10 Com, USSC, Founding FACTS
bucke...@nospam.net
Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
separationist that post in these threads as well
SOME FACTS:
(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
**************************************
(2) The roots of American law come from a variety of sources:
(a)Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
(b) Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
(3) The Ten Commandments are not the foundation, not the model, not linked
to
(a) The Declaration of Independence
(b) The Articles of Confederation
(c) Northwest Ordinance
(d) Constitution
(e) Bill of Rights
(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
United States Supreme Court Building.
**************************************
(5) What does appear in the USSC Building is the following:
(a) On the bottom half of each of the wooden doors leading into the
court room there a item of artwork that depicts two stone tablets.
The tablets do not show any writing but do contain the Roman Numerals I-X
See pics I took in March 1997
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
(b) Moses is depicted holding a single tablet on the south wall
frieze. This tablet appears to have Roman numerals on it. it is only
partially shown as the figure of Moses covers much of it.
(c)Moses is positioned in the center of the east Pediment sitting
with two other famous lawgivers standing on each side of him. he is holding
two stone tablets one resting on each thigh. The tablets are blank
(Source: Descriptions of the friezes in the Courtroom of
the Supreme Court of the United States and of the east and west Pediments
of the Building Exterior, an official publication sent out by the curators
office, Supreme Court Building, Washington D C)
(d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of secular law
throughout history.
Now, even though the Ten Commandments do not really appear anywhere in or
on the Supreme Court building artwork (blank tablets, Roman Numerals),
advocates of public placement of said commandments constantly refer to the
Supreme Court as their source for precedence for public placement of the
Ten Commandments.
**************************************
(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the "Ten Commandments"
representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
What we now see is men like Judge Moore and others trying to alter that
formula in efforts to get their "art works" situated in public buildings.
The formula they are following is to depict their version of what they call
American history. Thus thy might toss in some sort of representation of the
DOI, the BORs, perhaps the Constitution, possibly some quotes from various
selected founders and important men and the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
All that is is a is a piss poor attempt to sneak the Ten Commandments in by
trying to falsely linking them with those other documents. They are NOT
HISTORICALLY LINKED to those other documents anymore so than hundreds,
maybe thousands of other documents, laws, cases, etc dating back from now
to history far older than that which generated the Ten Commandments. They
have no VALID connection to any of those documents beyond what i just
stated However, by depicting them in the manner Moore and others like him
are doing, they are trying to create the impression there is a link.
The correct formula is simple. The laws of ancient Israel and this includes
the Ten Commandments, do occupy a shelf in the bookcase of the history of
law. When the Ten Commandments are included in a display of the type that
shows that over all development of secular law, they are perfectly
acceptable.
Shortcut displays designed to build false links and bridges between this
nation's founding, American Law, and the Ten Commandments are not valid nor
acceptable.
**************************************
(7) From: ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell)
Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,law.court.federal
Subject: Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy
the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton'
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:39:54 +0000 (UTC)
. . . Everyone keeps repeating the claim that the Ten Commandments
form the basis of our Judicial system, but no one -- noooo one --
will reply to the following logical examination of this claim.
Here, let me try again and perhaps you'll be brave enough to step forward?
If the Ten Commandments historically underpin our legal system,
then we will perforce find them embodied in our laws. That would
seem particularly to be true of the First Commandment, which was
the only one Jesus singles out as necessary. So, can these
essential and absolutely fundamental principles of all American
jurisprudence actually be found embedded prominently in American laws?
If they are not, then the claim that they have led to our system of
laws is clearly bogus, however reassuring it may feel to repeat it.
You do not build a legal system on a certain foundation and then rip
out that foundation.
1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Do we outlaw worshipping other gods? If not, why not?
2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."
Is statuary a misdemeanor or perhaps a felony? If not, why not?
God clearly seems to think it should be.
3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"
Can I be fined for a "goddamit!" on hitting my thumb? If not,
then why does our legal system, founded on the Ten Commandments,
not mandate this?
4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
There are so-called Blue Laws still on the books, but
the Supreme Court has said they may stand only if they
are demonstrably there for secular, and not religious, reasons.
Needless to say, this rules out stoning, which God elsewhere
in the Bible clearly designates as the necessary penalty for
violation of this commandment.
5. "Honor thy father and thy mother."
The Bible makes clear that flouting this is a capital crime.
Is it a capital crime in our system? Is it a crime at all?
If not, then how does this underpin our legal system?
6. "Thou shalt not kill."
This one we do encapsulate. As does ever other, non-
Judeo-Christian culture. It's not specific to the
Ten Commandments, it's universal.
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
Are there still laws such as this on the books, or have
they all been repealed by now? In any event, our legal
system NEVER enforces this, except as grounds for divorce.
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
Check. We have this one. So does every other culture.
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Is lying a crime in our system of laws? It is, but only
in very limited circumstances, involving the police and
the courts. Everyday lying is not even a misdemeanor.
10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything that
is thy neighbor's."
Obviously there are now laws against coveting. If there were,
our entire consumer-based capitalilstic system would be in
serious jeopardy.
So here you have the ten that historically underlie our system
of laws. Or so it is claimed. Why, then, are only two of them
fully realized in our actual laws (the universal two), five of them
entirely absent -- including the most important one -- and the remaining
three weakly represented at best?
-- cary
**************************************
(8) The Seven Lost Commandments
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/7lostcom.htm
**************************************
(9) Rev. John Leland on the Ten Commandments, Judge Moore and other
related things
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland10.htm
Gregory Gadow
> (d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
> are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
> there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
>
> The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
> examples given.
Among the other lawgivers are Hammurabi (god-king of Babylon), Confucius (expounder of Confucianism) and Mohammad (founder of Islam.) I demand,
therefore, that all government placements of the 10 Commandments include extracts of the Enuma Elish, the Analects, and the Koran.
Lycurgus, founder of the _polis_ of Sparta, is also depicted. Sparta strongly encouraged homosexuality among its warriors and allowed men to
live with women and marry only after they retired from the miliary... at the age of 50. Any presentation of the 10 Commandments must also
promote homosexuality and same sex marriage.
The frieze also includes Menes, the legendary founder of the Egyptian empire, and Octavian, the first Emperor of Rome. Both were worshipped as
gods (as was Hammurabi, but I've already covered him.) All government sponsored monuments proclaiming the 10 Commandments must therefore also
proclaim the godhood of the sitting President, and all citizens may be required, at any time, to prove their loyalty by making sacrifice to the
President. Failure to do so will be taken as de facto proof of treason and will be dealt with appropriately.
