Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The 10 Commandments: Not The Basis Of Western Law  
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5251 posts, RR: 8
Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

Why do people constantly claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis for western law and in particular, in the USA, that they are the basis for US law? They are not at all. At most there are three commandments that are echoed in law here but that's it and they are the relative basic foundations of any society, such that they existed prior to the ten commandments. Not because of them.

I was listening to an idiot bloviating that the USA owes its laws to the Ten Commandments and I just want to go through the speaker and yell at the person. I have even tried calling into a local talk station that was saying this crap and was put on perma-hold, the host never taking my call.

It is very frustrating because I hear others mindlessly echoing this lie and when I note that the ten commandments have very little in common with the law they are either surprised or get very defensive.

Even if you leave out "The Law" and go to basic values in society only half (at most 6) are part of our overall societal values.



Obviously 1-4 are not part of US law or part of US societal mores.

Commandments 6, 8, and 9 are enshrined in law and quite thoroughly part of societies values. They don't actually need to be based on religious morals as societies don't function without these particular values. These values existed well before the Ten Commandments came into being.

Commandment number 7 is not really supported in law other than tangentially (it can be grounds for divorce and can be an ameliorating factor in court on why something happened). It is though very much part of society's values as something you should not do and the people involved are shunned when it becomes public.

Number 5 is not part of law but is part of our societies values with the caveat that the parents must also value, protect, and treat with care, their children. If the parents do not then it is fully acceptable to not honor your parents. In other words, honor is earned not just given.

Number 10 is not supported in law, you can want what someone else has got all you want. And while society
somewhat frowns on being envious of what others around you have, "Keeping up with the Jones" is a very normal if not really good part of our society.

I understand the idea that they were one of the foundational law structures that formed the basis of some early societies but the 10 Commandments themselves, as they are written, are not the foundation of modern western law.

So why do people parrot this crap that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of western and/or US law when it is so obviously not for significant portions of it to anyone who has reads them and knows what they are?

Tugg


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15478 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
Obviously 1-4 are not part of US law or part of US societal mores.

Well, duh. Anyone who has taken an entry level theology class or even gone to Sunday School would know that the Ten Commandments are broken down into two parts: the first which deals with people's relations to God, and the second which deals with people's relations to other people.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11124 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
So why do people parrot this crap that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of western and/or US law

For the same reason people parrot the falsehood that the United States is a Christian nation. Christians are so willing to turn this into a theocracy with Christianity the only religion available. Yet, that is not what our Founding Fathers wanted. Our Founding Fathers were actually running away from persecution. Just because our Founding Fathers worshiped in (suppposedly) Christian fashion, that does not mean they wanted a Christian nation. They understood persecution and wanted nothing to do with it. I am talking to you, Murfreesboro, TN! No where in the Declaration of Independance does it say "All men are created equal except..." On the contrary. It says "All men are created equal." Period. I am still trying to get anyone to show me where in the Constitution (the law of the land) where it says Christianity is the only religion endorsed by the government.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2315 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4101 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):

"Amen!" I even heard my sister saying the other day that christianity is the foundation of the society here as well and I was about to throw up. If anything, our society has its roots in greek civilization. This is where democracy comes from as far as I am aware and is the foundation of our modern day society.


User currently offlinegarnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5327 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):


Obviously 1-4 are not part of US law or part of US societal mores.

Try again on Commandment #4, Tug, and say hello to blue laws. When I lived in CAE, you couldn't buy beer or wine on Sunday, stores opened later, and for stores like Wal-Mart that were open 24-7, they'd rope off the general merchandise aisles/areas so you couldn't get in and buy anything but "essentials" like food items. Even now, living here in RDU, the state ABC Stores are closed on Sunday, meaning no liquor. Beer and wine, sure, but no hard stuff. The rationale, of course, was to "keep the Sabbath holy" or to get people in church if there was nothing else to do on a Sunday morning. That said, I do agree with you. The 10 Commandments aren't the basis of Western law. Some tenants may be, but, as you point out, I think these are near universal tenants that go part and parcel with having some sort of functioning governmental system or social order.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 2):
For the same reason people parrot the falsehood that the United States is a Christian nation.

