Did the founders intend this to be a Christian nation?

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps it would be of help in understanding your position if you define the term "Religious Right" as you wish it to be understood.

Will you?

Sure. In brief, the RR are those who seek to impose their religious views on the polis. :doh

That's a rather sketchy definition of anything.

On the other hand, is there a term for those on the left "who seek to impose their religious views on the polls? Or the 'irreligious' who seek to impose their 'irreligious' views on the polls?

How do those in the RR, as you call them, differ from all other lobbys who tug at the polls from all sides of any question? Everyone who has a point of view lobbys the polls, right? Isn't that the way that the US political system works?

 

[Fantasea]

Really? And what morals do you believe that you as a Christian have that I, not a Christian, don't have?

How can anyone, Christian or not, know anything about the morals of another person, Christian or not, unless that person makes them known not only by word, but by deed? Many hypocrites who call themselves Christian have the morals of a mongrel in heat.

What specifically are the morals that are unique to and indicitive of Christians that this nation is based on?

I'm sure that Christians hope that the morals they observe are not unique to them, but would be the morals that are observed by all men of good will.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
Those of the Ten Commandments we have been discussing consist of between four and seven words. Are you presupposing that the entire meaning of a Commandment be limited solely to a few words without further interpretation of the full meaning contained within them?

I don't recall God sending an addendum. But I note how self-serving it is to argue that they can mean anything you declare them to mean.

Think about it this way. Congress passes new legislation and then the department of government concerned is charged with determining the rules and regulations to be followed and the manner in which penalties may be exacted. The sixteenth amendment is, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

A mere thirty words. However, the rules and regulations for the IRS code run into thousands of pages, do they not?

Both the Hebrew and Christian religions observe the Ten Commandments. In the Hebrew faith, next to the Scriptures, the Mishna is the basic textbook of Jewish life and thought, and is traditionally considered to be an integral part of the Torah revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. In the Catholic faith, the Catechism is the book which lays out for its adherents the meanings, inclusions, and limitations imposed by the Ten Commancdents.

Since there appears to much which you are not familiar, perhaps you might want to investigate these two books. Much information about each is easily found on line.

Quote:
Posted previously by Fantasea
The concept is not so difficult to understand. It is quite simple. The Ten Commandments, taken together, becomes the unique embodiment of two concepts of law in one set of principles.

Actually it is one set of principles, many of them not new to history and several expressly against the founding principles of this country.

You err. It was I who said that the Ten Commandments represented a single set of principles. I also said that the single set of principles embodied two concepts of law; the first three being religious in that reference is made to God, and the last seven being secular in that no reference is made to God.

Dating to Moses gives them a historical age that stands quite well, don't you think?

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
I venture that many of the founding fathers relied on the first three to give them wisdom, understanding, fortitude, integrity, guidance, and whatever else they felt was necessary to enable them to use the precepts found within the remaining seven to cobble together a comprehensive code of conduct for the citizens of the new nation and the officials elected to govern it.

I venture to say that they used the history of European governments and thier own desire for liberty and freedom. I find nothing in the commandments which has anything to do with those principles.

Seek and ye shall find. If you don't wish to find, then don't seek.

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
Given that their 'noble experiment' has not only endured, but has evolved into the greatest of all the nations on earth, it is apparent, at least to some, that their reliance was not misplaced.

Given that they directly prohibited government and religious entanglement might be a very good reason we have endured.

No argument here.

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
Their own experiences convinced the founding fathers that true religious faith cannot be enforced through compulsion.

And that seperating faith from governence avoided mixing two very powerful forces.

Agree on this, too.

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
And, it is arguable that God would not be pleased to be worshiped by those who had to be coerced.

A belief not evidenced by the history of Christianity.

How about, "A belief not evidenced by the history of some Christian zealots whose actions have been repudiated." Those who have earned the soubriquet, "The Christian Right" are nothing new. There have been those of that ilk in every generation. Have you noticed that, as in all walks of life, it is the infamous who get all the fame?