The problem is that Hugo Grotius, the Dutch scholar who wrote one of the first books on international law, is also depicted. Having seen the
religious wars that had ravaged the Netherlands and which continued to sweep through Europe, he was a very strong advocate against any and all
religious expression of government. Perhaps it would be best to prohibit government display of the 10 Commandments altogether.
> That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
> representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
> placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of secular law
> throughout history.
A full depiction of the two friezes can be found here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Is your faith so weak and your god so powerless
that, without government endorsement of your
religion, all hell will break loose?
Cary Kittrell
The most thorough discussion yet of the much-invoked ("but THEY do it")
friezes. A definite keeper! Thank you.
-- cary
Carol Lee Smith
> bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> > (d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
> > are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
> > there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
> > The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
> > examples given.
> Among the other lawgivers are Hammurabi (god-king of Babylon), Confucius (expounder of Confucianism) and Mohammad (founder of Islam.)
Please note that by depicting Mohammad, we have collectively insulted all
of Islam.
That fact is not very often acknowledged.
More consideration should be given to folks of minority persuasions.
> I demand, therefore, that all government placements of the 10 Commandments include extracts of the Enuma Elish, the Analects, and the Koran.
<snip the balance of the very informative content>
> A full depiction of the two friezes can be found here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
Thanks for posting that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice." -- Albert Einstein
K C
government from saying Allah, ever, since it is related to a single
religion, just as they want to do with the name Jesus.
KC (author)
http://beingone.20m.com/beingone.html
http://beingone.20m.com/heaven-things.html (new book)
K C
>
>Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
>stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
>separationist that post in these threads as well
>
>SOME FACTS:
>(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
> **************************************
>
>(2) The roots of American law come from a variety of sources:
>
> (a)Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
>
> (b) Roots of American Law
> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
That is a documentary history. What about the beliefs of those that
wrote the laws?
>
>(3) The Ten Commandments are not the foundation, not the model, not linked
>to
> (a) The Declaration of Independence
> (b) The Articles of Confederation
> (c) Northwest Ordinance
> (d) Constitution
> (e) Bill of Rights
In fact, 90 percent or more of those that wrote those documents were
Christians that believed the Bible to be true.
>
>(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
>United States Supreme Court Building.
I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
one.
> **************************************
>
>(5) What does appear in the USSC Building is the following:
>
> (a) On the bottom half of each of the wooden doors leading into the
>court room there a item of artwork that depicts two stone tablets.
>The tablets do not show any writing but do contain the Roman Numerals I-X
What do you think the 10 numbers are for? The fact that it is not
spelled out does not dimminish the religious source...correct?
>
>See pics I took in March 1997
>Entire door
>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
>
>Close up of door
>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
>
> (b) Moses is depicted holding a single tablet on the south wall
>frieze. This tablet appears to have Roman numerals on it. it is only
>partially shown as the figure of Moses covers much of it.
Giving a specific religious source.
>
> (c)Moses is positioned in the center of the east Pediment sitting
>with two other famous lawgivers standing on each side of him. he is holding
>two stone tablets one resting on each thigh. The tablets are blank
>(Source: Descriptions of the friezes in the Courtroom of
>the Supreme Court of the United States and of the east and west Pediments
>of the Building Exterior, an official publication sent out by the curators
>office, Supreme Court Building, Washington D C)
Exactly. You say it is acceptable since there are other lawgivers as
well. You just admitted that Moses was one of the source lawgivers.
>
> (d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
>are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
>there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
You just admitted that Moses's statue is acceptable, even though
representing a religious source, because it is representing secular
law. Therefore, Moses is a source of Secular law. Therefore, you
agree. Thank you.
>
>The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
>examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
>representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
>placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of secular law
>throughout history.
>
>Now, even though the Ten Commandments do not really appear anywhere in or
>on the Supreme Court building artwork (blank tablets, Roman Numerals),
>advocates of public placement of said commandments constantly refer to the
>Supreme Court as their source for precedence for public placement of the
>Ten Commandments.
Therefore, as you are saying, a monument to the Ten Commandments is
acceptable if given as a source of secular law. You are defeating
your own arguement.
> **************************************
>
>(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
>and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the "Ten Commandments"
>representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
What formula would that be? You may not give Ten Commandments in text
form but you may post a monument to the religious source?
Kilmir
news:3f61f0a5...@news.athenanews.com...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:40:56 -0400, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
> >stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
> >separationist that post in these threads as well
> >
> >SOME FACTS:
> >(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
>
> It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
> Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
Although they had a religious background most, if not all, of them wanted
religion out of the system. As you can see if you read the whole original
post the 10 commandments actually are nmot incorporated in the law and most
of it is simply ignored as being outdated or non-punishable whereas your
bible would let people be killed for the crimes.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html
> > **************************************
> >
> >(2) The roots of American law come from a variety of sources:
> >
> > (a)Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
> > http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
> >
> > (b) Roots of American Law
> > http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
>
> That is a documentary history. What about the beliefs of those that
> wrote the laws?
As said above, they had religious backgrounds (as did about everybody in
those days) but they certainly didn't have much "faith" in the bible as a
guideline to justice.
> >
> >(3) The Ten Commandments are not the foundation, not the model, not
linked
> >to
> > (a) The Declaration of Independence
> > (b) The Articles of Confederation
> > (c) Northwest Ordinance
> > (d) Constitution
> > (e) Bill of Rights
>
> In fact, 90 percent or more of those that wrote those documents were
> Christians that believed the Bible to be true.
Christians? sort off.
Believe the bible to be true? nope. Just looking at the similarities (or
lack thereof) the bible and the law have pretty much squat in common.
<snip the part about mozes being shown on the Supreme Court buildings>
> Therefore, as you are saying, a monument to the Ten Commandments is
> acceptable if given as a source of secular law. You are defeating
> your own arguement.
It is not a SOURCE of secular law, it is a facet of the road to what
eventually evolved in the current US justice system. Mozes' tablets have had
no influence on any current US laws whatsoever.
> >(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found
inside
> >and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the "Ten
Commandments"
> >representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
>
> What formula would that be? You may not give Ten Commandments in text
> form but you may post a monument to the religious source?
The formula is showing various forms of older lawgiving instances up till
the present day US secular law.
It is not blatantly praising any religion or tanking any single source for
everything it has contributed to the current justice system.
