our young people that its divine source is suspect and to believe that way shows a lack of intellectual virtue. But if it isn't prima facie irrational to believe that God is the source of the 10 commandments, then it seems to me that to require that the state not permit that account to be offered as one of many accounts of the grounding of our law would deny our young people the opportunity to appreciate a way of thinking inspired people as diverse as James Wilson and Martin Luther King, Jr. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 1:55 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position Mike Schutt wrote: In response to Ed's and Prof Lipkin's post, just a quick thought or two. I think what is traditionally meant by the basis of our laws position is the following: 1. The Ten Commandments is a stark (if not the first surviving) demonstration that law comes from outside humankind-- that is, that law is not merely a human artifact. This has a long tradition in the common law, from Magna Carta, to Coke, to Bracton and Blackstone. The ten commandments are the basis of our laws, then, in the sense that the common law has taken the view that the King us under law, because law comes from God. Russell Kirk in his Roots of American Order, for example, cites the giving of the ten commandments as the foundation of Western order. So, first, the position is that the fact that the Ten Commandments were from God, not man (being written with the finger of God) are the basis for many of the fundamental common law propositions, beginning with no man is above the law. What you call a demonstration and a fact, I call an unsupported assertion. The mere fact that Moses, or whoever wrote on his behalf, claimed that the laws came from God is no more compelling an argument than the fact that Mesha, king of the Moabites, said the same thing about the laws he allegedly got from Chemosh. More importantly, as I said, most of those laws not only don't form the basis of our laws, they would be entirely forbidden as laws under our Constitution. The fact is that we could explain and trace the reasoning for virtually every provision in the Constitution without ever once referencing the bible or judeo-christian tradition or theology. Take away the theological references, and nothing much changes in the Constitution. This hardly seems a compelling case for such traditions being the basis of our system of government. 2. Theologians, including Augustine and Calvin and many other Protestant and Catholic theologians in the history of the West have made direct connection between the Ten Commandments and *all* civil, moral, and ceremonial law. Therefore, all law in a sense is based on or-- maybe this is better put-- summarized by the Ten. This is a pretty supportable proposition from the Old and New Testaments. So even laws that should not be civil laws, such as the ones that Ed points out, are still law in the sense of moral law, as Ed also points out. Furthermore, civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with the moral law; so in that sense, our civil laws are based on the Ten Commandments. No, I did not point out that those parts of the Ten Commandments that cannot be civil law should still be considered moral law. I may agree, on different grounds, that adultery is immoral (and I do), but that does not mean that this constitutes moral law, and it certainly doesn't mean that civil laws should be based on, modeled after, and in conformance with this moral law. In fact, I strongly disagree with that position. Again, all of those prohibitions found in the ten commandments could never have existed, and it would not change our civil and criminal law in the slightest. Indeed, even without the few commandments that do find analogs in our civil law, the laws would still be the same simply because prohibitions against murder and theft are universal in nature and found in every non-biblical legal or ethical system as well. Ed Brayton ___ 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.
RE: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position
Unless the Lord is a member of a group protected by anti-hate speech laws. :-) Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 2:45 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position Sandy: There is NO reason to believe that Roman law was affected by the Ten C. Nor is there much evidence that American law was affected by the 10-C; except perhaps to reject portions of it. The First Amendment is a clear rejection of 10-C provisions on one God, the ban on sculpted images (including by the way all those angels hanging from Christmas trees (Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth). As long as we do not do it in court we are constitutionally free to swear falsely by the name of the Lord (take the Lord's name in vain) Paul Finkelman Sanford Levinson wrote: Is there any reason at all to believe that Roman Law owed anything at all to the Ten Commandments? I take it that Roman Law is the basic source of most European civil law. sandy -- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Ten Commandments Basis of Our Laws Position I think the current use of the claim that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, or at least the way I understand this phrase in its strongest sense, is that the Ten Commandments are our law's foundation in two senses: (1) Our laws are derived historically, conceptually, and so forth in a unique manner from the Ten Commandments, so that if the Ten Commandments never existed our law would be recognizably different, if it would exist at all, and (2) because of (1) (perhaps or as a separate manner), justification of our laws must refer to the Ten Commandments. (I'm not entirely sure (1) and (2) are distinct in any interesting way). By current use (above) I mean how the contention functions in political discourse today. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware -- -- ___ 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. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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. ___ 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.
Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the pre-biotic soup: For Immediate Release Dec. 14, 2004 Press Contact: Rob Crowther Discovery Institute (206) 292-0401 x.107 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leading intelligent design think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn Seattle, Dec. 14 - The policy on teaching evolution recently adopted by the Dover, PA School Board was called misguided today by Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which advised that the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten. While the Dover board is to be commended for trying to teach Darwinian theory in a more open-minded manner, this is the wrong way to go about it, said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC). Dover's current policy has a number of problems, not the least of which is its lack of clarity. At one point, it appears to prohibit Dover schools from teaching anything about 'the origins of life.' At another point, it appears to both mandate as well as prohibit the teaching of the scientific theory of intelligent design. The policy's incoherence raises serious problems from the standpoint of constitutional law. Thus, the policy should be withdrawn and rewritten. Apart from questions about its constitutionality, West expressed reservations about the Dover School Board's directive on public policy grounds. When we first read about the Dover policy, we publicly criticized it because according to published reports the intent was to mandate the teaching of intelligent design, explained West. Although we think discussion of intelligent design should not be prohibited, we don't think intelligent design should be required in public schools. What should be required is full disclosure of the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory, added West, which is the approach supported by the overwhelming majority of the public. Discovery Institute's Center for Science Culture is the nation's leading think-tank exploring the scientific theory of intelligent design, which proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected cause such as natural selection. In recent years a growing number of scientists have presented the case for intelligent design theory in academic journal articles and books published by major academic presses such as Cambridge University Press and Michigan State University Press. For more information visit the Institute's website at www.discovery.org/csc/. ### -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Brayton Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:53 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to Intelligent Design Curriculum in PA Ah, I was just going to post something about this. The Thomas More Law Center has offered to handle the defense for the Dover school district. I haven't seen any official word that they'll be representing the district, but the district would be foolish not to accept the offer. Well, let me rephrase that. They'd be foolish to fight the lawsuit in the first place, as I think they're going to lose and it's going to cost the taxpayers of that district an enormous amount of money. But if they're going to fight it, they'd be even more foolish not to accept the offer to have the TMLC represent them. TMLC has done some pretty good work. This could very well be the test case that everyone involved in the evolution/creationism battle have been anticipating for a couple of years now, the one that determines whether the precedents set in McLean v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard concerning the teaching of creation science also hold true for the teaching of intelligent design. The ID folks aren't happy about that, as they don't think the Dover school board's policy is very defensible (and they're right, it's riddled with contradictions and false claims). There is another potential case that may be coming down the line that has not gone public yet that would be even worse for them, however. If this case goes at all like McLean v. Arkansas, it could end up being quite the show trial, with a couple dozen prominent expert witnesses testifying on either side about the nature of science and the evidence for evolution. Ed Brayton Christopher C. Lund wrote: Fresh off the presses... *** MEDIA ADVISORY *** Press Conference Announcing Legal Challenge to Intelligent Design Curriculum in PA School District WHEN: Tuesday, December 14, 1:00 p.m. WHAT: The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorneys with Pepper Hamilton LLP will file a federal lawsuit on Tuesday on behalf of 11 parents who say that presenting intelligent design to students in public school violates
RE: Wait, there's more: Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy misguided, calls for it to be withdrawn
Title: Message I think Sandy's right in this regard: the positions that get labeled "science" are "knowledge" and religion merely "opinion." In one of the ironies of political liberalism (of the Rawlsian sort), these distinctions turn out to be argument-stoppers rather than conversation starters. The labeling becomes the whole deal rather than quality of the arguments offered by the disputants. If I can peg your positon as "religious," I have a ready-made exclusionary rule built into the process--the establishment clause--that permits me to reject your positon without wrestling with it. I'm not saying that is necessarily going on in this PA case, which I have not kept up with. Ed could very well be correct that the school board's resolution is incoherent drivel. But we should reject it because it is incoherent drivel andnot because it is "religion." ---Francis J. BeckwithAssociate Professor of Church-State StudiesAssociate Director, J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State StudiesBaylor University http://www.baylor.edu ph: 254.710.6464[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://francisbeckwith.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sanford LevinsonSent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 4:16 PMTo: Law Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: RE: Wait, there's more: "Leading ID think tank calls Dover evolution policy "misguided, " calls for it to be withdrawn" I just listened to an NPR segment quoting one of the supporters of ID saying that it is important that students be presented with alternatives to Darwinism. That is, this is an appeal to the importance of a multiplicity of points of view. Is there a principled way of deciding when that is a desiderata? Consider, e.g., the failure of American public schools to present in any serious way the propositions that a) we have quite a dysfunctional Constitution (a proposition that I personally believe) and b) there are legitimate reasons for various and sundry persons around the globe to hate us (a proposition that I also believe, but not for all of the various and sundry persons who in fact hate us, obviously). I take it that the persons who believe in multiplicity of views with regard to ID are unlikely to accept its importance with regard to my examples. But, conversely, I presume that persons who agree with my examples are likely to be hostile to presenting ID as even a possibility. Is Foucault right, that what counts as "knowledge" (or "disputable theory") is all a matter of social power? (This is not a rhetorical question.) sandy ___ 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.
RE: Justice Thomas in Newdow
Title: Message The sort of "golden rule"argument you are offering cuts both ways. For example, I could argue in the following way if I were an atheist: I would hope that I live in a society in which religious liberty is viewed as one of many fundamental rights that I possess by virtue of the sort of being I am, and that these rights are not contingent upon human insitutitons or human desire, but rather, are grounded in an enternal unchanging mind. Now, as an atheist, I don't believe any of that stuff. I don't believe that there are such things as immaterial moral properties that human beings have by nature, because I am a materialist who believes that things like "natures," "moral properties," etc. have no ontological status whatsoever. However, I am grateful that others believe otherwise. So, I support the recitation of the Pledge because it reinforces notions of liberty that makes it easier for me to be an atheist. So, like the Christian who must tolerate the distracting presence of nudy bars on our interstates as he or she makes her way to church on Sunday mornings, I tolerate the Pledge every morning prior to the start of the school day, and I particularly like the"under God" part, for it puts the "fear of God" in the hearts of those who want to take away my right to believe and practice atheism. Seems like a good bargain to me. Frank -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 9:37 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: Justice Thomas in Newdow In a message dated 6/18/04 5:02:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:The "lunatic fringe" certainly seems to include a lot of intelligent scholars:As human beings so frequently demonstrate, intelligence (is there a pun in here somewhere?) can certainly be misused in the service of "bad" ends.And, Jim Henderson, your sarcasm does little to advance your argument."Actually, with respect to the pledge. . . perhaps the Supreme Court retrenched and I missed that case. . . . But I'm left to shrug my shoulders and give a constitution-bound sigh."What I find lacking, especially in those who would argue for a weak Establishment Clause, is any honest attempt to put into practice some of what I consider the two related but fundamental religious/moral principles: "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Both of which exhort us directly or indirectly to empathize with/put ourselves in the position of the person not like ourselves. And incidently I find are related to Rawls' notion of "design a legal system as if you didn't know your place in society."I often wonder how many who argue for a weak Establishment Clause/the discarding of any Establishment Clause test other than coercion (and that with coercion narrowly defined)/making the Establishment Clause inapplicable to state governments (a la Judge Roy Moore) are members of minority religions or nonreligious themselves. It is a great irony that the Baptists argued so fiercely forseparation of church and state when their faith was weak and they were outsiders now that they are in a position of strength argue against the very separation that allow their churches/denomination to flourish--see The Churching ofAmerica. I write this with the knowledge that some Baptists continue in their denomination's historic opposition to government "entanglement" with religion.In the context of religion clause jurisprudence "do onto others" and "love your neighbor," mean that religious people actually put themselves in the shoesof adherents of minority religious or in the shoes of the nonreligious individuals, which is even more difficult, and look at the law, policy, or practice through their eyes. It means truly and honestly making a good faith effort (not merely paying lip service) to put oneself in the place of the person unlike yourself and consider the effect of the law, policy, practice on you in your new persona.Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D.Associate Professor (school law)Department of Educational LeadershipValdosta State UniversityValdosta, GA 31698 ___ 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
