Ten Commandments as ‘the basis of our rule of law’?

August 30, 2006

Last week, Rep. [tag]Katherine Harris[/tag] (R-Embarrassmentville) raised a few eyebrows by insisting that voters had to elect [tag]Christians[/tag] to avoid “legislating [tag]sin[/tag],” calling the constitutional separation of church and state a “lie,” and arguing that God did not intend for the United States to be “a nation of secular laws.”

Since then she backed away from the first two points, but struggled a bit to explain the third.

Asked whether the U.S. should be a secular country, Harris said: “I think that our laws, I mean, I look at how the law originated, even from Moses, the 10 [tag]Commandments[/tag]. And I don’t believe, that uh . . . That’s how all of our laws originated in the United States, period. I think that’s the basis of our rule of [tag]law[/tag].”

Now, I don’t mean to pick on Harris — my annoyance with her candidacy is quickly turning to pity — but this argument comes up from time to time. Usually it’s phrased a little more articulately, but particularly among far-right conservatives, the notion that our laws “originated” from the [tag]Ten Commandments[/tag] is very popular. And very wrong.

You don’t need to be a constitutional scholar or have a doctorate in history to debunk the claim — you just need to look at the Commandments themselves. If the “basis” of our laws “originated” from the Decalogue, it’d be pretty obvious — we could look at the Ten Commandments and see how similar they are to our legal traditions.

The reality, of course, is that the opposite happens.

* The Commandments say people shall not worship false gods. Any laws against this? Strike one.

* The Commandments say people shall not make graven images. Any laws against this? Strike two.

* The Commandments say people shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Any laws against this? Strike three.

* The Commandments say people must honor a Sabbath day. Any laws mandating this? Strike four.

* The Commandments say people must honor their parents. Any laws mandating this? Strike five.

If Harris is right, and the American legal tradition was formed based on the Ten Commandments, the Founding Fathers and two centuries of lawmakers have done a really bad job.

The people of Florida and those in her district, deserve someone so stupid. I wonder if they would have re-elected her if she had she not chosen to run for the Senate.

  • All those weakness in our current system of laws will be remedied when the Regal Moron puts the American Taliban in place backed by martial law (which he’s going to do unless people quit bringing up pesky things like the Katrina Fiasco and the Iraq Quagmire).

  • During the Judge Moore controversy, at least one “legal scholar” here answered you questions along these lines:

    1 & 2) Our legal system inherently recognizes the Judeo-Christian basis of law, therefore we derive our laws from the real god, not the fake gods. Follows more the reading of “you shall have no other gods before me” rather than the graven images reading

    2) We swear “so help me god” in court, therefore making it illegal to take god’s name in vain

    3) There are still plenty of laws mandating sunday closings or no alcohol sales, etc. Damn secularist have been chipping away at all of the blue laws

    4) All of the various laws that give parents control over their minor children.

    Hey, it’s a stretch, but these are the people who say the constitution has god in it because it is signed “In the year of our Lord..”

  • Republican’ts –
    Can’t elect a decent candidate
    Can’t perceive embarasments

    …But I could go on and on. Antd this is the person who sent me to the level of second class citizen.

    Thanks, Kathy H., and I hate fake boobs.

  • “my annoyance with her candidacy is quickly turning to pity”

    How about entertainment ?

    I love when I see her name in the subject line because some crazy-ass non-sense is right behind it, always, everytime.

  • crazy ass nonsense, sure. entertainment, of course. but i well remember friends of mine scoffing at the political re-emergence of American christianists in the mid-90s. oh, we don’t have to pay any attention to those folks. look how just plain crazy and entertaining they are. and look where that attitude toward them got us. these folks are not going away. we need to take them seriously — in the sense that right or wrong agree or disagree they are serious about their objectives — and maintain constant vigilance. really.

  • I’m with ScottW. God put Katherine Harris on the planet so us Dems would have something to laugh at.

    Here in Alabama we have our share of Kristian Krazyness, including, yes, Roy Moore. It is important to remember that Moore LOST his bid to be Governor in the Republican primary. If Alabama Republican primary voters can see through the facade I have some hopes for Florida.

