News For You

Law isn't about right and wrong and "the truth," it's only to outline a judicial system whose purpose is to maintain a stable society. That system is objective and impartial - even it goes against the "truth" - think of how many criminals are released because the evidence is thrown out after it was attained improperly (e.g. without a warrant).

Part of that system also includes stripping out anything that doesn't relate directly or else it risks clouding the court's perspective. One of the ten commandments is "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" - how does this judge plan to apply that to his courtroom?

Judges have to remember that they exist (in theory) as gears in a system. Each judge should make the same decisions in the same situations (think of how important precedent is) and so each judge has to keep out his personal views.

It's not as though the system is at all as flawless at that, but to introduce religion into it isn't going to make it better. What would this judge think if a Muslim judge wore a robe lined with verses from the Torah?

In order to preserve freedom of religion, you need to create this kind of objectivity and impartiality in your government. In order to freely practice your own religion, you need to grant that freedom to others.

How many of the 10 Commandments are actually persisted in law today? I can think of 2 (do not kill, do not steal).

How do commandments like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." help a judge know right from wrong in a country that does not hold one religion above any other?

Would you guys be in support of a judge's decision to sew pink triangles on his robe?

Bryant: No, I wouldn't be in support of that, but not for same same reason as the 10 Commandments. I belive the 10 Commandments embroidery violates the establishment clause of the 1st ammendment of the constitution.

I don't know what the purpose of sewing pink triangles, or black fists, or NRA logos on a judge's robe would serve. But maybe one could argue it's a free speech issue, I don't know.

now that finals are done ill weigh in. first edwin Muslim judge would sew verses from the Koran not the Torah a Jewish judge would use the Torah.

second remember that lil clause, ""We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

it is becuase all men have a creator and becuase they are created equal that law exists.

Law is always based on God. just like marriage is always based within the church. marriage is a religious function (therefore as a soceity we have the right to deny marriage foreveryone because marriage is God ordianed) second law is also God ordianed the concept of democracy comes from Christianity.

From Richard Bauckham's book on the theology of revelation page 44

"God's sovereignty fuctioned the same way in 17th century England where it played a part in the religious origins of democracy. Because God is king, it was said, all men and women are equally his subjects, and no man should arrogate to himself to rule over his fellows."

God is the basis of law and marriage and such a God centered idealogy is the basis for democratic thought.

therefore the ten commandment have a right to adorn a judges robe. they are the founding principles of our law and no they do not promote a religion. they are simple a fuction of a religious system that is the basis for a law. just because they are on his robe does not imply that you must worhship his God. the decaglogue on his robe implies that this is the basis for our legal law which just so happens to come from a religion... therefore i see no problem with the 10 commandments displayed in momunment or on a robe. these aspect our religious idealogy have helped our country and do not promote a state religion.

Unfortunately Jesse, the Declaration of Independence is not recognized as a legal document, thus you can't use quotes from it to prove a legal point. The Constituion, on the other hand is a legal document.

"it is becuase all men have a creator and becuase they are created equal that law exists."

That is your belief and I respect that. However a judge should be perceived as impartial and unbiased. He/she should leave his/her religious, cultural, and personal views out of the courtroom and judge only on the law on the books, regardless of where it may have its basis. To do otherwise is not only grounds for appeal, but possibly unconstitutional. How are non-Christians supposed to feel they are getting a fair trial when the judge is advertising his bias?

"Law is always based on God." Are tax laws based on God? What about traffic laws? Once again, I'll point out that only 2 of the 10 Commandments are actually laws. How is not worshipping graven images a basis for US law?

I'm not sure why you brought up marriage, since that's a different issue altogether.

""Law is always based on God." Are tax laws based on God? What about traffic laws? Once again, I'll point out that only 2 of the 10 Commandments are actually laws. How is not worshipping graven images a basis for US law?"

From a Christian point of view, this all leads back to God. God created the world, God created man, men created laws. Transitive property, God Created Law.

As an analogy, When christians sit down for a meal, they thank God for providing them with a meal. Even though that person worked for the money for the meal, they went out and purchased the food and prepared it, they still thank God for providing the meal.

"God created the world, God created man, men created laws. Transitive property, God Created Law."

Your parents created you Bryant, you created a giant pyramid of Talking Rain Cans. Transitive property, your parents created the Talking Rain pyramid.

So what you are saying is that God is the highest athority in law??? And that his laws superceede any other laws.

to that I have two things...
Other view points... what about Muslims and Jews and Hindis and Budists??? They have religous laws that are different.. aren't they equally important because they are based from their god(s)'s?

And the other thing.
There once was a thing know as Eclesicastical (I know I spelled it wrong) Court, where they would try people under gods laws... and there was a bunch of burning witches after those courts... I don't think I like that

Your First point. God pretty much has the highest authority in law. By definition, a God, any god can pretty much wipe out any person, state, or the entire world.

Your Second point. It doesn't matter what religion the person was that made the law. It's given to us through a government that God has provided. And just because God has given us the Ten commandments, it doesn't mean that we can't

Why do we need laws anyways? If there is no God, if there is no religion, why do we need to have laws and Government? I should be able to do whatever I please. Fittest for survival. That's how we evolved from monkeys right?

And your third point. Nobody is suggesting we go back to days of Witch burning. We all agree that is bad, just like i'm sure most liberals will agree that burning peoples homes and SUV's in support of the environment is bad.

What I am saying is that you shouldn't try and separate Church and State because it is impossible to do so. I am saying is that you cannot separate church from state.

Laws and Govenment were not created by God, but rather by men.

In your response "Why do we need laws anyway"...
it is not right to equate Religion to Society. Society grew out of people living together for protection and to help provide for the young. That is basically what society is here for, to make sure the young survive. Religion grew out of the neccisity to explain things that people didn't understand. We didn't get religion and then get society. It is the otherway around. The only reason that people equate religion to society is the rise and dominance of it in the middle ages. Now I'm not saying that religion isn't good for society, but it is not the cause for it. And since it is not the cause for it, Laws shouldn't be based on religion. There is nothing wrong with them sharing rules, ala Don't Kill, but just because I don't believe in your relgion I should have to follow your religious laws.

No I bet you'll bring up the point that USA was founded by a bunch of Christians. And thus our laws are then enhariently Christian. That's a fallacy. Our laws are the way they are because that is how people decided to craft them, and for the most part they tend to make sense. The christians that founded this nation saw the strife that had happened in the old world, that is why there is that nice little thing called separation of church and state.

I want to say more, but I think i've rambled a bit.

Hux do you believe in a God?

Whoops about the Torah, I did mean the Koran.

I very much doubt the connection between Christianity and Democracy as there was no sign of democracy in a Christian society until well after the coming of Christ. If anything, democracy has its roots in Greek society.

Putting the 10 commandments on the judge's robe absolutely promotes Christianity as a religion.

Saying law is "always based on God" is a bit all-encompassing. There are definitely laws that have no basis in the Bible, and there are definitely societies without the Bible that have laws.

Freedom of religion is a good thing - no? To insure that the government can't promote one religion over another is inherently part of that.

Again, so what would you think about a Muslim judge putting verses from the Koran (not the Torah) onto his robes?