--
Kilmir
AA #1944
K C
wrote:
I think it is VERY blatently mentioning a religious system in having a
monument of Moses coming off the mountain holding the Ten
Commandments. That is Judaism..right? If that is ok, since it is
praising the source of the Ten Commandments and a religious one at
that. Why would the words be banned? Tell me, would it be illegal to
say, "Thou shalt not kill" as a current law, just because it is found
in the Ten Commandments. If not, then why would the Ten Commandments
be banned. After all, we have statues of Rev Martin Luther King Jr
and streets named after him. He was not written in the founding
documents either, but he was an influence on our country. Since
religion had an influence, why would it be correct to censor that
foundation? Second, do you think monuments or streets named for MLK
jr should be removed as they recognize a religious source?
Roger
>
> >
> >Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
> >stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
> >separationist that post in these threads as well
> >
> >SOME FACTS:
> >(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
>
> It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
> Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
They seem to have forgotten it when they wrote the laws. Only two of them
made the cut.
Carol Lee Smith
> I guess if your side were to get what they want, they would ban the
> government from saying Allah, ever, since it is related to a single
> religion, just as they want to do with the name Jesus.
Under what circumstances should be government be commenting on Allah,
Jesus, Zarathustra, Baal, Zeus, Athena or any other mytholigical, deities?
Carol Lee Smith
> >(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
> I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
> Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
> the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
> religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
> one.
With which version of the 10K? And what is the "SPECIFIC religious source
of the commandments" ?
K C
any government, acknowledge the Islamic communities help in the
National Heritage? Further, could they give a chaplain to represent
Allah to members of that faith in the military, police, firemen,
congress, etc?
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:19:28 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
>
>> I guess if your side were to get what they want, they would ban the
>> government from saying Allah, ever, since it is related to a single
>> religion, just as they want to do with the name Jesus.
>
>Under what circumstances should be government be commenting on Allah,
>Jesus, Zarathustra, Baal, Zeus, Athena or any other mytholigical, deities?
>
>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:26:40 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
>> <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Please note that by depicting Mohammad, we have collectively insulted all
>> >of Islam.
>
>> >That fact is not very often acknowledged.
>
>> >More consideration should be given to folks of minority persuasions.
>
>> >> I demand, therefore, that all government placements of the 10 Commandments include extracts of the Enuma Elish, the Analects, and the Koran.
>
>> ><snip the balance of the very informative content>
>
>> >> A full depiction of the two friezes can be found here:
>> >http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
>
>> >Thanks for posting that.
>> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> >"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
>> >contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
>> >spinal cord would fully suffice." -- Albert Einstein
>
KC (author)
K C
Moses coming down the mountain..duh. Catch up with the conversation.
Carol Lee Smith
> What do you think the 10 numbers are for? The fact that it is not
> spelled out does not dimminish the religious source...correct?
We do not base our laws upon anyone's imaginings of what that symbolism
means.
> >See pics I took in March 1997
> >Entire door
> >http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
> >Close up of door
> >http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
> > (b) Moses is depicted holding a single tablet on the south wall
> >frieze. This tablet appears to have Roman numerals on it. it is only
> >partially shown as the figure of Moses covers much of it.
> Giving a specific religious source.
Which specific religious source? Roman numerals are a specific religious
source? Since when?
> > (c)Moses is positioned in the center of the east Pediment sitting
> >with two other famous lawgivers standing on each side of him. he is holding
> >two stone tablets one resting on each thigh. The tablets are blank
> >(Source: Descriptions of the friezes in the Courtroom of
> >the Supreme Court of the United States and of the east and west Pediments
> >of the Building Exterior, an official publication sent out by the curators
> >office, Supreme Court Building, Washington D C)
> Exactly. You say it is acceptable since there are other lawgivers as
> well. You just admitted that Moses was one of the source lawgivers.
Where did he "admit that."
Which laws did Moses write? (Which laws did Moses trash? You have never
answered that question, even though it has been posed more than once.)
> > (d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
> >are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
> >there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
> You just admitted that Moses's statue is acceptable, even though
> representing a religious source, because it is representing secular
> law. Therefore, Moses is a source of Secular law. Therefore, you
> agree. Thank you.
Even if the statue of Moses is "acceptable" as art work, and in keeping
with its juxtaposition with the other figures, what makes it
representative of "secular law"? Or a source thereof?
Do you even know what secular is?
Are the verses in your "holey" scriptures which pertain to the various
renditions of commandments secular verses. Is it a secular text?
> >The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
> >examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
> >representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
> >placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of secular law
> >throughout history.
> >Now, even though the Ten Commandments do not really appear anywhere in or
> >on the Supreme Court building artwork (blank tablets, Roman Numerals),
> >advocates of public placement of said commandments constantly refer to the
> >Supreme Court as their source for precedence for public placement of the
> >Ten Commandments.
> Therefore, as you are saying, a monument to the Ten Commandments is
> acceptable if given as a source of secular law. You are defeating
> your own arguement.
You are evidently very confused. Not a very good position from which to
argue.
> >(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
> >and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the "Ten Commandments"
> >representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
> What formula would that be? You may not give Ten Commandments in text
> form but you may post a monument to the religious source?
What do you mean, "a monument to the religious source" ?
Are the other figures depicted monuments to religious sources?
What about Napoleon?
What conclusions could be drawn from the fact that Napoleon is depicted.
Hugo Grotius, a Dutch humanist, is depicted. What of that?
<<One of the pioneering natural rights theorists of the late 16th and
early 17th centuries, Grotius defined natural law as a perceptive
judgement in which things are good or bad by their own nature. This was a
break from Calvinist ideals, in that God was no longer the only source of
ethical qualities. These things that are by themselves good are associated
with the nature of man. The Dutch Republic had been founded on princples
of religious toleration but had become a Calvinist theocracy. Grotius, a
humanist and Dutch patriot, struggled with Calvinism all of his life.In
this struggle, he dealt with the international laws of war and issues of
peace and justice. Although most famous for his theories of natural law,
Grotius was also considered to be a great theologian. While occasionally
writing about Christianity and religion, his intention for law was to
write of it as independant of religious opinions.>>
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/grotius.html
Gray Shockley
(in message <3f6200a6...@news.athenanews.com>):
> Let me pose it to you in a question form, then. Could the government,
> any government, acknowledge the Islamic communities help in the
> National Heritage?
Any government, huh? Sure, Iraq and Saudi Arabia for two.
> Further, could they give a chaplain to represent
> Allah to members of that faith in the military, police, firemen,
> congress, etc?
Military? I know one Islamic chaplain at Bragg and there's a chaplain that
helps with the Wiccan members at Hood.
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
Gray Shockley
>> With which version of the 10K? And what is the "SPECIFIC religious source
>> of the commandments" ?
>
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:24:21 -0500, K C wrote
> Moses coming down the mountain..duh. Catch up with the conversation.
That's probably why she asked.