    All the Bible thumping in the deep south will NEVER make Thomas Jefferson and company born-again Christians. Sorry. It just flies in the face of everything those wonderful radicals wrote, said, and lived.

  • Ask her to name all ten.

    On video.

    🙂

    I begin to wonder if Krazy Kitty will even win the primary. I have my doubts.

  • I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say that the Ten Commandments are relevant…I’ll even give religious-types that the Ten Commandments have had some fundamental affect on the development of our legal system. So has the Magna Carta. So has the Justinian Code. So has the Code of Hammurabi.

    There’s a reason that Moses is present in the friese in the Supreme Court chamber, and why his face is the one staring down at the Speaker of the House in the House chamber.

    I don’t think a recognition of that fact means anything other than its plain meaning – it doesn’t mean we should allow the Commandments in schools, in front of courthouses, or in the public square.

    I’m just sayin’.

  • The 10 commandments can be summarized into two commandments: “Love God wholeheartedly, Love your neighbor as you love yourself, thereon hang all the Law and the Prophets”

    We may fearlessly worship, or not, as we please, by a phrase in the 1st amendment, ‘Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion, or the free practice thereof.’ That phrase does not countermand any of the 10 commandments or the two cited above. It just says the government may not select a religion for us or prohibit us from practicing as we wish.

    Unfortunately, the human aspect of the second great commandment is not being followed at all in this country. We, all of us, and especially our elected ‘officials’ and ‘representatives’ do not think of the rest of the 300 million + in this country when they devise laws that PROVE we don’t love each other as we should. And the idiots like Ms. Harris don’t even know what it means to have compassion towards their fellow citizens when they run for election or reelection, make speeches reviling fellow citizens, and speaking lies about the founding of this country.

    We are missing the real mission and focus this country was founded on, all in the name of self-righteousness, and it makes me sick.

  • Martin #3,

    Further comments on your comment-

    Let’s be clear. Harris is stating our law is based on the Ten Commandments. All of our laws (like the blue laws that you cite) are based upon our Consitiution and must be consistant with the overarching rights identified there.

    Swearing so help me god in court does not make any reference what-so-ever to Moses or the ten commandments. If I want to take an acorn as my personal god and swear to it I am on equal footing to everyone else swearing to god. Oh, yeah BTW the Ten Commandments story is part of the book of Exodus. That is in the OLD testament. Christians and Jews only deviate on the bible when it come to the NEW testament. Since there are no laws about smearing goats blood on the door for Passover I think we can rest assured that the Ten Commandments and the Old Testament of the bible are not the source of the US Constiution.

    Anyone putting stock in the false gods and graven images theory need look no further than their wallet and a short meditation on the role of money in American society to realize how udderly absurd and contradictory this is. Not to mention, I think I know of a major religion who takes this graven images piece seriously. Last I recall they were rioting over a Dutch cartoon. Sounds like a sound system of government to me.

  • Katherin Harris = Mike Tyson. It just took her fewer years in the public eye to become so grotesque and pitiful. Or maybe she’s more of an Anna Nicole. Washed up and as crazy as a shit-house rat.

  • The only reference that the Bible makes to “ten commandments” is in Exodus 34:28. The REAL “Ten Commandments”, as handed down from the LORD unto Moses (which you can read about in Exodus 34:13-28) are as follows:
    I. Thou shalt worship no other god.
    II. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
    III. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
    IV. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
    V. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year’s end.
    VI. Thrice in the year shall all your men appear before the Lord God.
    VII. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
    VIII. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
    IX. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
    X. Thou shalt not seethe a kid (i.e., a young goat) in his mother’s milk.

    There you have it–what the Republican Party wants hanging in every classroom in America.

  • I am not sure why any one thinks that the 10 Commandments are still in force Here is the specific passage that recends the 10 Commandments and the entire chapter follows:

    ” 13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”

    Hebrews 8
    The High Priest of a New Covenant
    1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
    3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.”[a] 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

    7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
    “The time is coming, declares the Lord,
    when I will make a new covenant
    with the house of Israel
    and with the house of Judah.
    9It will not be like the covenant
    I made with their forefathers
    when I took them by the hand
    to lead them out of Egypt,
    because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
    and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
    10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
    after that time, declares the Lord.
    I will put my laws in their minds
    and write them on their hearts.
    I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
    11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
    or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
    because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest.
    12For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”[c]

    13By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

  • There are plenty of laws from the O.T. that would help Rep. Harris sort out her personal life. I would highly recommend the open letter to Dr. Laura from a few years back. If Harris is gonna use the Bible as a weapon, why, she needs to use the WHOLE Bible, doncha think?