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
Hence the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Actually it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

And note that it is not
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion

or

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of one religion

just simply religion, they did not want government mixing with the religious body

Yes. That is correct. However, I do not think my inadvertant ommision of the word changes anything.

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
However, these words are often construed as if they were, "Congress shall make laws prohibiting the expression of religion..."

I don't know where you get that idea, except for government sponsored or government sanctioned events how is your expression of religion being prohibited?

When a person or group chooses to make an expression of faith in a public place, what happens? When the starting five kneel on the court and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will suffer an injury in the game, what happens?

Someone once observed that as surely as there are no athiests in foxholes, there is plenty of prayer in school on days when the exam papers are handed out.

Quote:
Previously posted by Fantasea
But, since Congress has never been disposed to do such a thing, the irreligious types are forced to rely on the ACLU to find like-minded judges to legislate the laws they require to advance their agenda.

Why not just keep matters of faith in the church and matters of government at city hall?

Many folks seem to think that the ACLU has a greater interest, not in 'freedom of religion' but in 'freedom from religion'. That was not the intent of the founding fathers.

 

[Stinger]

Me>> Really? And what morals do you believe that you as a Christian have that I, not a Christian, don't have?

How can anyone, Christian or not, know anything about the morals of another person, Christian or not, unless that person makes them known not only by word, but by deed? Many hypocrites who call themselves Christian have the morals of a mongrel in heat.

Me>> What specifically are the morals that are unique to and indicitive of Christians that this nation is based on?

I'm sure that Christians hope that the morals they observe are not unique to them, but would be the morals that are observed by all men of good will.

Your inablity to answer the questions is noted proving that the statement we are founded on "Christian Morals" is a fallacious statement.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Your inablity to answer the questions is noted proving that the statement we are founded on "Christian Morals" is a fallacious statement.

Hey Stinger, get used to Fantasea never answering any question that proves him wrong. This is a daily event for him. Do what I do, just prove him wrong and leave it at that. The good people of this community know what makes someone a phony and a liar...

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

That's a rather sketchy definition of anything.

I prefer succinct. It says what I wanted to say.

On the other hand, is there a term for those on the left "who seek to impose their religious views on the polls? Or the 'irreligious' who seek to impose their 'irreligious' views on the polls?

The word is "polis" as Plato used it, the body politic.

How do those in the RR, as you call them, differ from all other lobbys who tug at the polls from all sides of any question? Everyone who has a point of view lobbys the polls, right? Isn't that the way that the US political system works?

It doesn't differ except in motivation. The ubiquitous special interest lobbies are motivated by money and power, and the RR is motivated by religious concerns and power. Both are objectionable, though I find the hypocrisy in the RR especially so.

 

[13th Justice]

I think you have a firm grasp on the wrong end of the stick. I suggest that you let go and grab the other end.

I did not profess anything with respect to quantity. I merely cited published information which was classed as an 'estimate'. How could there ever be an accurate figure when the Bible has been in print for some five hundred years in countries world-wide?(2nd Tim 4:1-5)

I think you are making my point that the number of bibles sold or that any one knows the amount of bibles sold is a fiction. I'm glad we've found agreement on this issue and I will not belabor it. Sorry for responding so late I was unavoidably detained.

 

[13th Justice]

Those of the Ten Commandments we have been discussing consist of between four and seven words. Are you presupposing that the entire meaning of a Commandment be limited solely to a few words without further interpretation of the full meaning contained within them? The concept is not so difficult to understand. It is quite simple. The Ten Commandments, taken together, becomes the unique embodiment of two concepts of law in one set of principles. The one concept is religious; the other is secular. The one is found in the first three commandments; the other is found in the remaining seven.

I venture that many of the founding fathers relied on the first three to give them wisdom, understanding, fortitude, integrity, guidance, and whatever else they felt was necessary to enable them to use the precepts found within the remaining seven to cobble together a comprehensive code of conduct for the citizens of the new nation and the officials elected to govern it.

Given that their 'noble experiment' has not only endured, but has evolved into the greatest of all the nations on earth, it is apparent, at least to some, that their reliance was not misplaced.

