|
|
Subject: Re: Supreme Ct. and TenCommandments
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 05 Apr 1998 19:24:49 EDT
In article <1998033106354001.BAA13549@ladder03.news.aol.com>, edarr1776@aol.com
(EDarr1776) writes:
>I pointed out that, contrary to Kevin's assertion, the Supreme
Court did not
>say that the mere posting of the 10 Commandments on a school wall is
>forbidden, but rather that government officials may not order the
posting for
>religious purposes.
>
>Kevin said: >>So are you saying that it is constitutional
for a school to
>post copies
>of the 10 commandments? Have you read Stone v. Graham, 449 US 39?
>Sure doesn't sound like it.
>
>http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=39<<
>
>If a school were to post a series of codes that are illustrative of the
>heritage of U.S. law, and those codes were to include the 10
Commandments,
>the Court would probably let it stand. The Court itself has such
an
>historical display in the bas reliefs in its chambers. If you
include the
>Code of Hammurabi, the Koran, the Code Napoleonic, the works of
Maimonides,
>the works of Solon -- sure, the Court would allow the Ten Commandments
to be
>posted. I
>have been in many schools that feature the American Legions
"documents of
>freedom," including the Ten Commandments. In context, it
makes a lot of
>sense.
Only if you're a Secular Humanist, who wants to deny the authority of the Christian
religion. These codes contradict each other. Students are taught the lesson that they must
make up their own religion as they go along. The Founders did not give equal weight to all
religions. Some were "false," as Madison
declared. The Constitution absolutely
and unequivocally does not prohibit the states from teaching students that the Bible is
the Word of God and other "writings" are not.
The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious
code. . . Vain indeed would be the search among the writings of profane antiquity . . . to
find so broad, so complete, and so solid a basis for morality as this decalogue lays down.
John Quincy Adams, Letters of JQA to His Son on the Bible and its Teachings,
(1850), pp. 70-71
Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate
the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys
and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity. . . and,
in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country. . . . In short, of
leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
-- Sam Adams 1790 [To John Adams, who wrote back:
"You and I agree."]
One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is part
of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not
recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity
necessary to the support of civil society.
-- US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story,
Founder of Harvard Law School
[T]he Holy Scriptures . . . can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our
courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In
vain, without the Bible, we increase our penal laws and draw entrenchments around our
institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked
courses.
(James McHenry, Signer of Constitution, Sec'y of War)
>I haven't looked at Stone v. Graham for a few months -- but I
don't
>think you will find anywhere the Court saying that posting such a code
is, by
>itself, offensive.
That is PRECISELY what the Court said. As you correctly surmised above, only by
reducing God's Law to the same level as other "false" religions would the Court
let the posting stand. The mind of man must be exalted above the Word of God, according to
the Court.
>What is repugnant to the Constitution is the order that
>the Ten Commandments alone be posted, to illustrate the way kids should
>behave.
How much better to have kids gunning each other down, as in Jonesboro, Ark.!! This
thinking is repugnant to everything the Founders fought for. They would repudiate this
thinking. They would consider your argument a danger to the Republic, just as
Franklin
urged Thomas Paine not to publish his scurrilous *Age of Reason.*
>I said earlier: >It DID say that
the state legislature may not order any
>>version of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every classroom of
the
state
>>in order to promote Christianity. <<
>
>Kevin said: >>Was it the purpose of Kentucky to
"promote Christianity," or
>to make
>students aware of the foundations of Western Civilization?
>
> [T]he legislature required the following
notation in small print at the
> bottom of each display of the Ten Commandments:
"The secular
> application of the Ten Commandments is clearly
seen in its adoption
> as the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common
> Law of the United States." 1978 Ky. Acts,
ch. 436, 1 (effective June 17,
> 1978), Ky. Rev. Stat. 158.178
(1980).<<<
>
>It's always been curious to me why Kentucky
refused to acknowledge the
>influence of the Magna Carta on U.S. law,
The Magna Charta? Do you even know the basic issue behind the Magna Charta?
>claiming that the 10 Commandments
>was essentially the only influence.
"Only?" No such claim was made. It clearly was the "fundamental"
influence in Western Law. Not Buddha, not Solon. Why is this so difficult for you infidels
to understand? KY did not "refuse" to acknowledge the Magna Charta. But if you
had limited wall space in a classroom, would you post the Ten Commandments, or the Magna
Charta? Well, fortunately, Kentucky didn't ask you. But even if they had, the result would
have been "unconstitutional":
Harvard Prof. Harold Berman:
In 1208 Pope Innocent III placed all England under interdict and excommunicated King
John, threatening to depose him and give his crown to Philip Augustus of France. The
reason was John's refusal to accept the pope's nominee as Archbishop of Caterbury.
"England groaned under the interdict." Churches remained closed for years. King
John counterattacked by putting his own men in clerical offices, but he ultimately
submitted; in fact he gave England to the pope and received it back as a feif, swearing an
oath of vassalage and agreeing to send a yearly tribute to Rome. In 1215 King John, in the
very first provision of Magna Carta, declared *quod ecclesia Anglicana libera sit* --
"that the English Church be free" -- which meant, of course, free under the
papacy from control by kings or barons. Law and Revolution, pp. 262-63
The right and duty to disobey the divinely appointed king-autocrat when he violates
fundamental law was based on the belief that that fundamental law was itself divinely
instituted. Popes and kings made laws, but they did so as deputies of God; not they
themselves but "God is the source of all law." Thus the concept of the rule of
law was supported by the prevailing religious ideology.