  • CB, you stopped short – The “normal” 10 commandments that everyone usually refers to are (copied from WIkipedia):

    # “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me… ..”
    # “Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above…”
    # “Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD…”
    # “Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy”
    # “Thou shalt honor your father and your mother…”
    # “Thou shalt not murder”
    # “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
    # “Thou shalt not steal.”
    # “Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor”
    # “Thou shalt not covet your neighbor’s house…”

    Only murder, stealing and false witness (lying under oath, in modern terms) are illegal as far as I know. I suppose someone somewhere has a law against (say) adultery, but in general it’s not illegal.

    So 7 of 10 are not illegal. And murder, as the Clash so eloquently put it, is OK if you are a “policemen or an aristocrat.” Or into the death penalty.

  • Also, you are only required to say, “So help me; the “god” part of that is not required, and in many places is not even said by the court (except maybe Roy Moore’s court.)

  • The first amendment was meant to protect religion from the state. Now it protects the state from religion. Pretty clever law-giving.

  • ***All those weakness in our current system of laws will be remedied when the Regal Moron puts the American Taliban in place backed by martial law (which he’s going to do unless people quit bringing up pesky things like the Katrina Fiasco and the Iraq Quagmire).***
    ————————————–Ed Stephan

    Over coffee last night, and into this morning, a few of my friends and I discussed (“gamed out”) the pending weaknesses of just such a scenario. Given that Herr Bush hasn’t been able to maintain “martial law” in Baghdad—not even on the “Green Zone” side of the river—it’s probably a futile effort to attempt such a theofascist act in the US. He lacks the capacity in both troops and ordnance. And if he were to employ his “funda-vangelist minions” as some form of paramilitary brigade to enforce such a folly, I’ll wager that the people who won’t buy into the Reich’s xenophobic ideology could easily outgun the Bible Bundists by at least a margin of 4:1—and quite probably, even more….

  • * The Commandments say people shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Any laws against this? Strike three.
    * The Commandments say people must honor a Sabbath day. Any laws mandating this? Strike four.
    * The Commandments say people must honor their parents. Any laws mandating this? Strike five.
    –CB

    Well, I think a good argument could be made that these were codified at earlier times in our nation’s history (anti-obscenity laws, “blue-laws” outlawing sale of liquor on Sundays, parents as the guardians, including corporal punishment, etc.). Moreover, “thou shall not kill,” “neighbor’s wife” (OK, we allow coveting, but adultery was illegal until the advent of the no-fault divorce), etc. etc.

    However, the larger issue as I see it is that the laws of this nation are based on morality, whether Judeo-Christian or secular humanist or whatever. We have been moving steadily away from a religio-moral basis for our laws (most notably Lawrence v. Texas, striking the Texas sodomy law), but we haven’t figured out what to use as a justification for our restrictions on liberty. Thus, while conservatives prudes may seem shrill and hysterical when they think gay sex leads to polygamy leads to bestiality, they have a pretty good point that cases like Lawrence raise serious questions as to what, if anything, the law can and should ban that is consensual. While I think animal-abuse laws, like all laws protecting creatures (including humans) from harm, are justifiable on the simple “liberty cannot include taking liberty from others” logic (hence, murder, assault, rape, etc. are not endangered laws), polygamy is a question mark.

    Why not allow polygamy between consenting adults? Why not allow prostitution? Drug use? The list goes on and progressives arguing against religio-moral lawmaking need to come up with a better answer than “because it’s wrong.” That’s the same argument people used to support bans on interracial marriage, gay marriage, private sexual activity between consenting adults, etc. It is a bigger dilemma than most progressives care to admit.

  • Now, I don’t mean to pick on Harris — my annoyance with her candidacy is quickly turning to pity… – Mr. CB

    I reckon a shot of empathy is permitted in a finely written blog which strives for, (and achieves), fairness and an occupation of the intellectual high ground.