Their own experiences convinced the founding fathers that true religious faith cannot be enforced through compulsion. And, it is arguable that God would not be pleased to be worshiped by those who had to be coerced.

Hence the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

However, these words are often construed as if they were, "Congress shall make laws prohibiting the expression of religion..."

But, since Congress has never been disposed to do such a thing, the irreligious types are forced to rely on the ACLU to find like-minded judges to legislate the laws they require to advance their agenda.

You claim that our laws and the foundations of our nation are based on christian mores and ethics. But this is not true, the founding fathers were very suspiscious of religion and wanted to restrain its potentially disasterous influence in the new nation.

Furthermore our entire economic system and federal reserve apparatus is based on the flagrantly anti-christian notion of INTEREST. Christians have condemned interest payments as usury but America and most nations have dispensed with this archaic religious notion and mighty economies have arisen as a result.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
That's a rather sketchy definition of anything.

I prefer succinct. It says what I wanted to say.

Kind of limiting, I would say; but that's your choice.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
On the other hand, is there a term for those on the left "who seek to impose their religious views on the polls? Or the 'irreligious' who seek to impose their 'irreligious' views on the polls?

The word is "polis" as Plato used it, the body politic.

It's Greek to me.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
How do those in the RR, as you call them, differ from all other lobbys who tug at the polls from all sides of any question? Everyone who has a point of view lobbys the polls, right? Isn't that the way that the US political system works?

It doesn't differ except in motivation. The ubiquitous special interest lobbies are motivated by money and power, and the RR is motivated by religious concerns and power. Both are objectionable,

Both are exercising their first amendment rights. Why is this objectionable? Is it because you object to what they have to say? If they had something else to say, that was more to your liking, then would lobbying be OK with you?

though I find the hypocrisy in the RR especially so.

Perhaps you would furnish a few examples of RR hypocrisy in order that I might better understand your complaint with them.

 

[Fantasea]

I think you are making my point that the number of bibles sold or that any one knows the amount of bibles sold is a fiction. I'm glad we've found agreement on this issue and I will not belabor it. Sorry for responding so late I was unavoidably detained.

Better late, than never. However, I don't believe that most people equate a good faith estimate with fiction.

 

[Fantasea]

You claim that our laws and the foundations of our nation are based on christian mores and ethics. But this is not true, the founding fathers were very suspiscious of religion and wanted to restrain its potentially disasterous influence in the new nation.

Furthermore our entire economic system and federal reserve apparatus is based on the flagrantly anti-christian notion of INTEREST. Christians have condemned interest payments as usury but America and most nations have dispensed with this archaic religious notion and mighty economies have arisen as a result.

My only "claim" is that no one has cited a specific federal law, on the books today, which is not rooted in one of the ancient Ten Commandments.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Both are exercising their first amendment rights. Why is this objectionable? Is it because you object to what they have to say? If they had something else to say, that was more to your liking, then would lobbying be OK with you?

Thoroughly corrupting the government is not the same thing as exercising first amendment rights. Corruption is exactly what this lobbying culture is all about. Given the existing situation however, yes, I am pleased when our guys win one.

Perhaps you would furnish a few examples of RR hypocrisy in order that I might better understand your complaint with them.

You might want to contrast the behavior of the RR towards abortion with their total lack of concern for the overwhelmingly greater number of victims of the ongoing genocides throughout the world.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea

Both are exercising their first amendment rights. Why is this objectionable? Is it because you object to what they have to say? If they had something else to say, that was more to your liking, then would lobbying be OK with you?

Thoroughly corrupting the government is not the same thing as exercising first amendment rights. Corruption is exactly what this lobbying culture is all about. Given the existing situation however, yes, I am pleased when our guys win one.

Then why hasn't the SCOTUS ruled against lobbying?

So, it all comes down to whose ox is being gored. Is that it?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps you would furnish a few examples of RR hypocrisy in order that I might better understand your complaint with them.

You might want to contrast the behavior of the RR towards abortion with their total lack of concern for the overwhelmingly greater number of victims of the ongoing genocides throughout the world.