Most theists would have said "God is 'the "SPECIFIC religious source of the
commandments" but you say it was "Moses coming down the mountain..duh".
"Duh" is certainly right on your part.
You write as well as you read, i.e., not very well.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
There is only one god;
he is the sun god:
Ra! Ra! Ra! -Wilson and Shea
Lord Calvert
>> Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
>> the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
>> religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
>> one.
>
>With which version of the 10K? And what is the "SPECIFIC religious source
>of the commandments" ?
Yes. I'd like him to go to the USSC building and quote for us the text of the
commandments which appear in the building and just how meaningful that text is.
Here, I'll even quote the text which is used on the US Supreme Court display.
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Impressive, isn't it??
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Ill-Legal Dept. "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here"
"My country, right or wrong; to be defended when right and righted when wrong."
- Thomas Jefferson
Carol Lee Smith
> Let me pose it to you in a question form, then. Could the government,
> any government, acknowledge the Islamic communities help in the
> National Heritage?
Of what kind of help do you speak?
> Further, could they give a chaplain to represent
> Allah to members of that faith in the military, police, firemen,
> congress, etc?
So long as any chaplains of any persuasion are "given" to the military,
police, firemen, congress, I know of no grounds upon which a chaplain
representing Allah may be denied.
Do you?
Likewise, I know of no grounds upon which a chaplain of Wicca, a chaplain
of Satan or a chaplain of Athena may be refused.
Do you?
Carol Lee Smith
> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:21:56 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
> <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
> >> >(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
> >> I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
> >> Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
> >> the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
> >> religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
> >> one.
> >With which version of the 10K? And what is the "SPECIFIC religious source
> >of the commandments" ?
> Moses coming down the mountain..duh. Catch up with the conversation.
With which version of the 10K? You didn't answer that.
I do believe Moses went up and down the mountain more than once. What
makes his alleged journeys religious? or proof of a "religious source of
the commandments"?
And which commandments?
Dave Thompson
No, the majority found the bible alegorical. Deists, Universalists, and most
of the plain old Christians were neither literalists nor Fundamentalists.
>
> >
> >(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in
the
> >United States Supreme Court Building.
>
> I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
> Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
> the Ten Commandments.
It's not a monument, it is a mural. Here is a description found on a
website:
"In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building, the Ten
Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held by Moses sitting
amongst many other historical lawgivers. "
Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
> religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
> one.
Take your blinders off and look at the rest of the mural. Moses is given no
special emphasis.
Rest of this blather snipped since it is based incorrectly on the assumption
that the mural is of Moses and no one else.
Dave Thompson
Because most of the commandments are purely religious, a few are not law at
all, and of the three that are they are hardly unique to the bible.
Since there is so little in common between Mosaic law and our laws, just how
do you think the ten c's are the foundation of our law?
Gregory Gadow
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:40:56 -0400, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>
> >
> >Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
> >stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
> >separationist that post in these threads as well
> >
> >SOME FACTS:
> >(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
>
> It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
> Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
The people who formed our laws? All of them? There are a lot: scores of
presidents, hundreds of state governors, thousands of members of Congress, tens
of thousands of mayors, state legislators and judges, hundreds of thousands of
city council members and lobbyists, and hundreds of millions of ordinary
citizens who voted on the laws directly (as initiatives and referenda) or
indirectly (by putting these presidents, et al in power in the first place.)
You really expect us to believe that EVERY LAST ONE OF THESE PEOPLE who formed
our laws "believed the Ten Commandments"? Utter and proveable bull shit.
Carol Lee Smith
> > >(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in
> > > the United States Supreme Court Building.
> > I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
> > Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
> > the Ten Commandments.
> It's not a monument, it is a mural. Here is a description found on a
> website:
> "In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building, the Ten
> Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held by Moses sitting
> amongst many other historical lawgivers. "
No fair. You didn't give a citation.
But in the decision of the Moore case, Judge Thompson has written:
<http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf>
<<... In each of these displays, the Ten Commandments
are situated in a secular context and the secular nature of the
display is apparent and dominant.
In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building,
the Ten Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held
by Moses sitting amongst many other historical lawgivers. The
Commandments displayed on the door to the Supreme Court's
courtroom are so small as to be almost unnoticeable, are among
many other decorations such as a lion's head and a head of
wheat, and are simply two tablets containing the Roman numerals
I through X.>>
> Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
> > religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
> > one.
> Take your blinders off and look at the rest of the mural. Moses is given no
> special emphasis.
> Rest of this blather snipped since it is based incorrectly on the assumption
> that the mural is of Moses and no one else.
He is incapable of taking off his blinders. That is evidenced by his
contributions.
bucke...@nospam.net
If I understood him correctly, Mike Newdow was denied when he applied to be
a Congressional Chaplain. A little known fact, Newdow is a ordained minster
as well as a medical doctor and has a law degree from the U of Michigan.
Damn, he could benefit Congress in many ways, and he still got shot down.
(grin)
Cary Kittrell
<"K C" <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<news:3f61f0a5...@news.athenanews.com...
{...}
<
<<snip the part about mozes being shown on the Supreme Court buildings>
<
<> Therefore, as you are saying, a monument to the Ten Commandments is
<> acceptable if given as a source of secular law. You are defeating
<> your own arguement.
<
<It is not a SOURCE of secular law, it is a facet of the road to what
<eventually evolved in the current US justice system. Mozes' tablets have had
<no influence on any current US laws whatsoever.
<
<
<> >(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found
<inside
<> >and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the "Ten
<Commandments"
<> >representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
<>
<> What formula would that be? You may not give Ten Commandments in text
<> form but you may post a monument to the religious source?
<
<The formula is showing various forms of older lawgiving instances up till
<the present day US secular law.
<It is not blatantly praising any religion or tanking any single source for
<everything it has contributed to the current justice system.
<
A picture is worth a thousand words, so here's two thousand worth,
thanks to Gregory Gadow:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
I think one look at these and KC will have no further questions
as to why Moses is acceptable in this context.
-- cary
Dave Thompson
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103091...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
I thought people might find this amusing:
http://www.angelfire.com/apes/idontbelieve/visittohell.html
I just wonder if it was KC or JD in the mask from the story.
Cary Kittrell
Does the purple Multi-Mammary Oneness have "chaplains" per se? Or what?
-- cary
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:40:56 -0400, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>
>:|>Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
>:|>stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
>:|>separationist that post in these threads as well
>:|>
>:|>SOME FACTS:
>:|>(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
>:|
>:|It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
>:|Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are going to have to do better then that.
Your opinion is worthless.