    But as a political entity, what should be the progressive, left, liberal, anti-crime/stupidity party is far too prone to lapsing into pity before the dagger of sustained derision, contempt and clear thinking alternatives has reached it’s deadly mark.

    Ms. Harris may be pitiable when she is permanently and verifiably out of office, but for now she is helping to undermine this country, even on her most idiotically ineffective days. Of course, there are plenty of days when her idiotic ineffectiveness has been a great boon to her criminal RepubCo ilk.

    Scorn must dog these people until they have slouched away and are out of sight forever.

  • I love it when “Christian” right-wingers start blithering on about the impact of the ten commandments ( Which version?) on the creation of law in the british common law nations and how that entrenches Christianity and therefore should allow them to entrench bible writ everywhere else.

    Growing up going to Catholic schoools gave me the opportunity to do a lot of bible reading and time to talk about what we’d read.

    As I recall there was a little pasage where Christ ( you know the root of Christ-ian) had a little something to say about the ‘old law’ and the ‘new law’ that he was bringing.

    Lots of so called Chritians still believe in Thoeonomy*:

    “Theonomy is the belief that the moral laws of the Old Testament are still binding in the New Testament age. God’s Law is a standard for personal, family, ecclesiastical and civil righteousness. Civil governments are obligated to follow the moral laws outlined in the Bible. Moral laws, such as the Ten Commandments, are still the ethical standards for governing individuals and society.

    Civil governments are obligated to follow God’s moral laws. If they are not, then Christians have no real standard by which to influence legislation. There is no other standard besides the moral law of God except democratic pluralism: What the majority thinks is right in their own eyes. Democratic pluralism has led us to our current sorry state of affairs. ”
    (* http://forerunner.com/theonomy/pro3.htm)

    but seem to make the critical logical failure that if not using the laws of the old testament that there are “no real standard[s] by which to influence legislation” forgetting such minour contrivances as “logic” or “the rest of the history of the world’s moral and ethical codes” . It is rather easy -to- overlook such minour alternatives though when you can;t see past the option you’ve decided is the only real choice. ahh well, please do what you can to stop these folks from gaining any more power than they already have. I appreciate these discussions though because now there are U.S. style Christian neo-cons taking office here in Canada too so it’s helphul to see the arguments used against their well practised cohorts to the south.

    Cheers

    -P

  • “The basis of our law” is in the English common law, which goes back straight through to the Angles and the Jutes and to other highly litigious Germanic peoples who amassed case law over time and recorded it obsessively.

    All of these peoples, of course, were pagans.

  • I think Harris (as well as several other people) needs to acquaint herself with Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England for the definitive discussion of the history and basis of our legal system. I’m pretty sure that neither the 10 Commandments nor the Bible are mentioned even once. There’s a huge difference between civil law and canon law and the Founders went out of their way to exclude canon law from having any legal force in this country. The likes of Harris and other ignorant Christianists are trying to pretend that there is no difference in order to force their views on the rest of us.

  • I thought that a number of the 10 commandments, not all but a majority, could be traced to the laws of prior/concurrent civilizations and not necessarily handed down by a God (Code of Hammurabi may have been the source of one or two).

  • Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, Nov. 4 1796
    Article 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 Musselmen(Muslim),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.”

  • Good stuff.

    There’s also the fact that Tom Paine, the author of Common Sense, which Washington used to read to his troops to explain what they were fighting for, was an atheist. And not only Washington. Common Sense was an early best seller with a huge audience. Sort of like the American Revolution’s Feminine Mystique if I may use such a, for me, counter-intuitive example. Assuming the conservatives are actually right, it’s a pretty strange God who would choose an atheist to be such an important instrument for a divinely inspired plan. (Betty Freidan, incidentally, spent a goodly portion of her twilight years protesting the ridiculous excesses of the identity politics crowd, which shows once again how unpleasant genuinely independent minds can be.)

    The central concept of the American Revolution was that sovereignty comes not from God but from the people—especially if they owned property like slaves, who owed their masters big time for saving them from the false worship of paganism. That is, it was an explicit rejection of divine right, which claimed that kings ruled because God wanted them to. King George III, was also head of the Anglican Church which made our revolution seem to the British not just traitorous, but heretical.