As near as I can figure, the victims of the ongoing genocides throughout the world number nowhere the nearly fifty million victims of the genocide of abortion in the US.

On the other hand, when the US stopped the "genocide by dictator" in Iraq at about three hundred thousand, the President was excoriated. And, the bashing of the President still continues.

Make up your mind.

I notice that you have not been disposed to furnish a few examples of RR hypocrisy. If, at some point, you decide to do so, be kind enough to identify the specific individual or group involved along with the hypocritical deed of which each is being accused.

Simply tarring everyone who is not a socialist-lib-Dem with the same brush won't do if you expect a reasonable response..

 

[Stinger]

ME>> I don't recall God sending an addendum. But I note how self-serving it is to argue that they can mean anything you declare them to mean.
You>> Think about it this way. Congress passes new legislation

They are commandments not legislation. And again I cannot find the first four nor the one about adultry, or honoring your parents in any of the founding documents or laws, care to point them out?

Me>> Actually it is one set of principles, many of them not new to history and several expressly against the founding principles of this country.

You>> You err. It was I who said that the Ten Commandments represented a single set of principles. I also said that the single set of principles embodied two concepts of law; the first three being religious in that reference is made to God, and the last seven being secular in that no reference is made to God.

Actaully the first four are totally religious in nature and since one of our founding principles prohibits such religious law being codified that's 40% in direct violation. A single set which is toto is not emodied in our founding nor our laws and directly contradicts many of our founding principles. AND says nothing to the majority of our founding principles and freedoms. In fact the last one emodies the principles of women/wives as property and slavery. Do you still support those principles?

You>> Dating to Moses gives them a historical age that stands quite well, don't you think?

Sorry I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Me>> I venture to say that they used the history of European governments and thier own desire for liberty and freedom. I find nothing in the commandments which has anything to do with those principles.

You>>Seek and ye shall find. If you don't wish to find, then don't seek.

I'll take that as an admitance you can't point them out.

You>> And, it is arguable that God would not be pleased to be worshiped by those who had to be coerced.
Me>> A belief not evidenced by the history of Christianity.
You>> How about, "A belief not evidenced by the history of some Christian zealots whose actions have been repudiated."

How about "believe in me our face an eterinity in hell" I'd call that coercion. Isn't it the prime objective of Christians to convert the pagans?

ME>> Actually it reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

And note that it is not
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion

or

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of one religion

just simply religion, they did not want government mixing with the religious body<<

You>> Yes. That is correct. However, I do not think my inadvertant ommision of the word changes anything.

Oh it makes a difference and the founding fathers argued over every little word in the constitution and meant EXACTLY what they said. The religious groups maintain that the amendment only means establishment of a national religion or just one religion but in fact we are a Christians Nation. In fact the amendment prohibits the government offer respect to religion, any and all religion and nowhere does it state we are a Christian Nation.

ME>> I don't know where you get that idea, except for government sponsored or government sanctioned events how is your expression of religion being prohibited?

You>> When a person or group chooses to make an expression of faith in a public place, what happens?

By public I assume you mean government/municiple places. Depends on where and how. If it is disruptive to others in may be prohibited just as if I decided to pull out my guitar and start playing and howling, just as if I tried to stand up in a court to read poetry, or walked into a city council meeting and started reading Ayn Rand. That's why we have PRIVATE property where we can excerise our rights to our hearts content. Why do people insist on using government/municiple venues to hold religious ceremony when they have ample private property on which to do so?

You>> When the starting five kneel on the court and offer a prayer that neither they nor their opponents will suffer an injury in the game, what happens?

If it is holding up the game they will be asked to please not do so and respect others in attendence. They certainly had ample time to pray before they came into the venue, why can't they do so without disrupting others. Better yet each individual is free to say their own prayer within themselve and not make a spectecual out of it, just as Jesus instructed.

So tell me when a player does get hurt does that mean God didn't like him or something?


You> Someone once observed that as surely as there are no athiests in foxholes, there is plenty of prayer in school on days when the exam papers are handed out.

How quint and self asorbing but not founded in reality.

Me>> Why not just keep matters of faith in the church and matters of government at city hall?
You>> Many folks seem to think that the ACLU has a greater interest

I don't speak for them but try answering the question, Why not just keep matters of faith in the church and matters of government at city hall?


You>> not in 'freedom of religion' but in 'freedom from religion'. That was not the intent of the founding fathers.

I have a right to be free from religion and guaranting that right was an intent of the founding fathers just as they intended for you to have a right to have a riligious faith.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Then why hasn't the SCOTUS ruled against lobbying?

You are saying here that your criterion of whether something is right is Supreme Court rulings? You accept Roe vs Wade then? You accept the Dred Scott decision? Lobbying as it is being done now is corrupting the system.

As near as I can figure, the victims of the ongoing genocides throughout the world number nowhere the nearly fifty million victims of the genocide of abortion in the US.

Baloney.

On the other hand, when the US stopped the "genocide by dictator" in Iraq at about three hundred thousand, the President was excoriated. And, the bashing of the President still continues.

Somehow I can't quite recall Georgie Porgy even mentioning genocide amongst his reasons for going to war against Iraq. WMD is what comes to mind, and the justification for that turns out to be spurious.

I notice that you have not been disposed to furnish a few examples of RR hypocrisy. If, at some point, you decide to do so, be kind enough to identify the specific individual or group involved along with the hypocritical deed of which each is being accused. /QUOTE]
I gave one obvious example, which you decline to discuss. I have no intention of dragging out more to be also ignored.

In fact, despite my attempt at focus, you have completely ignored my premise that the RR is attempting to establish a national theocracy. See if you can address that, why don't you?

 

[13th Justice]

My only "claim" is that no one has cited a specific federal law, on the books today, which is not rooted in one of the ancient Ten Commandments.

Oh! :doh you must have missed my point because I did cite a federal law not grounded in the ten commandments - THE FEDRAL RESERVE ACT of 1913. This law compels member banks to charge INTEREST on loans at rates established by the Federal Reserve Board. This interest rate provision is a direct assualt against the christian notion that charging interest on loans is a sin.

This is not to mention tax laws that favor investment income over wages from labor. Federal laws which forbid the display of religious symbols, permit abortions and the death penalty. I could go on and on but I think you can clearly see that there is an overwhelming number of laws that do not derive from religion and in many instances actually repudiate religious norms embraced by the judeo-christian community.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Then why hasn't the SCOTUS ruled against lobbying?

You are saying here that your criterion of whether something is right is Supreme Court rulings? You accept Roe vs Wade then? You accept the Dred Scott decision? Lobbying as it is being done now is corrupting the system.

I said nothing of the sort. I was simply pointing out that lobbying has not been declared unconstitutional

.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
As near as I can figure, the victims of the ongoing genocides throughout the world number nowhere the nearly fifty million victims of the genocide of abortion in the US.

Baloney.

What makes you think that denial equals refutation?

Originally Posted by Fantasea
On the other hand, when the US stopped the "genocide by dictator" in Iraq at about three hundred thousand, the President was excoriated. And, the bashing of the President still continues.

Somehow I can't quite recall Georgie Porgy even mentioning genocide amongst his reasons for going to war against Iraq. WMD is what comes to mind, and the justification for that turns out to be spurious.

What you can recall is immaterial to the Iraqis alive today who would have perished under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Perhaps you recall these words:

Administration rhetoric could hardly be stronger. The president asks the nation to consider this question: What if Saddam Hussein

"fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction."

The president's warnings are firm. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

These are the words not of President George W. Bush in September 2002 but of President Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998.

Previously posted by Fantasea:
I notice that you have not been disposed to furnish a few examples of RR hypocrisy. If, at some point, you decide to do so, be kind enough to identify the specific individual or group involved along with the hypocritical deed of which each is being accused.

I gave one obvious example, which you decline to discuss. I have no intention of dragging out more to be also ignored.

In fact, despite my attempt at focus, you have completely ignored my premise that the RR is attempting to establish a national theocracy. See if you can address that, why don't you?

