(07-08-2015 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:16 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Update: It looks like the OK governor is going to dig in her heels while they search for a work around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...rnor-says/

I've never understood the argument that US laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments. The first four are basically religious practice (Constitutionally banned from being part of US law), the fifth is really about being a good member of your family (no such law exists), six through nine are/were laws (though adultery laws have been done away with), and the tenth is basically thought-crime. Rules against killing, theft, and slander are essentially universal for human society so why does the 10 Commandments get special recognition as opposed to, say, Hammurabi?

This is probably why.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...n-founding

Besides being a Heritage source, that report/article never once addresses the 10 Commandments as a foundation for US law.

Too dense to connect the dots? The article sites plenty of references. Hint, they're identified by [##].

(07-08-2015 10:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:16 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Update: It looks like the OK governor is going to dig in her heels while they search for a work around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...rnor-says/

I've never understood the argument that US laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments. The first four are basically religious practice (Constitutionally banned from being part of US law), the fifth is really about being a good member of your family (no such law exists), six through nine are/were laws (though adultery laws have been done away with), and the tenth is basically thought-crime. Rules against killing, theft, and slander are essentially universal for human society so why does the 10 Commandments get special recognition as opposed to, say, Hammurabi?

This is probably why.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...n-founding

Besides being a Heritage source, that report/article never once addresses the 10 Commandments as a foundation for US law.

Too dense to connect the dots? The article sites plenty of references. Hint, they're identified by [##].

How do the 10 Commandments manifest in US law? If it is the foundation, then it shouldn't be hard to find explicit connections that are unique to the 10 Commandments.

(07-01-2015 07:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  It amazes me that there are people out there whose soul purpose is to sue to tear down monuments.

Agree. I'm equally amazed at people who try to have such monuments erected in modern day knowing damn well what is going to happen.

(07-08-2015 10:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:16 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Update: It looks like the OK governor is going to dig in her heels while they search for a work around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...rnor-says/

I've never understood the argument that US laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments. The first four are basically religious practice (Constitutionally banned from being part of US law), the fifth is really about being a good member of your family (no such law exists), six through nine are/were laws (though adultery laws have been done away with), and the tenth is basically thought-crime. Rules against killing, theft, and slander are essentially universal for human society so why does the 10 Commandments get special recognition as opposed to, say, Hammurabi?

This is probably why.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...n-founding

Besides being a Heritage source, that report/article never once addresses the 10 Commandments as a foundation for US law.

Too dense to connect the dots? The article sites plenty of references. Hint, they're identified by [##].

one could easily argue the extrapolation of intent....

the intent being the concept of god doesn't belong in government whilst still acknowledging the premise of that which is good

why christians need physical idols is beyond my ability to comprehend the overall concept of what is right.....

(07-08-2015 10:47 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:39 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:16 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 10:03 AM)Hitch Wrote:  Update: It looks like the OK governor is going to dig in her heels while they search for a work around.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-...rnor-says/

I've never understood the argument that US laws are somehow based on the 10 Commandments. The first four are basically religious practice (Constitutionally banned from being part of US law), the fifth is really about being a good member of your family (no such law exists), six through nine are/were laws (though adultery laws have been done away with), and the tenth is basically thought-crime. Rules against killing, theft, and slander are essentially universal for human society so why does the 10 Commandments get special recognition as opposed to, say, Hammurabi?

This is probably why.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture...n-founding

Besides being a Heritage source, that report/article never once addresses the 10 Commandments as a foundation for US law.

Too dense to connect the dots? The article sites plenty of references. Hint, they're identified by [##].

How do the 10 Commandments manifest in US law? If it is the foundation, then it shouldn't be hard to find explicit connections that are unique to the 10 Commandments.

Why would there be an explicit connection? Society just accepted these things as the norm.

We've discussed this topic before and in great detail, the issue of how religion has played a part in our laws.

(07-08-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've discussed this topic before and in great detail, the issue of how religion has played a part in our laws.

rehash comes to mind.....

re·hash
verb
verb: rehash; 3rd person present: rehashes; past tense: rehashed; past participle: rehashed; gerund or present participle: rehashing; verb: re-hash; 3rd person present: re-hashes; past tense: re-hashed; past participle: re-hashed; gerund or present participle: re-hashing
rēˈhaSH/

1. put (old ideas or material) into a new form without significant change or improvement.

(07-08-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've discussed this topic before and in great detail, the issue of how religion has played a part in our laws.

Many of the same laws have been written in other documents throughout history. To suggest laws such as not to kill or steal are somehow religious is not entirely accurate.

(07-08-2015 02:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've discussed this topic before and in great detail, the issue of how religion has played a part in our laws.

Many of the same laws have been written in other documents throughout history. To suggest laws such as not to kill or steal are somehow religious is not entirely accurate.

You can track our legal system's history. It has a defining characteristic that separates form the legal system of 95% of the world.

That is a major hint.

Establishing a religion not the same as a separation.

(07-08-2015 02:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've discussed this topic before and in great detail, the issue of how religion has played a part in our laws.

Many of the same laws have been written in other documents throughout history. To suggest laws such as not to kill or steal are somehow religious is not entirely accurate.

You can track our legal system's history. It has a defining characteristic that separates form the legal system of 95% of the world.

That is a major hint.

You mean like institutional slavery based on race?

(07-08-2015 05:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've discussed this topic before and in great detail, the issue of how religion has played a part in our laws.

Many of the same laws have been written in other documents throughout history. To suggest laws such as not to kill or steal are somehow religious is not entirely accurate.

You can track our legal system's history. It has a defining characteristic that separates form the legal system of 95% of the world.

That is a major hint.

You mean like institutional slavery based on race?

Was that an honest answer?

I honestly don't know; that doesn't bode well for you.

(07-08-2015 06:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 05:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 11:28 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've discussed this topic before and in great detail, the issue of how religion has played a part in our laws.

Many of the same laws have been written in other documents throughout history. To suggest laws such as not to kill or steal are somehow religious is not entirely accurate.

You can track our legal system's history. It has a defining characteristic that separates form the legal system of 95% of the world.

That is a major hint.

You mean like institutional slavery based on race?

Was that an honest answer?

I honestly don't know; that doesn't bode well for you.

Perhaps I didn't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

(07-08-2015 09:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 06:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 05:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Many of the same laws have been written in other documents throughout history. To suggest laws such as not to kill or steal are somehow religious is not entirely accurate.

You can track our legal system's history. It has a defining characteristic that separates form the legal system of 95% of the world.

That is a major hint.

You mean like institutional slavery based on race?

Was that an honest answer?

I honestly don't know; that doesn't bode well for you.

Perhaps I didn't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

A certain fact or guiding principle about our legal system that allows you to make a very clear trace of its origins, what is it?

I'm not being a smartass or being condescending, just rephrasing.

(07-08-2015 11:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 09:41 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 06:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 05:15 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-08-2015 02:57 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can track our legal system's history. It has a defining characteristic that separates form the legal system of 95% of the world.

That is a major hint.

You mean like institutional slavery based on race?

Was that an honest answer?

I honestly don't know; that doesn't bode well for you.

Perhaps I didn't understand the question. Can you rephrase?

A certain fact or guiding principle about our legal system that allows you to make a very clear trace of its origins, what is it?

I'm not being a smartass or being condescending, just rephrasing.

Yeah I'm not following. Maybe because it's almost 1 am and I've had a few beers but i don't know what you are getting at.