I hate when people do that - the same way I hate when people blather on about The 10 Commandments being the basis of Western law, especially given that US law says the exact opposite. According to the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed by President John Adams (hey isn't he one of those Founding Fathers/Framers of the Constitution we hear about?) and unanimously ratified by the members of the Senate present at its discussion,

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Emphasis mine)



South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5251 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3720 times:

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 7):
Try again on Commandment #4, Tug, and say hello to blue laws. When I lived in CAE, you couldn't buy beer or wine on Sunday, stores opened later, and for stores like Wal-Mart that were open 24-7, they'd rope off the general merchandise aisles/areas so you couldn't get in and buy anything but "essentials" like food items. Even now, living here in RDU, the state ABC Stores are closed on Sunday, meaning no liquor. Beer and wine, sure, but no hard stuff. The rationale, of course, was to "keep the Sabbath holy" or to get people in church if there was nothing else to do on a Sunday morning.

Well, I would that not selling alcohol and opening later is different than laws enforcing no working at all on Sunday. But you point is well taken.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineual747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

You know, the 3 major moral codes that are derived from the 10 commandments that ARE law can be found in any other religious societies moral codes, or secular societies moral codes. I don't think stealing and killing are legal in China either. But I doubt it's based on the Judeo-Christian 10 commandments.

I don't think we need a God or God's to tell us what is right or wrong.

UAL


User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21095 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 8):
Well, I would that not selling alcohol and opening later is different than laws enforcing no working at all on Sunday.

It's still restricting what you can do based on the day of the week. I can't think of many other laws like that except for parking regulations, and those are generally more liberal on weekends, since there isn't as much need to keep streets clear for workplace traffic.

I wish more people would challenge the constitutionality of the laws, since I think most of them wouldn't hold up (though some of them have).

To be fair, I do believe that some European nations have laws governing businesses on Sundays as well.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5251 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 10):
It's still restricting what you can do based on the day of the week. I can't think of many other laws like that except for parking regulations, and those are generally more liberal on weekends, since there isn't as much need to keep streets clear for workplace traffic.

I wish more people would challenge the constitutionality of the laws, since I think most of them wouldn't hold up (though some of them have).

To be fair, I do believe that some European nations have laws governing businesses on Sundays as well.

Well we have lots of laws restricting people and businesses from doing lots of things but I agree, these laws *appear* to be religiously based. However I think the truth is that the majority of the people in those states want them and no true harm/violation of rights can be shown to be caused by having them. There is often little separating a societies laws and values, from the faith and religions practiced by that society. If they were challenged what would the basis be?

Quoting ual747 (Reply 9):
I don't think we need a God or God's to tell us what is right or wrong.

Again, not bashing religion, but yes, I agree. Many people say that you need religion to have morals but in truth I think you needs to have these types of values/morals in order to have a religion. I think these basic values, that one should not lie (bear false witness), steal, or murder, is the absolute rock bottom foundation of any society, religious or otherwise.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21095 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3665 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
Well we have lots of laws restricting people and businesses from doing lots of things

But not just because it's Sunday.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
I think the truth is that the majority of the people in those states want them

Which is all well and good, but the will of the people doesn't automatically override the Constitution.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
and no true harm/violation of rights can be shown to be caused by having them.

It depends on the specific law, I suppose, and that's what the courts would have to weigh.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
If they were challenged what would the basis be?

1st Amendment.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2032 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
Why do people constantly claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis for western law

Western Law? That doesn't make any sense to begin with. The history behind all the Western states is a complicated mess, and the jury is still out on most of it.

In any case, I doubt people claim that as often as you think.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11445 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3573 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why do people deny the truth when it's really there? Civil law has always followed societal mores which have always been shaped and guided by religious leaders offering answers to the unknowable as the ultimate authority.

Everything from Hammurabi's code to the 10 commandments to the Magna Carta and the US Constitution has descended from codes, written and unwritten, that arose from a need to give limits and shape to one society or another in order for people to coexist (and be ruled more easily).

Just because you don't like Christianity doesn't mean that most US code is derived from it in one way or another. British common law is the progenitor for most US law (outside of LA where the Napoleonic code takes the same place) and most of that is derived from thoughts by leaders who were either advised by religious leaders or were religious leaders (remember that since Hank8 all British kings were the defenders of their faith).

In order to understand you have to be willing to get past your own desires to disrespect that which you don't like by denying the truth.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 11):
Just because you don't like Christianity doesn't mean that most US code is derived from it in one way or another.

I believe this conversation was begun to counter the Christianists (notice I didn't say Christians) who are claiming that America was founded on Christian principles and therefore is a theocracy. That way they can play the "Christian" trump card anytime they want to override our constitutional controls or system of checks and balances.