Law & Revolution, p. 293
Now, as I see it, the basic debate on this board is this: I say that the civil
government has a duty to conform to Biblical/Christian principles. You say the state has
an obligation to be secular. The Magna Charta is CLEARLY not on your side, but on the side
of Kentucky and the Ten Commandments.
Shall we read the document?
THE MAGNA CARTA (The Great Charter):
Preamble:
John, by the grace of God,
Ooops, fails the Lemon Test already
king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and count of Anjou,
to the archbishop, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justiciaries, foresters, sheriffs,
stewards, servants, and to all his bailiffs and liege subjects, greetings. Know that,
having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul,
oh dear . . .
and those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honor of God and the advancement
of his holy Church
how embarrassing . . .
and for the rectifying of our realm, we have granted as underwritten by advice of our
venerable fathers, [names withheld] of Master Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the
household of our lord the Pope . . . .
1. In the first place we have granted to
God, and by this our present charter confirmed
for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be
free, and shall have her
rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is
apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and
very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant,
and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord,
Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will
observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have
also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the
underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs
forever.
All the rights subsequently guaranteed are stated in order to establish the proper
church and ensure that God's Law is followed.
Some of the rights are curious:
10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan
be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he
may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the
principal sum contained in the bond.
11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing
of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be
provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the
debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it
be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
But properly understood, they are not secular.
27. If any freeman shall die intestate, his chattels shall be distributed by the hands
of his nearest kinsfolk and friends, under supervision of the Church, saving to every one
the debts which the deceased owed to him.
45. We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs only such as know
the law of the realm and mean to observe it well.
46. All barons who have founded abbeys, concerning which they hold charters from the kings
of England, or of which they have long continued possession, shall have the wardship of
them, when vacant, as they ought to have.
48. All evil customs connected with forests and warrens, foresters and warreners, sheriffs
and their officers, river banks and their wardens, shall immediately by inquired into in
each county by twelve sworn knights of the same county chosen by the honest men of the
same county, and shall, within forty days of the said inquest, be utterly abolished, so as
never to be restored, provided always that we previously have intimation thereof, or our
justiciar, if we should not be in England.
"Chosen by honest men" is a
Scriptural concept.
54. No one shall be arrested or imprisoned upon the appeal of a woman, for the death of
any other than her husband.
61. Since, moveover, for God and the amendment of our kingdom and for the better allaying
of the quarrel that has arisen between us and our barons, we have granted all these
concessions, desirous that they should enjoy them in complete and firm endurance forever,
we give and grant to them the underwritten security,
62. And all the will, hatreds, and bitterness that have arisen between us and our men,
clergy and lay, from the date of the quarrel, we have completely remitted and pardoned to
everyone. Moreover, all trespasses occasioned by the said quarrel, from Easter in the
sixteenth year of our reign till the restoration of peace, we have fully remitted to all,
both clergy and laymen, and completely forgiven, as far as pertains to us. And on this
head, we have caused to be made for them letters testimonial patent of the lord Stephen,
archbishop of Canterbury, of the lord Henry, archbishop of Dublin, of the bishops
aforesaid, and of Master Pandulf as touching this security and the concessions aforesaid.
63. Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men
in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well
and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us
and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath,
moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these
conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our
hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called
Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth
year of our reign.
>That's a silly position that not even
>you would defend, Kevin. And it didn't wash with the Court.
Kentucky did
>not intend to make a secular display, as evidenced by their erroneous
>statement of history, and their completely ignoring other more relevant
>historical
>documents.
No document is more relevant to "the fundamental legal code of Western
Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."
>What about the Declaration of
Independence? What about the
>Constitution?
Neither of those documents establishes whether and why killing, stealing, and raping
are immoral and should be illegal.
>Kentucky's position was silly and
indefensible, though I admit
>they wasted a lot of taxpayers' money trying to defend it.
Words of a fool. The collapse of Western Civilization can be laid at your feet.
>Kevin said: >>But of
course, no matter what the state says its motivations
>are, the omniscient Sup Ct will impute evil motivations and say,
"Oh, no,
>you're just doing that to promote Christianity. BAD BOY!"<<<
>
>As with most of these cases, the conspiracy to put forth a phony set of
>motivations always fails. If the legislature were concerned with
the
>heritage of U.S. common law, why didn't they order a high school course
in
>common law? Their argument that third grade students needed to
know the
>heritage of common law is guffaw-worthy.
>
>Do you seriously believe the legislature was worried about Western
>Civilization, Kevin?
>
>Ed
Western Civilization has pretty much been trashed by Secular Humanism. At this point,
the biggest worry of Kentucky teachers is that some student who thinks he is god is going
to gun them and a few students down. But the Legislature SAID they were worried about
"Western Civilization," that's what the plaque below the Ten Commandments said
(not "the Word of God" or anything religious), and it is outrageous that the
Humanists on the Supreme Court imposed their religion on the schools
of Kentucky.
The Constitution is dead meat, thanks to Secular Humanists.
Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7
Western Civilization is Christian
Civilization
| | E-Mail | | Home | | V&FT |