>:|> **************************************
>:|>
>:|>(2) The roots of American law come from a variety of sources:
>:|>
>:|> (a)Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
>:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
>:|>
>:|> (b) Roots of American Law
>:|> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
>:|
>:|That is a documentary history. What about the beliefs of those that
>:|wrote the laws?
Documentary history? yes, that is called evidence, etc.
Beliefs are not evidence.
Show us where they embodied these beliefs you refer to in the Constitution,
otherwise they are irrelevant.
Regardless of what the founders might have personally believed, they
separated church and state. While some of the founders were quite orthodox,
many others weren't.
>:|>(3) The Ten Commandments are not the foundation, not the model, not linked
>:|>to
>:|> (a) The Declaration of Independence
>:|> (b) The Articles of Confederation
>:|> (c) Northwest Ordinance
>:|> (d) Constitution
>:|> (e) Bill of Rights
>:|
>:|In fact, 90 percent or more of those that wrote those documents were
>:|Christians that believed the Bible to be true.
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are going to have to do better then that.
Your opinion is worthless.
Another view of America and it's founders and founding:
Subject: A Series, Founders & Religion [Feb 1, 2003] [10]
#1
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1mjn3vc04cqcmqrujan4k8e6aj0c0slvf8%404ax.com&output=gplain
#2
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6k5q3vohpnsfusk9t43dc1tou36csf7nef%404ax.com&output=gplain
#3
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=fk5q3v44sepf4sbfbsm088gdhuroij7ikg%404ax.com&output=gplain
#4
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mk5q3v8ls4q64mcu6oke3aif29lq3c0q76%404ax.com&output=gplain
#5
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=sk5q3vsamni84darin63743ti6b9shn2mm%404ax.com&output=gplain
#6
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=oo5q3vkh5urjkpj8rpbeaumc78estdntct%404ax.com&output=gplain
#7
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i86q3vgm85dofvm53j5v38ah75hvqhinhh%404ax.com&output=gplain
#8
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=i86q3vgm85dofvm53j5v38ah75hvqhinhh%404ax.com&output=gplain
#9
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=lc6q3vs9sclur7gma06n3dep7hps52jgad%404ax.com&output=gplain
#10
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=tc6q3v4rp4f7mjfng66gu6dei7takukbge%404ax.com&output=gplain
===========================================================================
>:|>(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
>:|>United States Supreme Court Building.
>:|
>:|I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
>:|Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
>:|the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
>:|religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
>:|one.
>:|
>:|> **************************************
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you're going to
claim something outlandish you're going to need some pretty extraordinary,
irrefutable proof to back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's
the extraordinary proof for their extraordinary claims? If one is not
responding with extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the claim is not worth
considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are going to have to do better then that.
Your opinion is worthless.
>:|>(5) What does appear in the USSC Building is the following:
>:|>
>:|> (a) On the bottom half of each of the wooden doors leading into the
>:|>court room there a item of artwork that depicts two stone tablets.
>:|>The tablets do not show any writing but do contain the Roman Numerals I-X
>:|
>:|What do you think the 10 numbers are for? The fact that it is not
>:|spelled out does not dimminish the religious source...correct?
(1) What is on the door is part of the over all theme of ALL OF THE ARTWORK
there. TRANSLATION: What is on those oak doors is of no more or no less
importance than any other portion of the artwork that displays that theme.
(2) They are not the ten Commandments, are they?
They are Roman Numerals I-X No commandments, no words.
Remember, what I said was:
The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
United States Supreme Court Building.
There are blanks tablets, symbols of ancient laws, ancient laws of a
variety of cultures, There are tablets shown with Roman Numerals but no
actual wording.
Therefore, the Ten Commandments, i.e. Roman Numerals I-X with the actual
Commandments written out, which ever version one wants to use, the Jewish,
or Catholic, or Protestant, does not appear in the USSC building.
Mosaic Law is represented along with all the other sources of law that led
to that evolution from the beginnings to the present.
Mosaic law is not given historical importance that it never had in the
creation of American law. and that is the secret of the formula. That is
the secret that makes the symbolical depiction of Mosaic law proper in a
court setting.
>:|>See pics I took in March 1997
>:|>Entire door
>:|>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
>:|>
>:|>Close up of door
>:|>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
>:|>
>:|> (b) Moses is depicted holding a single tablet on the south wall
>:|>frieze. This tablet appears to have Roman numerals on it. it is only
>:|>partially shown as the figure of Moses covers much of it.
>:|
>:|Giving a specific religious source.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
The Courtroom Friezes: The South Wall
Cass Gilbert (1867-1934), architect of the Supreme Court building
(constructed between 1929 and 1935) selected Adolph A. Weinman (1870-1952),
one of the most respected and accomplished Beaux-Arts architectural
sculptors of the period, to design the friezes for the Courtroom during
1931 and 1932. Weinman's training emphasized a correlation between the
sculptural subject and the function of the building and, because of this,
Gilbert relied on him to choose the subjects and figures that best
reflected the function of the Supreme Court building. Faithful to classical
sources, Weinman designed for the Courtroom friezes a procession of "great
lawgivers of history," from many civilizations, to portray the development
of secular law. The procession of lawgivers begins on the south wall frieze
and continues on the north wall. The east and west wall sculptural groups
are representations of Majesty of Law and Justice.
On the south wall frieze, in chronological order, Weinman depicted, in
larger than life size, nine ancient lawgivers.
Menes the uniter and ruler of Egypt, lived around 3200 BC and is
considered the earliest lawgiver.
Hammurabi (c 2250 BC), founder of the Babylonian empire, is known as
the author of a famous law code. Known as the Code of Hammurabi, it
encompasses decisions involving crime, family and property which were used
by the courts of Babylonia.
Moses was the lawgiver of the Israelites. His Mosaic Law, which is
based on the tablets of Hebraic law, or the Ten Commandments, determined
the criminal code and liturgical law.
Solomon (c 992-953 BC), the king of Israel, was also a royal judge. His
name, meaning "figure of the wise man," has become synonymous with
"judicial wisdom."
Lycurgus (c 800 BC), a legislator in Sparta, reformed its constitution.
Solon (c 638-559 BC), a lawgiver in Athens, codified the laws of the
Greeks in order to move towards a more democratic form of government.
Drace (late 600s BC), a legislator in Athens, was the first to commit
an Athenian code of laws to paper and included many death penalty offenses
in this code. As a result, the word draconian has become synonymous with
harshness.
Confucius (551-478 BC), a great Chinese lawgiver, was the Chief Justice
of China circa 500 BC. He is best known for the creation of Confucianism, a
moral system that produced a comprehensive system for government.
Octavian (or Augustus) (63 BC-14 AD), the first emperor of Rome, was
Julius Caesar's grandnephew. Octavian began the principle of precedence,
enabling judges to follow the decisions of former cases when determining a
case.
The groups of allegorical figures on either end of the frieze represent
"History" on the left and "Fame" on the right. The winged figures near the
center symbolize "Authority" and "Light of Wisdom."
>:|> (c)Moses is positioned in the center of the east Pediment sitting
>:|>with two other famous lawgivers standing on each side of him. he is holding
>:|>two stone tablets one resting on each thigh. The tablets are blank
>:|>(Source: Descriptions of the friezes in the Courtroom of
>:|>the Supreme Court of the United States and of the east and west Pediments
>:|>of the Building Exterior, an official publication sent out by the curators
>:|>office, Supreme Court Building, Washington D C)
>:|
>:|Exactly. You say it is acceptable since there are other lawgivers as
>:|well. You just admitted that Moses was one of the source lawgivers.
I am beginning to serioulsy question if you are capaable or rwdign or
understranding that which you read.
Your comments indicate you have a serious problem in this arwa.
You like to select and forget. Select somethign you think might be twisted
and spun into what you want it to mean while forgettign and ignoring all
that says you are full of sh*t.
>:|> (d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
>:|>are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
>:|>there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
>:|
>:|You just admitted that Moses's statue is acceptable, even though
>:|representing a religious source, because it is representing secular
>:|law. Therefore, Moses is a source of Secular law. Therefore, you
>:|agree. Thank you.
LOL.
Very cute and very sad at the same time.
Do you always have to plant and twist to make your flawed point appear to
have some merit.
Let me point out to you once more:
All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
All of that artwork cames as a package protraying that theme, that hisotry
that evolutuion of law from its frequently religious foundations to its
secular.
For anyone to point to one aspect, such as Mosaic Law
and try to elevate it to some special importance so they can try to sneak
God/Christianity, into our secular government (something they have been
tryign to do without success since 1787), where the founders of this nation
were very careful to make certain it didn't exist just shows how desparate
they are.
Moses is part of that theme, one part, with no more or less importance than
any of the other figures that are depicted.
The roots of American Law is not and never was the Ten Commandments.
The debates that took place during the framing period centered on ancient
Republics, Greek and Roman cultures. I would ask you to show me any
historical record that shows that the ten Commandments were referenced a
sigle stime during those debates or ancient Israel was referenced.
>:|>The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
>:|>examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
>:|>representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
>:|>placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of secular law
>:|>throughout history.
>:|>
>:|>Now, even though the Ten Commandments do not really appear anywhere in or
>:|>on the Supreme Court building artwork (blank tablets, Roman Numerals),
>:|>advocates of public placement of said commandments constantly refer to the
>:|>Supreme Court as their source for precedence for public placement of the
>:|>Ten Commandments.
>:|
>:|
>:|Therefore, as you are saying, a monument to the Ten Commandments is
>:|acceptable if given as a source of secular law. You are defeating
>:|your own arguement.
I am making you look as pitiful as you are. Look at all the inforamtion
that you are afraid to mention, look at all the references that you are
hiding from.
Here is just some you have tried to pretend doesn't exist: (all of which
would have been found in the URLs I offered)
Moses and the 10 Commandments are featured prominently in the
Supreme Court Building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm
Where do Moses and the 10 Commandments appear in the Supreme Court
building?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm
The Supreme Court Building Commission deferred to the artists of
the Supreme Court in making decisions.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8b.htm
A critique of Catherine Millard's interpretation of the artistic
embellishment of the Supreme Court building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8c.htm
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg9.htm
Did Madison ever say that our future is staked on the 10
commandments?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq1.htm
Did Madison ever say that religion is the foundation of government?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq2.htm
* Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
Government
http://candst.tripod.com/madlib.htm
Did Montesquieu base his theory of separation of powers on the
Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/montesquieu.htm
>:|> **************************************
>:|>
>:|>(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
>:|>and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the "Ten Commandments"
>:|>representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
>:|
>:|What formula would that be? You may not give Ten Commandments in text
>:|form but you may post a monument to the religious source?
It was given, but is obvioulsy far over your head thus you are unable to
comprehend it.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
>:|
>:|> > >(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in
>:|> > > the United States Supreme Court Building.
>:|
>:|> > I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
>:|> > Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
>:|> > the Ten Commandments.
>:|
>:|> It's not a monument, it is a mural. Here is a description found on a
>:|> website:
>:|
>:|> "In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building, the Ten
>:|> Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held by Moses sitting
>:|> amongst many other historical lawgivers. "
>:|
>:|No fair. You didn't give a citation.
>:|
>:|But in the decision of the Moore case, Judge Thompson has written:
>:|
>:|<http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf>
SHOW AND TELL TIME: (grin)
>:|<<... In each of these displays, the Ten Commandments
>:|are situated in a secular context and the secular nature of the
>:|display is apparent and dominant.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
*************************************
>:|In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building,
>:|the Ten Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held
>:|by Moses sitting amongst many other historical lawgivers.
I see they have a made a change in the online version versus the booklet
that we received from them in 96 or 97
I don't know which of the two versions, the one from the printed booklet:
In the frieze located directly above the Bench, on the East wall, two
male figures in the center represent "Majesty of Law" and "Power of
Government." The tablet between them symbolizes early written laws. The
allegorical figures on either side symbolize "Wisdom" and "Justice."
Grouped on the right side are figures that, according to sculptor Weinman,
embody the "Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their
pursuit of Happiness," while those on the left side depict "The Defense of
Human Rights and Protection of Innocence."
or this from the website at
www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf:
The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on
two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of
Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet
between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also
known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either
side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on
the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the
Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of
Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and
Protection of Innocence.
actually best represents what the letter from Weinman to Gilbert says.
The booklet version that we received back in the 90s gave a little more
support to those who claimed it represented the 10 Commandments since it
depicted Roman Numerals I-X and the BORs was not numbered that way as
originally written
Originally it was Article the First, Article the Second, through Article
the twelfth Now they are called Amendment I through Amendment X At any rate
the online version is more secular leaning than the booklet sent out in the
90s The booklet version of ancient laws symbolized how ancient laws were
originally written. Perhaps not on stone tablets, per se, but scrolls,
parchment, etc. Thus, the depiction could symbolize all ancient laws or
just the 10 Commandments. Nothing in the Supreme Court building highlights
the 10 Commandments for special attention, etc.
Some Additional Comments with Regards to the Ten Commandments and the
United States Supreme Court Building
The East Pediment is another target that the other side likes to use. In
the very center are three figures which are suppose to be Moses Confucius
and Solon. Of the three Moses is standing in the center and appears to
stand out to the forefront of the other two. Well to the other side this is
super important, for they claim it places Moses, who is depicted holding
two tablets which they claim is Ten Commandments as being the all important
person/figure. etc. BTW Moses is sitting while the other two stand one on
either side of him.
What they don't tell you is this: The tablets are totally blank, not even
Roman numerals; but since it is Moses, all one call say is "What else would
he be carryng?" (Grocery list?) Ok, I can buy that; but neither do they
point out that he is holding a tablet in each arm, with the bottom of each
tablet resting on the thigh of each leg, and it is for that reason and only
for that reason that he appears to be out ahead of the other two figures.
In short, the artist did not place Moses in any position that would appear
to make him more important than the other two because he felt he was more
important. The Composition of the whole work required it to be that way
because of the way he depicted the tablets. BTW both Confucious and Solon
are also carrying tablets, but they are carrying them in one arm and is the
outside arm in relation to the center of the work.
So we have Moses sitting in the center holding TWO blank tablets one on
each side of him, and the other two fellows standing on either side of him
each holding ONE tablet but holding it in the arm farthest from the figure
is the center.
It is the fact that the two tablets that the center figure is holding and
they come out in front of the other two figures that the center figure
appears to be sitting in front of the other two figures, and they appear to
be behind him.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
****************************************
>:|The
>:|Commandments displayed on the door to the Supreme Court's
>:|courtroom are so small as to be almost unnoticeable, are among
>:|many other decorations such as a lion's head and a head of
>:|wheat, and are simply two tablets containing the Roman numerals
>:|I through X.>>
See pics I took in March 1997
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
***************************************
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|>> I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
>:|>> Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
>:|>> the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
>:|>> religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
>:|>> one.
>:|>
>:|>With which version of the 10K? And what is the "SPECIFIC religious source
>:|>of the commandments" ?
>:|
>:|Yes. I'd like him to go to the USSC building and quote for us the text of the
>:|commandments which appear in the building and just how meaningful that text is.
>:|
>:|
>:|Here, I'll even quote the text which is used on the US Supreme Court display.
>:|
>:|I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
>:|
>:|Impressive, isn't it??
>:|
LOL yes very. I am soooooo inspired
Carol Lee Smith
> <Likewise, I know of no grounds upon which a chaplain of Wicca, a chaplain
> <of Satan or a chaplain of Athena may be refused.
> <Do you?
> Does the purple Multi-Mammary Oneness have "chaplains" per se? Or what?
she handles requests personally. however, she has never been allowed to
appear due to strictures against appearing topless in public.
;-(
Cary Kittrell
<net.com!c03.atl99!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!feed3.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!news.athenanews.com!not-for-mail
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:2363551 alt.politics.usa.constitution:270263 alt.education:68212 alt.religion.christian:1142024 alt.society.liberalism:1192462 alt.politics.usa.republican:1941094
<
<On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:21:56 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
<<hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
<
<>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
<>
<>> >(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
<>
<>> I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
<>> Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
<>> the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
<>> religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
<>> one.
<>
<>With which version of the 10K? And what is the "SPECIFIC religious source
<>of the commandments" ?
<
<Moses coming down the mountain..duh. Catch up with the conversation.
<
OK, now think... (you don't want Carol to look like more of a
scholar of the Bible than you)
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<news.athenanews.com!not-for-mail
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:2363550 alt.politics.usa.constitution:270262 alt.education:68211 alt.religion.christian:1142023 alt.society.liberalism:1192461 alt.politics.usa.republican:1941093
<
<I guess if your side were to get what they want, they would ban the
<government from saying Allah, ever, since it is related to a single
<religion, just as they want to do with the name Jesus.
<
<
Depends on the context, as always.
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
<er.com!news.athenanews.com!not-for-mail
<Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:2363560 alt.politics.usa.constitution:270265 alt.education:68214 alt.religion.christian:1142026 alt.society.liberalism:1192466 alt.politics.usa.republican:1941099
<
<On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:40:56 -0400, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
<
<>
<>Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
<>stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
<>separationist that post in these threads as well
<>
<>SOME FACTS:
<>(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
<
<It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
<Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
<
If they did as you say, why can't I be thrown in jail for worshipping
my ancestors? Fined for having photographs on my walls? Forced
to do public service for looking enviously at my neighbor's lawn
tractor? Executed for mowing my own lawn of Sunday, or for
mouthing off to my folks?
-- cary
Cary Kittrell
Go north, young Goddess. The wily Canadians have made that legal.
-- cary
Bob LeChevalier
>On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:40:56 -0400, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>>Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
>>stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
>>separationist that post in these threads as well
>>
>>SOME FACTS:
>>(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
>
>It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
>Commandments.
They probably also believed Newton's Law of Gravitation. I don't see
any laws enshrining gravity.
>They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
Except that they didn't. There are no laws against coveting, cussing,
disrespecting your parents, lying, nor even adultery
>>(2) The roots of American law come from a variety of sources:
>>
>> (a)Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
>> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
>>
>> (b) Roots of American Law
>> http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
>
>That is a documentary history. What about the beliefs of those that
>wrote the laws?
Those beliefs are obviously not what you think they are, or else they
aren't represented in the laws.
>>(3) The Ten Commandments are not the foundation, not the model, not linked
>>to
>> (a) The Declaration of Independence
>> (b) The Articles of Confederation
>> (c) Northwest Ordinance
>> (d) Constitution
>> (e) Bill of Rights
>
>In fact, 90 percent or more of those that wrote those documents were
>Christians that believed the Bible to be true.
There is no evidence of that. There is considerable evidence to the
contrary in the writings of Jefferson.
>>(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
>>United States Supreme Court Building.
>
>I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
>Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
>the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
>religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
>one.
No it doesn't.
>>(5) What does appear in the USSC Building is the following:
>>
>> (a) On the bottom half of each of the wooden doors leading into the
>>court room there a item of artwork that depicts two stone tablets.
>>The tablets do not show any writing but do contain the Roman Numerals I-X
>
>What do you think the 10 numbers are for? The fact that it is not
>spelled out does not dimminish the religious source...correct?
It leaves it up to interpretation, nor does it reference any religious
source.
>> (b) Moses is depicted holding a single tablet on the south wall
>>frieze. This tablet appears to have Roman numerals on it. it is only
>>partially shown as the figure of Moses covers much of it.
>
>Giving a specific religious source.
What source is that? A guy with a robe and some stone tablets. It
doesn't even have the name "Moses".
>Exactly. You say it is acceptable since there are other lawgivers as
>well. You just admitted that Moses was one of the source lawgivers.