As far as the end of your statement: "...derived from it in one way or another.", I think that's a weak defense. Inasmuch as our laws are derived from many sources, including many different religions, I would agree with your statement. But let's be clear that at any point in human history we will find evidence of convergent thought - i.e., concepts (such as "The Golden Rule") emerging from multiple groups/societies/religions at the same time. Certainly your statement does not lead to the U.S. being a nation founded on Christianity.

I think that's what most contributers in this thread are addressing.


User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3545 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Well, duh. Anyone who has taken an entry level theology class or even gone to Sunday School would know that the Ten Commandments are broken down into two parts: the first which deals with people's relations to God, and the second which deals with people's relations to other people.

Love the total non-response to this. Nothing more amusing than a non-beleiver trying to use scripture in a way they don't understand.

1-4 are not intended as law, they are guidence on personal beliefs.

5 - In general, your parents are responsible for your actions and you should therefore respect them. Plenty of case law to back that up. It also extends to your responsibility for their welfare late in life. Plenty of people have been charged with criminal negligence toward their parents in their later years.
6 - Murder. Given.
7 - Adultery. Very much a part of law. Just because people commit it all the time these days doesn't mean there isn't a legal penalty for it be it financial or otherwise.
8 - Stealing. Given.
9 - False Witness. Also a given.
10 - Covet. The OP says its not in law, but it absoultely is. It’s called criminal intent.


Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
I was listening to an idiot bloviating that the USA owes its laws to the Ten Commandments and I just want to go through the speaker and yell at the person. I have even tried calling into a local talk station that was saying this crap and was put on perma-hold, the host never taking my call.

So change the station. I mean really, you got that bent on something someone said? So much so that you dragged it in here?


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10734 posts, RR: 38
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

I am no expert in the field but wasn't the U.S. Constitution and Law taken from European intellectuals such as Tocqueville, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and their British counterparts?

It may have a tinge of Christian theology in it but I don't think much - I may be wrong though. The Principles of Government seem a lot more philosophical to me than religious. I guess a great most derives from Old Europe.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3503 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
Why do people constantly claim that the Ten Commandments are the basis for western law and in particular, in the USA, that they are the basis for US law? They are not at all. At most there are three commandments that are echoed in law here but that's it and they are the relative basic foundations of any society, such that they existed prior to the ten commandments. Not because of them.
Quoting TheCol (Reply 10):
Western Law? That doesn't make any sense to begin with. The history behind all the Western states is a complicated mess, and the jury is still out on most of it.

With the exception of Iceland, ALL Western nations legal systems are built not on the Ten Commandments, but on Roman law. And, more than you might think, you're largely governed by laws and practices that are 2,000 years old. Cicero would be proud.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15):
With the exception of Iceland, ALL Western nations legal systems are built not on the Ten Commandments, but on Roman law.

Iceland is no exception any longer. It was until the year 1262 when Iceland was annexed by Norway.

Local laws had some declining validity until 1602 when the Danish king assumed dictatorship over Iceland. The Althing still "enjoyed" a minor degree of power as advisor to the Danish king, but was dissolved in 1800 until 1845.

In three steps (1876, 1918 and 1944) Iceland regained total independence. In 1944 they got their own constitution which was for most practical things is a translation of the Danish constitution with the word "king" replaced by "president". And the Danish constitution is with minor amendments an 1849 copy of the constitution which was adopted in Belgium in 1831.

Iceland is a founding member of 60+ years old Nordic Council (members: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, Aaland Islands, Faroe Islands) where detailed legislation experiences are shared among the politicians from all member states, resulting in a very high degree or synchronization.

Anyway, my Icelandic friends tell me that 90% of new legislation during the last 25 years has been adoption of EU directices. Even if Iceland is not an EU member state, then it is maybe one of the most EU compliant nations today.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5251 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
But not just because it's Sunday.

But because it is 2am (or 1am in some places). Or because

Quoting TheCol (Reply 10):
Western Law? That doesn't make any sense to begin with. The history behind all the Western states is a complicated mess, and the jury is still out on most of it.

In any case, I doubt people claim that as often as you think.

I was saying "western" as in Europe and the USA vs "the east" middle east and asia, etc. I have seen several claims that the laws of "the west", the USA, are based

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
So change the station. I mean really, you got that bent on something someone said? So much so that you dragged it in here?

I do change the station but I also listen to a balanced cross section of what is being discussed. That is the only way to truly be informed and to be able to form your own independent opinion.

