Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Ten Commandments; Is it against the Consitution?
Topic Started: Aug 27 2003, 08:29 PM (578 Views)
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
ImpulseEngine,Aug 30 2003
08:57 PM
Swidden,Aug 30 2003
11:51 PM
Impulse, the best suggestion I could give...

No.... :o
That is exactly what I don't want to do. If we open that can of worms, you could potentially have dozen monuments on the court grounds and it would look like a circus. What is the point of having any of them? Why does it or they belong there?


Well, then the best reply I could give you as to why they should be there would be to look at the historical and biographical data available on this country's founders. As I posted earlier, they were generally all stalwart Christians, who probably believed the United States would be a Christian country (without a specific official Church of America). Being that the Commandments come from the Bible, a collection of writings most of them were quite familiar with, they would most likely be among the first to agree that there is such a place for them to be on display in the hallowed halls of government.

Bear in mind, I am trying to put this in the context of a group of individuals from the 18th century and how they might well have thought. They may well have been enlightened to some degree, but they were also men of their time. They based our legal system on English Common Law, and much of that has its basis in Judeo-Christian thought and tradition.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
ImpulseEngine
Aug 31 2003, 03:39 AM
Also, you like everyone else here who has opposed me on this, have yet to tell me why the Ten Commandments belongs on the judicial building property... :rolleyes:

Ummmmmmm, you might want to check my very first post in this thread again. I'm not spending time defending a position that I have not taken.

What I disagreed with you on was whether the Ten Commandments (and the Christian faith) was the foundation of for the law in this country and the interpretation of the concept of "separation of church and state".

For many of the same reasons Swidden has already stated, I believe that it is unreasonable to believe that the Founding Fathers had knowledge of the other beliefs systems that you mentioned. While, for the most part, better educated and well read than the average person of the day, they would fall far behind the average high school student today. They simply didn't have wide access to the information then. People generally operate from what they know best - these were Christian-trained men.

As to the issue of the interpretation of "separation of church and state", mine is one of the two major postions taken on the issue (yours being the other). If I get time later, I will look up an article I saw in the last couple of weeks on the topic.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
Quote:
 
Sorry Swidden, but this sounds like a whole lot of speculation to me. The main argument I have heard in this thread so far to support the right of the monument to be there is that the Ten Commandments was used as a basis of our laws. So potentially this could make or break the issue. That being the case I need evidence that the Ten Commandments actually was used before I'm going to buy it.


As I have tried to indicate, and this is essentially basic high school social studies stuff, the basis of the legal system was English Common Law. The Founding Fathers did not disagree with most of it, in fact they found it quite good with only some tweaking needed to prevent what they saw as an abuse of this system by their rulers across the Atlantic in the 18th century. Much of that system came from the Judeo-Christian system established under the rule of the Roman Empire.

Furthermore, if you examine the biographies and the actual writings of many of those founders you will find considerable references to their faith in the Christian God and their belief that it was the answer to all of life's dilemmas. They honestly believed in their moral superiority as Christians. Even Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia (it might have been Republic instead of State) indicates many of his beliefs, including, but not limited to, the racial superiority of those of European ancestry.

My overall point is that if you are going to try to frame any argument in regards to original intent of the founders then you must consider them to be men of thier time. In the final analysis, they did hope that the Constitution would be a living document capable of evolving and growing. Keeping the basic principles and tenents alive but adapting to the current time. Perhaps that, in the end, is what can best be used to keep the monument out of a public governmental building. However, if your main argument at this point is what precisely influenced the folks that wrote the Declaration and the Constitution, then you must consider what Wichita said this morning:

Quote:
 
I believe that it is unreasonable to believe that the Founding Fathers had knowledge of the other beliefs systems that you mentioned. While, for the most part, better educated and well read than the average person of the day, they would fall far behind the average high school student today. They simply didn't have wide access to the information then. People generally operate from what they know best - these were Christian-trained men.


These guys were enlightened for their time, but if any one of them held to their exact views today they would be seen as being intolerant bigots looking to join their local right-wing militias...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

- sound like Chief Justice Roy Moore better get his resume together :)

Good for Alabama - no one is above the Law.
| Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Been following that story for some months now - all seems pretty much like a storm in tea-cup to me. (Yes we heard about here)

If the majority of the citisens in that particular town want a religious monument in a public building in its foyer or its forecourt or close to the entrance then let them have it if it makes them feel good. I personally can't see what all the fuss is about and certainly can't see what the difference between a religious monument or a monument to some local explorer or settler or eminent personage or even one of these ubiqedous military statues you'll find outside many a townhall (you know the guy with the souch hat and his 303 (bayonet fixed) slung with the mussle to the ground).

Surely there are more important issues for people to worry about.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
I'm not surprised this happened.

While I supported the judges actions, he should have done them within the framework of the law.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus