Even if the Ten Commandments are the "rudimentary expression of right and wrong," it doesn't follow that courts erode respect for their principles when they rule against the Commandments' display. I'm fascinated by how people like Commandment-displayers and anti-flag-burners seem to idolize representations of morality, America, etc. Graven images, anyone?
And what are the "principles espoused in the Commandments," anyway? Morality as adherence to a list of no-nos? It seems to me that the Commandments are too specific to be interpreted as communicating principles.
I ran across some background on how the tablets proliferated (definitely agree that it does not matter whether or not they track existing or old law):
The granite tablets -- and ones like them all over the country -- proliferated when movie producer Cecil B. DeMille, who created the epic film "The Ten Commandments," teamed up with a Minnesota judge and local chapters of the Fraternal Order of Eagles to finance the construction of monuments and donate them to local communities, according to the lawsuit. The Everett Aerie of the Fraternal Order of Eagles donated the tablets to the city in 1959.
From a decalogue case in Seattle (Wash). Why are people OK with getting rid of Ten Commandments but so up in arms over the pledge stuff? I am definitely for "no reference to any specific religion" school of thought. However, practically getting rid of all the symbols would be tough and expensive. When you stop to think about it we came from a Judeo-Christian tradition. As much as we historically went for separation, the symbols are *all around us*. That's neither here nor there.
Respect to Volokh, but he's over-generous to the Commandments in counting how many are enshrined in US law. The laws forbid murder and manslaugter, but not execution by the state. So if you follow V. and refer to the King James version: "Thou shalt not kill", that's another one out. 2 left.
Now that's an interesting argument. But if we really want to get into this, we have to spend more time on what "thou shalt not kill" means. I'm no biblical scholar, but I remember a lot of righteous killing in that book. I imagine a pretty good case could be made that an exception analogous to state execution is implied even in the commandment.
Even if the Ten Commandments are the "rudimentary expression of right and wrong," it doesn't follow that courts erode respect for their principles when they rule against the Commandments' display. I'm fascinated by how people like Commandment-displayers and anti-flag-burners seem to idolize representations of morality, America, etc. Graven images, anyone?
And what are the "principles espoused in the Commandments," anyway? Morality as adherence to a list of no-nos? It seems to me that the Commandments are too specific to be interpreted as communicating principles.
Posted by Bob | Link to this comment | 08- 5-03 2:27 PM
I ran across some background on how the tablets proliferated (definitely agree that it does not matter whether or not they track existing or old law):
From a decalogue case in Seattle (Wash). Why are people OK with getting rid of Ten Commandments but so up in arms over the pledge stuff? I am definitely for "no reference to any specific religion" school of thought. However, practically getting rid of all the symbols would be tough and expensive. When you stop to think about it we came from a Judeo-Christian tradition. As much as we historically went for separation, the symbols are *all around us*. That's neither here nor there.
Posted by Balasubramania's Mania | Link to this comment | 08- 5-03 3:36 PM
Respect to Volokh, but he's over-generous to the Commandments in counting how many are enshrined in US law. The laws forbid murder and manslaugter, but not execution by the state. So if you follow V. and refer to the King James version: "Thou shalt not kill", that's another one out. 2 left.
Posted by chris | Link to this comment | 08- 6-03 8:05 AM
Now that's an interesting argument. But if we really want to get into this, we have to spend more time on what "thou shalt not kill" means. I'm no biblical scholar, but I remember a lot of righteous killing in that book. I imagine a pretty good case could be made that an exception analogous to state execution is implied even in the commandment.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08- 6-03 9:18 AM
IT'S A GOOD,GOOD THING!
Posted by LARRY ZIEGLER | Link to this comment | 08- 6-03 9:51 AM