And you felt the need to read and respond to the topic when you could have not clicked on it and ignored it. There is nothing wrong with that.

As for "dragging" the topic on to this forum.... that is exactly what this forum is for.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
Love the total non-response to this. Nothing more amusing than a non-beleiver trying to use scripture in a way they don't understand.

But I do understand. And "true believers" have stated the same thing I am stating before. There is no shame or harm or attack against Christianity in what I am saying.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
1-4 are not intended as law, they are guidence on personal beliefs.


They absolutely were law at the time they were given to Moses. And for a religious Christian, at least at one time they were the law as given by God to Moses.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
5 - In general, your parents are responsible for your actions and you should therefore respect them. Plenty of case law to back that up. It also extends to your responsibility for their welfare late in life. Plenty of people have been charged with criminal negligence toward their parents in their later years.

And plenty of case law to back up that you don't need to respect them if they did not do the same for you. Children are not parents property according to the law, they are the parents responsibility but there is nothing that codifies children must do stuff tor their parents. Any negligence has come from a financial or contractual situation not just because they were the children of the parents.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
6 - Murder. Given.

  

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
7 - Adultery. Very much a part of law. Just because people commit it all the time these days doesn't mean there isn't a legal penalty for it be it financial or otherwise.

No its not criminal nor against the law. It is used when considering divorces in some states but it will not land you in jail. The state will not prosecute you for it (except for lying about it under oath but that's the 7th Commandment).

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
8 - Stealing. Given.

  

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
9 - False Witness. Also a given.

  

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 13):
10 - Covet. The OP says its not in law, but it absoultely is. It%u2019s called criminal intent.

You will not be prosecuted for coveting someone's material goods or spouse or what have you, it is your actions which will be prosecuted and your "covetness" may be used in their reasoning for proving the actions you are being accused of. Now while the state cannot prosecute you for what you think,t God on the other hand knows what you think and well, he is a higher authority isn't he?

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 15):
With the exception of Iceland, ALL Western nations legal systems are built not on the Ten Commandments, but on Roman law. And, more than you might think, you're largely governed by laws and practices that are 2,000 years old.

Interesting isn't it?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3377 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 17):
You will not be prosecuted for coveting someone's material goods or spouse or what have you, it is your actions which will be prosecuted and your "covetness" may be used in their reasoning for proving the actions you are being accused of. Now while the state cannot prosecute you for what you think,t God on the other hand knows what you think and well, he is a higher authority isn't he?

Its about coveting what someone else has. Lets say you covet someones car. That in and of itself is not a crime, however, if you desire to have your neighbors car (covet) and then take your neighbors car you have premeditated (coveted) then acted on that by taking the car. This makes the behavior of coveting a crime in conjunction with the act of taking the car.

Quoting tugger (Reply 17):
No its not criminal nor against the law. It is used when considering divorces in some states but it will not land you in jail. The state will not prosecute you for it (except for lying about it under oath but that's the 7th Commandment).

Actually, its a crime in several states.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5251 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3368 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 18):
Its about coveting what someone else has. Lets say you covet someones car. That in and of itself is not a crime, however, if you desire to have your neighbors car (covet) and then take your neighbors car you have premeditated (coveted) then acted on that by taking the car. This makes the behavior of coveting a crime in conjunction with the act of taking the car.

Again, it is the ACTION that is illegal and will be prosecuted, not the thought. Until you ACT you are free to think what you wish. That is not the case WRT to God and following His law.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 18):
Actually, its a crime in several states.

Which states?

The only thing I am aware of in a few (seven?) states is "Alienation of Affection" which is a civil action but not criminal and is not exclusively about adultery.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBoeing1970 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3346 times:



Quoting tugger (Reply 19):
Again, it is the ACTION that is illegal and will be prosecuted, not the thought. Until you ACT you are free to think what you wish. That is not the case WRT to God and following His law.

So no one gets charged with premeditation or intent?


Quoting tugger (Reply 19):
Which states?


New York and Wisconsin for starters. Michigan (Felony), Maryland and Virginia are others. That and in the military.

[Edited 2010-09-01 10:03:59]

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5251 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 20):
So no one gets charged with premeditation or intent?

There needs to be an action of some kind, thoughts alone will not be cause for criminal prosecution.

Quoting Boeing1970 (Reply 20):
Quoting tugger (Reply 19):
Which states?