    America being the ignorance-worshipping country that it is almost nobody knows this and even fewer care.

    Now excuse me while I think unpleasant, disloyal thoughts.

  • Back to Deadeye Dick Cheney’s comment #13

    When Moses went to the mountaintop to talk to the bush, he was given a whole slew of laws which included those quoted by Deadeye above as well as the ‘traditional’ ten and lots of other rules as well. When he came down and found that his brother Aaron had lead the multitudes in worshipping a golden calf, Moses was furious and broke the tablets. He repented and went back up the hill to talk to the bush again. The new laws that he was given included only those quoted by Deadeye Dick above. Obviously these were the most important laws in the eyes of Yahweh and they have no more part in our constitution than do the ‘traditional’ ten commandments.

  • When I drove to work this morning, I stopped at red lights. Why? Because it’s the law. Nothing in the Ten Commandments leads to that particular law. Or:
    Building codes
    Tax laws
    Pure Food and Drug Laws
    etc.

  • Ed Stephan: All those weakness in our current system of laws will be remedied when the Regal Moron puts the American Taliban in place backed by martial law (which he’s going to do unless people quit bringing up pesky things like the Katrina Fiasco and the Iraq Quagmire).

    those halliburton detention centres ain’t gonna fill themselves, y’know.

    Chris: …i well remember friends of mine scoffing at the political re-emergence of American christianists in the mid-90s. oh, we don’t have to pay any attention to those folks. look how just plain crazy and entertaining they are. and look where that attitude toward them got us.

    i thought the same for ages beginning w/crazies like Phyllis Schafly, Jerry Fallwell et al. but i’m from NYC — i truly thought it was this tiny joke of loudmouths in middle America or whatever. silly me.

  • Dale wrote: “The first amendment was meant to protect religion from the state. Now it protects the state from religion. Pretty clever law-giving.”

    The First Amendment’s language on religion is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ”

    Note that there are two clauses there. I believe that they are referred to as “the establishment clause” and “the prohibition clause”. Note that the establishment clause ‘protects’ the State from religion while the prohibition clause ‘protects’ religion from the State.

    Why do conservatives hate the Bill of Rights?

  • !Beware::snake spitting venom :: Beware!

    The “ten commandments”, to honor it with any attention at all, is a repugnant clutter of anachronistic mumbo-jumbo. Why even give it the time of day? There are so much better guides to personal and social conduct than this ridiculous hotch-potch of theocratic debris.

    I know we have to be tolerant and patient, and accommodate all types of faiths and opinions, but can we not find a way to rid ourselves of this interminable gibberish?

    It’s spiritual cancer. We must find a cure.

    Aaah, that feels soo much better..

  • You missed the one about coveting your neighbor’s ass (or manservant or wife). They also keep trying to outlaw adultery but have been soundly thrashed on that one.

  • Common Law is rooted in pagan custom, and so is Civil Law.

    Justinian was a Christian, but pagan Roman Law was the source of his Corpus Juris, not the Bible.

    Indeed, when Canon Law was developed, it was built on Roman Law, not the law of the Old Testament.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis.

    So what relevance does the ‘Ten Commandments’ have to modern American law? None.

  • Let’s get this straight finally: the so-called 10 Commandments are derived from African-Egyptian burial rites commonly known as The Book of the Dead. The oaths that are offered upon entering the mythical after life, and were contained in papyrus buried with the dead, are affirmations to individual gods that monitor certain behavior of the living to ensure passage into the afterlife or paradise.

    The 42 Confession of Ma’at are over 5000 years old, pre-date Christianity, and are the real source of the so-called 10 Commandments. Denial of this African source borders on racism.

    Here they are for all to know:

    The 42 Divine Principles of the Goddess Maat

    1. I have not committed sin.

    2. I have not committed robbery with violence.

    3. I have not stolen.

    4. I have not slain men or women

    5. I have not stolen food.

    6. I have not swindled offerings.

    7. I have not stolen from God/Goddess.

    8. I have not told lies.

    9. I have not carried away food.

    10. I have not cursed.

    11. I have not closed my ears to truth

    12. I have not committed adultery.

    13. I have not made anyone cry.

    14. I have not felt sorrow without reason

    15. I have not assaulted anyone

    16. I am not deceitful.

    17. I have not stolen anyone’s land

    18. I have not been an eavesdropper

    19. I have not falsely accused anyone.

    20. I have not been angry without reason.

    21. I have not seduced anyone’s wife.

    22. I have not polluted myself.

    23. I have not terrorized anyone.

    24. I have not disobeyed the Law.

    25. I have not been exclusively angry.

    26. I have not cursed God/Goddess.

    27. I have not behaved with violence.

    28. I have not caused disruption of peace.

    29. I have not acted hastily or without thought.

    30. I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.

    31. I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.

    32. I have not worked evil.

    33. I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.

    34. I have not polluted the water

    35. I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.

    36. I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.

    37. I have not placed myself on a Pedestal.

    38. I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.

    39. I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.

    40. I have not taken food from a child.

    41. I have not acted with insolence.

    42. I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess.

    These 42 declarations were pronounced by the deceased after Anubis took him/her to the presence of the Goddess Maat and the Divine Judge Tehuti. If the Principles of Maat were respected the heart of the deceased would have nothing weighing down, so it would be lighter than the feather and everlasting life would be given due to respect of these laws that balance the Universe.

    It is from these Principles, erroneously called the 42 Negative Confessions by European Egyptologists that the Christian religion got it’s 10 Commandments. Unlike the Spook principle of Idols and exterior divinity our ancestors manifested the indwelling divinity and said “I have not” instead of being ordered “Thou Shalt not”.

  • This is all beside the real point, which is our irrational need for religion. Surely, we must be sufficiently civilized and educated to recognize through the evolution of religions, that man created his Gods, and not the other way around.

    Think of it: Most of the world is afflicted with this mental concept that cannot be proven nor disproven. We essentially all believe in something we invented, something for which there is no proof whatever, and actually has proof against. This is mental illness, I’m afraid.

    Is Mankind going to end itself because of mental illness?

  • I just hope she can hold it together another six days — at least long enough to officially nail down the nomination — before spontaneously bursting into flames from sheer craziness.

    C’mon Kate! I know you can do it!

  • #20 eadie,

    I also kind-of fall into that category of people that support the idea of not having “victimless” crimes. Robert Heinlein’s science fiction stories often touch on that (“The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, and “For Us the Living” expecially). A law should be something that prevents people from infringing on the rights of other people – such as murder, theft, slandar, etc. As well as preventing companies and groups of people from infringing on the rights of people – thus there would be environmental protections, structural codes, health codes, etc.

    Where it becomes tricky is social laws. Defining consent becomes tricky sometimes – expecially when one is too young, or has been raised in a certain belief structure. I think you can only get to this form of legal system if everyone can survive and get by without being under the power of someone else (abusive parents, bosses, spouses, etc.).

    As far as pologamy and other forms of marriage, it can be argued that it’s technically not illegal here in the states. Take a look at certain families in Utah, one man lives and sleeps with many women, only one of which is technically his wife in the eyes of our government. He can, however, call every last one of them his wives, or his partners, or any term he wants for them. Unless the right wing christians force us to outlaw cohabitation, or sex outside the legal marriage, almost any kind of consentual relationship is allowed in our country.

  • Harris obviously is a crazed Christian fascist. I’m sure she would never help anyone steal an election, right?

    It’s hard to believe that people like this can get anywhere near the handles of power, and yet there she is. Nutty as a squirrel turd, and responsible for deciding election matters in the battleground state of the year 2000.

  • MNProgressive#13

    Just to be clear, I don’t buy into it, that is just how it was argued down her. In fact, I was on the other side of the debate with the “legal scholar” who is also a law professor at a christian college. The funny part is, he was convinced I was an attorney just because I was president of the ACLU of AL;>

  • Whenever I hear this Ten Commandments argument, I’m reminded of the quote attibuted to Samuel Johnson,

    “Your manuscript is both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good.”

    The parts of the Ten Commandments that are “good” (have some resonance in US law) are not original to the Ten Commandments, and the parts that are original to the Ten Commandments are not “good” (have no place in US law).

