Finally

MichaelAllen wrote:

Terry wrote:

That is simply not true. Do you just make stuff up, or what?

The 10 C's (and the other 600 or so laws given concurrently to the Israelites by Moses) have roots in the Code of Hammurabi which was written several centuries earlier.

4 of the 10 C's have no basis in our legal system at all, and laws based on 3 others are no longer in force. The remaining 3 have nothing to do with religion.

Our legal system is based on English common law and civil law which derives from Roman law, which had its beginnings in the Twelve Tables (449 BC). In 1154 Henry II unified common law and created a court system in conflict with the Church.

I've mentioned all of this in other forums. I don't make anything up, but I see so many things being thrown around that aren't very factual I have to respond. People who say that parliamentary law was not based on religious doctrine are trying to create a false establishment that places law apart from religious influence. We take and give credit so frivolously it doesn't even matter anymore. The further away we get from history, the more we think we know about it.

Either you didn't read what Terry wrote or you simply don't understand what she is saying.

You are incorrect, Michael -- and she is correct.

As for "getting away from history" -- well...a much more dangerous thing to do is to try to revise history to conform to what you want it to have been. And I see more of the latter going on in this thread than the former.

0 Replies

I'm an Atheist and I have to take Michael's side on the argument regarding the influence of religion on state and federal laws. The foundation of any society is arguably its religion. To say that religion has played no factor in the creation of laws is simply irritating. I think you can argue the degree in which religion influences laws but to say it has no bearing at all is ridicules.

[EDIT] My comment takes into account religion in general, I won't even try to argue that the ten Commandments were the sole foundation of laws in this country because I simply don't agree with that.

0 Replies

truth
I've followed Michael's thought, and I am not surprised. He represents the great majority of working class and rural Americans. He is profoundly conventional in his view of things. He is trying to be "right and good" in his philosophy, in such a way that would please his thoughtless friends around the pool table and in the workplace. It is obvious that democracy is only as viable as is the level of political, economic and philosophical sophistication of the polity.

0 Replies

Yottos wrote:

I'm an Atheist and I have to take Michael's side on the argument regarding the influence of religion on state and federal laws. The foundation of any society is arguably its religion. To say that religion has played no factor in the creation of laws is simply irritating. I think you can argue the degree in which religion influences laws but to say it has no bearing at all is ridicules.

[EDIT] My comment takes into account religion in general, I won't even try to argue that the ten Commandments were the sole foundation of laws in this country because I simply don't agree with that.

My original statement which has been long gone and forgotten was that the ten commandments were removed from the courthouse despite the fact that they symbolized what offered some guidance for law. Now we're so knee deep in that one, we can't seem to back out of it and talk about religion entering public debate.

I guess from some standpoint, religion seems to have always been in the public eye. But, at other levels, it has been a topic people have always been shy about. The current interest in religion sparked this topic. A few shows with religious content are actually quite popular and I find it interesting.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are incorrect, Michael -- and she is correct.

Fine. I can't win them all.

0 Replies

Quote:

I guess from some standpoint, religion seems to have always been in the public eye. But, at other levels, it has been a topic people have always been shy about.

Um, no, there have been and continue to be many instances throughout history and around the world where people were not at all shy about discussing religion. There are frequently bombs involved.

0 Replies

MichaelAllen wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
You are incorrect, Michael -- and she is correct.

Fine. I can't win them all.

I forgot to add in my remarks earlier:

But you appear to be a really decent person -- who argues in a way that delights me.

I cannot tell you how happy I am that you have come to this forum -- and I look forward to discussing (arguing with you on) a variety of issues.

0 Replies

Sorry for the duplicate post. I attempted to delete it, but for some reason, I kept getting a message telling me that I can only delete my own posts.

It was my post.

0 Replies

patiodog wrote:

There are frequently bombs involved.

Yeah, that wouldn't really constitute a discussion though. I can understand your worldly view of this topic. But, religion has been for many years pushed further and further out of public places here in the U.S. Especially in television where sitcoms, movies, dramas...etc. have been exempting religious issues and actually supporting ideas that are contrary to religious beliefs. Television programs have recently been less worried about losing ratings if they have religious content.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know