New York and Wisconsin for starters. Michigan (Felony), Maryland and Virginia are others. That and in the military.

Fair dinkum! I see that it is on the books of about half the states! It is however rarely charged and is going away as a criminal violation. Interesting article on it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...forum/2010-04-26-column26_ST_N.htm

When you get right down to it adultery is a breach of contract, the marital "contract". So it does not truly fall under criminal actions, which is what societies laws are created to protect against. At least I have found a contract breach of this class that is a criminal wrongdoing, it could be out there.

So I take your point that adultery is against the law in many states, however it is certainly not the "law of the land".

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3257 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
Commandment number 7 is not really supported in law other than tangentially (it can be grounds for divorce and can be an ameliorating factor in court on why something happened). It is though very much part of society's values as something you should not do and the people involved are shunned when it becomes public.

Not 100% true. For the military, adultery is technically punishable under Article 134 of the UCMJ.


Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
Commandments 6, 8, and 9 are enshrined in law and quite thoroughly part of societies values. They don't actually need to be based on religious morals as societies don't function without these particular values. These values existed well before the Ten Commandments came into being.

Really? Not according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They just ruled that lying is a right of the First Amendment, and upheld that the guy who lied about his military record and saying he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor to help his resume when he hadn't was perfectly okay.

A 3-year-old federal law that makes it a crime to falsely claim to have received a medal from the U.S. military is unconstitutional, an appeals court panel in California ruled Tuesday.

The decision involves the case of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif., a water district board member who said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military decoration…..

A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with him in a 2-1 decision Tuesday, agreeing that the law was a violation of his free-speech rights. The majority said there’s no evidence that such lies harm anybody, and there’s no compelling reason for the government to ban such lies.

The dissenting justice insisted that the majority refused to follow clear Supreme Court precedent that false statements of fact are not entitled to First Amendment protection…..

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles said it was deciding whether to appeal Tuesday’s ruling.


http://blog.adw.org/2010/08/is-lying-now-a-constitutional-right/
Included in the above link is a link to the AP Article on the story.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31573 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):

Even if you leave out "The Law" and go to basic values in society only half (at most 6) are part of our overall societal values.

Depends where one stays

Out here all Ten work fine with folks that want to follow them.  



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2032 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3139 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 17):
I have seen several claims that the laws of "the west", the USA, are based

And there are plenty of claims to the contrary.

Quoting tugger (Reply 17):
Interesting isn't it?

So you agree?



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
25 DocLightning : Actually, we do. Lots of liquor laws prohibit sales on Sunday. In many cases, the liquor stores support these laws. They figure they're going to sell
26 Globeex : Some quotes: "Lighthouses are more useful than churches" Benjamin Franklin "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" Thomas J
27 ltbewr : To me the problem is that for generations Evangilical Christians in the USA are trying to 'reverse engineer' the 10 Commandments as the basis of our l
28 zrs70 : A few things for clarification: 1) Even though these are always called the "Ten Commandments," the original text never refers to them as such. Try loo
29 garnetpalmetto : There's no such treaty, Globeex. That's the Treaty of Tripoli that I mentioned in Reply 4.
30 Post contains links FlyDeltaJets87 : Maybe the stores but certainly not the restaurants. Sports bars HATE not being able to sell booze on NFL game day in dry-Sunday counties and cities.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Modest Swimwear - I Fear For The Future Of Western Civilisation posted Wed Jan 25 2006 01:29:25 by Braybuddy
Interesting "Poem" About The 10 Commandments posted Mon Sep 1 2003 23:32:04 by Matt D
Why Are The 10 Commandments So Villified? posted Wed Aug 20 2003 17:11:57 by Matt D
What Is With All Of The Opposition To The Census? posted Thu Apr 1 2010 23:28:42 by HercTech
Fox News Network Not Showing State Of The Union? posted Wed Jan 27 2010 17:38:46 by Volz
Fall Of The Berlin Wall...The Credit Goes To posted Mon Nov 9 2009 08:01:14 by AirTran737
Oasis Of The Seas And The Norwegian Epic posted Mon Mar 30 2009 17:19:28 by 2707200X
The 10-cent Beer Night And Other Sporting Brawls posted Tue Nov 13 2007 05:15:26 by UTA_flyinghigh
The Negative Impact Of The Olympics On UK Sport posted Tue Jun 12 2007 12:57:58 by Cornish
Have You Heard The Longest Piece Of Music In World posted Mon May 28 2007 11:03:43 by RootsAir