  • Interestingly enough, the famed Ten Commandments are not even Mosaic law. After Moses broke the tablets with those Commandments (Exodus 32:19), he went to God to get another copy. God, however, had changed His mind. These are the actual Ten Commandments engraved in stone by God and handed to Moses to be borne in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 34:13-28):

    Thou shalt worship no other god.
    Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
    The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep.
    Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
    Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of endgathering at the year’s end.
    Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the LORD God.
    Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
    Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto morning.
    The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring into the house of the LORD thy God.
    Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk.

    So, ZERO of the actual Ark-borne Commandments have made it into modern law. I would say this disqualifies Mosaic law from being in any way related. Modern US law derives from the Anglo-Saxon principles modified by Norman procedures to become English law, the first legal system to presume innocence.

  • Politicians tailor their messages for the audiences they address. While I don’t agree with a single assertion of Harris’ and the real basis of our secular legal code has been thoroughly limned in these posts, one would expect a mediocre or craven pol such as Harris to make these assertions to the rubes in the Bible Belt of which FL is certainly a member. With all due apologies to the progressive citizens of Florida, where else do you find a piece of trailer trash like Katherine Harris?

  • ET
    What do you mean the people of Florida “deserve” Katherine Harris? I live in Florida and let me tell you that I and many others here have worked very hard to stem the Bush neocon takeover of America. Everything from sending money to progressive causes to working the phones during elections and walking streets and knocking on doors to help the Dem GOTV. Furthermore, please remember that in the disaster that was the stolen 2000 election, it was the Florida Supreme Court that ruled for an immediate recount and that the United States supreme court (packed with Bush family friends) crowned dubya and ruined our country.

  • Some random thoughts….

    What about coveting? Our whole damned economy is based on coveting.

    The genius of this Christian foundation argument is that while there’s little rational basis for it, it feels right to some people, and religion is more about feeling than reason. So it really doesn’t matter if it makes sense or not.

    I can’t help but remember that the American revolution was, first and foremost, a rebellion against the “divine right” of kings, this absurd idea that God sanctifies political power. It should also be a cautionary tale: if somebody presents you with a religiously based argument that also just happens to give them the power to impose their will over you, you might want to question it. Now the “evangelical” folks want to believe that God annointed our president to do God’s will — i.e., monarchy with the trappings of democracy.

    Finally, wouldn’t God probably agree with the following statement: “Thou shalt not make a graven idol of the 10 Commandments”?

  • comsympinko, what support can you offer that ‘God, however, had changed His mind’ when who generated the second copy? It clear that the backup copy was identical to the first set; God himself wrote both copies (Exo 34:1, Deut 10:2). What you listed are no the Ten Commandments, but are the regulations of the covenant described in Exo 34:10-25. In Exo 34:27, God tells Moses to write ‘these words’ (10-25), but not on the tablet. The last sentence of Exo 34:28 has to be seen in light with 34:1. This is one of the oldest ‘contradictions’ in scripture. See the response to this here:

    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/568

  • gkam,

    We essentially all believe in something we invented, something for which there is no proof whatever, and actually has proof against.

    Proof against God? Let’s hear it.

    (to be clear, I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I just have a hard time believing the claim that we can’t prove God exists but we can prove he doesn’t. It would seem to me to be a matter of belief, and as such is not proveable or disproveable; but I’m open to hear the arguments)

  • Just to clarify, it is impossible to “prove” the non-existence of anything. Only something that exists already can be empirically proven to exist. To the religionist the existence of God is a matter of faith, not proof. To say that “…we can prove [he] doesn’t (exist).” is an inaccuracy. For the sceptic the non-existence of God is derived from the lack of empirical proof, not the result of it.

  • .. These 42 declarations were pronounced by the deceased after Anubis took him/her to the presence of the Goddess Maat and the Divine Judge Tehuti. .. –garfield.

    .. so they would have to be repeated in life quite a lot if they were to be pronounced faultlessly in the divine presences after death. It’s easy to imagine the beneficial effect such a practice would have, especially if you believed your future destiny depended on its successful fulfilment during life.

    This makes sense. It is neither dogmatic nor fearful of authoritarian terror. It is more of an exhortation to aspire to virtue for consequential benefit. It is less of a prohibition and more of an inspiration.