Perhaps I missed your example. Please humor me and repeat it. If you do, kindly identify a specific individual or group along with the hypocritical deed of which each is being accused.

Based upon the media usage of the overarching term RR, we could be talking about half the population of the US. That's why specificity is necessary.

 

[Kenneth T. Cornelius]

Perhaps I missed your example. Please humor me and repeat it. If you do, kindly identify a specific individual or group along with the hypocritical deed of which each is being accused.

Based upon the media usage of the overarching term RR, we could be talking about half the population of the US. That's why specificity is necessary.

Again, you have ignored the substance of my message. I do not intend to post it again. Look it up.

 

[Fantasea]

Again, you have ignored the substance of my message. I do not intend to post it again. Look it up.

Instead of so juvenile a response to a serious request, you could have furnished the information and received a response.

I have no idea what to look for.

 

[Montalban]

Instead of so juvenile a response to a serious request, you could have furnished the information and received a response.

I have no idea what to look for.

Sometimes you'll find someone make a weak statement, then demand that you research it, to prove them correct. It's a very lazy way of debate.

 

[Fantasea]

Oh! :doh you must have missed my point because I did cite a federal law not grounded in the ten commandments - THE FEDRAL RESERVE ACT of 1913. This law compels member banks to charge INTEREST on loans at rates established by the Federal Reserve Board. This interest rate provision is a direct assualt against the christian notion that charging interest on loans is a sin.

Consider this:

" Paul's charge to us to owe nothing but love in Romans 13:8 is a powerful reminder of God's distaste for all forms of debt that are not being paid in a timely manner (also Ps.37:21). Usually we think of debt in terms of a monetary obligation. But in light of the context of this entire passage (Rom.13:1-10), Paul seems to have a broader view of debt in mind (Rom.13:7). Not only does he speak of taxes, tolls and tariffs that are imposed on us by our government, but also the respect, honor and praise we owe to those in high authority. All of us are debtors to God's grace. As He has shown us love, we need to extend love to those around us with whom we live and work - even those who tax and govern us.

Some people question the charging of any interest on loans, but several times in the Bible we see that a fair interest rate is expected to be received on borrowed money (Prov.28:8, Matt.25:27). In ancient Israel the Law did prohibit charging interest on one category of loans - those made to the poor (Lev.25:35). This law had many social, financial and spiritual implications, but two are especially worth mentioning. First, the law genuinely helped the poor by not making their situation worse. It was bad enough to have fallen into poverty, and it could be humiliating to have to seek assistance. But if in addition to repaying the loan a poor person had to make crushing interest payments, the obligation would be more hurtful than helpful."

This is not to mention tax laws that favor investment income over wages from labor.

It may be not to your liking, but it is the law and you should "Render to Caesar...." If you believe that "Caesar" is being unfair, you should complain to your elected people in Congress.

Federal laws which forbid the display of religious symbols,

I'm not aware of any law which does that; it's the judges who rap the gavel on that one. However, if the ACLU argued on religious grounds, they could cite the First Commandment as forbidding the display of religious symbols.

permit abortions

This is a tough one. I'll have to get back to you on it. In the meantime, think about this. There were laws prohibiting abortion. These were struck down by the SCOTUS on the ridiculous basis that they didn't know when life begins.

and the death penalty.

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

So, you see, given the perfect opportunity to do so, Christ did not speak out against the death penalty.

I could go on and on but I think you can clearly see that there is an overwhelming number of laws that do not derive from religion and in many instances actually repudiate religious norms embraced by the judeo-christian community.

Help yourself. Perhaps you'll get lucky.

 

[Montalban]

Fatasea, the laws on abortion are covered by the OT laws against murder, because the Jews believed that the unborn had the right to life (though they may have been ignorant about when a baby comes into being).

Isaiah 49.15 "Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the son of her womb?"

An unborn child is someone we can feel for and love.