    What attracts me to this approach, found mainly in oriental traditions, is its logical basis. It does not depend solely on command without reason, rather it suggests through explanation that good actions bring good results, and bad actions bad. With this kind of instruction people gradually, over centuries, come to realize that it is entirely in their own best interest to cultivate virtue. By trial and error they discover it to be true.

    Now this is a very far cry from the hellfire and brimstone menacing and bullying of Harris and her tribe, whose mentality tries to inflict democracy and freedom with guns and bombs. — That’s why I cannot thole their dogmatism and everything that goes with it which I see as creating only misery, suffering, resentment and violence.

  • RE: 50. It is not impossible to “prove” the non-existence of everything. It all depends upon how the thing is defined. If I say there is an object that is round and that it is also square (using our common everyday definitions of “round” and “square”), you would rightly say that object doesn’t exist. The way I have defined it can lead to an easy “proof” that it cannot exist. The same can be said of “god.” Depending upon how it is defined, it may be possible to “prove” that it cannot exist. For instance, a god that condones slavery and is also all loving and compassionate cannot exist (unless you think slavery is a loving and compassionate system). A god that calls for the stoning to death of someone who works on the sabbath and is also all loving and compassionate cannot exist (unless you think killing someone simply because they worked on the sabbath is loving and compassionate). A god that call for the stoning to death of disobedient children and is also all loving and compassionate cannot exist (unless you think killing kids for being disobedient is loving and compassionate). …

  • “With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?”

    The above is from Rumsfields’s speach three days ago, the one where he said people like me are appeasers. Given that the likes of Katherine Harris are “extremists” some more vicious than others, are we to understand that the Bush administration is going to stop reaching out to Harris and her kind?

  • re #50: There’s proof and then there’s “proof”; it depends on when (which point) your quest for proof will be satisfied. As a 5yr old, I worked out my own “proof” that God didn’t exist (until then, I was only told it was so and, by 5, I was beginning to question all info). It went something like this:
    God is almighty, so he may live in heaven (as people say)
    But the laws of physics are more almighty (I had fallen off enough trees and swings to be sure of gravity; I have never seen God. Score one for gravity).
    So. He may be able to, using all his power, keep himself up there without falling. But what happens to the clothes he takes off at night? When he’s asleep, they fall down to earth, because they’re not on him (and his almightiness) and his mind isn’t focused on keeping them up there to hand. He’d have to wake up and walk around starkers every day.

    So, OK, my father slept in pajamas, and I didn’t realise that the nightgown in which God was pictured, was the answer to the problem (He never took it off, and never wore anything else)… I was perfectly satisfied with the “proof” I had construed about the non-existence of God.

  • Since we were lied into the Iraq war, it seems Bush isn’t too concerned about committing perjury, coveting, stealing, murder or dishonoring his parents either. The jury is still out on Condi and adultery.

  • Bush’s Gift Horse has Hoof in Mouth, again!

    Hello Carpetbagger and all,

    This gets to the root of the problem of deluded and greedy politicians who seek to impose their own ignorance on millions of others. Because of our reliance on money, politics, and religion, we are teetering on the verge of worldwide disaster. Idiots like Ms. Harris couldn’t care less about everyone else as long as they get their hands on wealth and power, even if it means pretending to serve the Creator. It is long past time that people stand up for truth and justice and give these scoundrels their due.

    Read more here…

    Peace…

  • Just one more thought…

    Keep in mind that the commandments offered up in the original post on Aug 30 are not only NOT affiliated with any US law. They are expressly *prohibited from ever being against the law* in this country. The US Constitution preventsCongress from making any law that would require citizens to worship only the Christian God and not worship false idols; or to prohibt them from making graven images; or not allow them to take the name of the Lord in vain; or force them to honor a Sabbath day; or force them to honor their parents.

    The US Constitution is antithetical to the Ten Commandments.

    We see this rediculous claim from the religious right all the time… “This is a Christian nation founded on Chistian laws”, presumably meaning the Ten Commandments. My opinion: The idiots are confusing the Ten Commandments with the Bill of Rights (which happens to have ten items on the list). The fact is, the first item of the Bill or Rights (which makes the First Amendment) expressly prohibits at least 5 of the Ten Commandments from ever being against the law.

    Our Founding fathers were brilliant.

    • Comments are closed.