And this is continued into the NT

"There are two ways of instruction, as there are two powers, that of light and that of darkness. And there is a great difference between the two ways. One is controlled by God's light-bearing angels, the other by the angels of Satan. And as the latter is the ruler of the present era of lawlessness, so the former is lauded from eternity to eternity. Among the precepts of the way of light is this; do not murder a child by abortion, or commit infanticide." From the Epistle of Barbanas (c.138 ) as quoted in Schaeffer, F, "Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion", p235
"How, then is a living being conceived? Is the substance of both body and soul formed together at the same time, or does one of them precede the other? We do indeed maintain that both are conceived, formed and perfected at the same time, as they are born together; nor is there any moment intervening in their conception, which would give prior place to either. Consider the first events in the light of the last. If death is defined as nothing other than the separation of the body and soul, then life, the opposite of death, should be defined as nothing else but the union of body and soul... We acknowledge, therefore, that life begins with conception, because we content that the soul begins with conception." Quoted from Tertullian (208 ), in Ibid, p237

"Among the most highly regarded of ancient Christian writings is the Didache, which dates from the late first century. [8] Its teaching is unambiguous: "Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant." Id. at II, 2. This is echoed in another didactic writing universally esteemed in the ancient Church, the Epistle of Barnabas, from the early second century: "Never do away with an unborn child or destroy it after its birth." Id. at XIX, 5.

The writings of the Fathers of the Church and other authorities further attest to the unanimity with which abortion was condemned. Among the earliest was the philosopher and apologist Athenagoras of Athens, who wrote to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (c.177) to defend Christians against false charges of murder: "What reason would we have to commit murder when we say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God?" [9] St. Basil the Great (c.330-379) was unequivocable: "A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder." [10] St. John Chrysostom (c.345-407) who in his famous homilies railed against men who secured the abortions of their illegitimate offspring, called their actions "even worse than murder." Of such men who impelled women to have abortions, he said, "You do not let a prostitute remain a prostitute, but make her a murderer as well." [11]

Finally, Canon 91 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691 A.D.), decreed that people "who furnish drugs for the purpose of procuring abortion, and those who take fetus-killing poisons, they are made subject to the penalty prescribed for murderers." The same canonical position along with the opinions of individual Church Fathers, were compiled in the Photian Collection, which was adopted as the official ecclesiastical law book of the Orthodox Church in 883 A.D"
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/abortion.htm

 

[Fantasea]

Fatasea, the laws on abortion are covered by the OT laws against murder, because the Jews believed that the unborn had the right to life (though they may have been ignorant about when a baby comes into being).

Thank you for your detailed explanation. However, the question is actually the reverse -- to cite US laws which are NOT rooted in the Ten Commandments.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Thank you for your detailed explanation. However, the question is actually the reverse -- to cite US laws which are NOT rooted in the Ten Commandments.

One could start with all of the laws that relate to the representational aspects of our government. Voting for instance. The concept that the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed is a major part of America is about. It's not a biblical concept. It comes down to us from those Greco-Roman pagans.

Just a the fact that items prohibited in the Ten Commandments are also prohibited by law in China does not mean that the laws in China are "based on" or "rooted in" the Ten Commandments, the fact that items prohibited in the Ten Commandments are also prohibited by law in the US does not mean that the laws in the US are "based on" or "rooted in" the Ten Commandments.
Just because things like theft and murder are prohibited by the Ten Commandments does not mean that everything that also prohibits them is founded on the Ten Commandments. These items were widely prohibited before the Ten Commandments were written and in places where the Ten Comandments were unheard of. It's like citing an acknowledgement of gravity as proof of an intellectual lineage to Newton.
It is very insufficient evidence.

 

[Montalban]

Thank you for your detailed explanation. However, the question is actually the reverse -- to cite US laws which are NOT rooted in the Ten Commandments.

If you mean 'just the 10 Commandments' as opposed to all the laws of Moses then...

There's heaps
Okay, the 10 Commandments don't cover any laws you have regarding the tenure of a public official, of media laws, nor of any law of a state having no right to separate from the United States.

I am unaware of any of the 10 Commandments that deal with Land and Environemtal laws.

The law that states a non-US born citizen can not be President is not there either.