Not of our laws, but of some laws. (And note that it is Moses that is
honored, and not God).
>> (d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
>>are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
>>there have the function of portraying the development of secular law.
>
>You just admitted that Moses's statue is acceptable, even though
>representing a religious source,
Not a religious source. No one prays to statues of Moses.
>because it is representing secular
>law. Therefore, Moses is a source of Secular law.
No. He is a figure in the development of secular law. Just as church
schools are part of the ancient history of secular education.
>>Now, even though the Ten Commandments do not really appear anywhere in or
>>on the Supreme Court building artwork (blank tablets, Roman Numerals),
>>advocates of public placement of said commandments constantly refer to the
>>Supreme Court as their source for precedence for public placement of the
>>Ten Commandments.
>
>Therefore, as you are saying, a monument to the Ten Commandments is
>acceptable if given as a source of secular law. You are defeating
>your own arguement.
Note the phrase "a source". There have to be other sources.
>>(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
>>and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the "Ten Commandments"
>>representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
>
>What formula would that be? You may not give Ten Commandments in text
>form but you may post a monument to the religious source?
Read the decisions, idiot. The rules have been cited.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>>The formula is showing various forms of older lawgiving instances up till
>>the present day US secular law.
>>It is not blatantly praising any religion or tanking any single source for
>>everything it has contributed to the current justice system.
>>
>monument of Moses coming off the mountain holding the Ten
>Commandments. That is Judaism..right?
No. Judaism evolved after the Babylonian exile.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:21:56 -0500, Carol Lee Smith
><hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, K C wrote:
>>
>>> >(4) The Ten Commandments, as such, per se, DO NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE in the
>>
>>> I'll go one step in the opposite direction from you. At the Supreme
>>> Court, they have a monument with Moses coming down the mountain with
>>> the Ten Commandments. Not only is that there, but it gives a SPECIFIC
>>> religious source of the commandments, instead of a general tradition
>>> one.
>>
>>With which version of the 10K? And what is the "SPECIFIC religious source
>>of the commandments" ?
>
>Moses coming down the mountain..duh. Catch up with the conversation.
That ISN'T a religious source. That is a legendary historical source.
Carol Lee Smith
> >They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
> Except that they didn't. There are no laws against coveting, cussing,
> disrespecting your parents, lying, nor even adultery
Well, none against adultery which are enforceable.
Adultery fobidden by the Wisconsin State Statutes.
> >>frieze. This tablet appears to have Roman numerals on it. it is only
> >>partially shown as the figure of Moses covers much of it.
> >Giving a specific religious source.
> What source is that? A guy with a robe and some stone tablets. It
> doesn't even have the name "Moses".
<snip>
> >What formula would that be? You may not give Ten Commandments in text
> >form but you may post a monument to the religious source?
> Read the decisions, idiot. The rules have been cited.
If I had a nickel for everytime someone had recommended reading the
decision, I could take a vacation in sunny Mexico.
Daniel Kolle
>It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
>Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
Hah!
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
Dave
> kan...@hotmail.com (K C) writes:
> <bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
> <>
> <>Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
> <>stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
> <>separationist that post in these threads as well
> <>
> <>SOME FACTS:
> <>(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
> <
> <It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
> <Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
>
> If they did as you say, why can't I be thrown in jail for worshipping
> my ancestors? Fined for having photographs on my walls? Forced
> to do public service for looking enviously at my neighbor's lawn
> tractor? Executed for mowing my own lawn of Sunday, or for
> mouthing off to my folks?
images of Moses, which thus ignores Commandment #2, and also includes
graven images of Muhammad (pox be upon him), an image which Islam
strictly forbids. It is also nice to see Moses standing in a line of
dull personages looking like just one more forlorn joker. Not
surprising that the fundies keep cropping the photos to make Moses
seem more important. It is rather sad that on the East Pediment (back
entrance) of the Supreme Court building the image of Moses is indeed
central and slightly larger than the other figures, although he does
not seem very much larger, and of course the building was only
constructed in the 1930's.
http://architecture.about.com/library/blgilbertsupremecourt.htm
Roger
news:bjtg7b$baf$1...@oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
And I'm sure it's taken avantage of regularly.
>
>
> -- cary
Roger
news:vm45p0j...@corp.supernews.com...
He read it somewhere. He's not too bright. He's just flailing around looking
for a justification for his beliefs. He thinks government sanction would
make it okay, or so it seems.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|I think it is VERY blatently mentioning a religious system in having a
>:|monument of Moses coming off the mountain holding the Ten
>:|Commandments.
Coming off the mountain, huh?
You have mentioned this several times but you have yet to document any such
thing exists.
Are you talking about some painting hanging somewhere?
I can tell you right now that there is no depiction of Moses in the actual
artwork of the building that shows any mountain around him, that shows him
walking down any mountain, show him standing on a level plain with a
mountain in the background. NONE, ZILCH, NADA.
So you have a problem here, you keep mentioning something that doesn't
exist.
>:|That is Judaism..right?
Now you have another problem.
Cultures existed before Moses was born and they existed after he died.
Now here is a short brief history lesson, pay attention to it, it's
important and there will a test afterwards to test your ability to
understand anything.
The Timetable of World Legal History
* 2350 BC: Urukagina's Code
* 2050 BC: Ur-Nammu's Code
* 1850 BC: The Earliest Known Legal Decision
* 1700 BC: Hammurabi's Code
* 1300 BC: The Ten Commandments
* 1280 BC: The Laws of Manu
* 621 BC: Draco's Law
* 600 BC: Lycergus' Law
* 550 BC: Solon's Laws
* 536 BC: The Book of Punishments
* 450 BC: The Twelve Tables
* 350 BC: The Chinese Code of Li k'vei
* 399 BC: The Trial of Socrates
* 529 AD: Justinian's Code
* 604 AD: The Seventeen Article Constitution of Japan
* 653 AD: T'ang Code
* 1215 AD: Magna Carta
* 1689 AD: The English Bill of Rights
* 1740 AD: South Carolina Slave Code
* 1765 AD: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
* 1787 AD: The Constitution of the United States of America
* 1788 AD: Through the Operation of Penal Law, A Country Is Formed
* 1791 AD: The American Bill of Rights
* 1803 AD: Marbury versus Madison
* 1804 AD: Napoleonic Code
* 1864 AD: The Geneva Convention
* 1865 AD: The Thirteenth Amendment
* 1945-46 AD: The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial
The selections begin at the ancient beginnings, providing excerpts from
law codes of the early societies of Sumer and Babylonia. Note that both are
codifications of laws which had already been in effect, presumably, for a
long time. The Code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin dates from around 1850 BC, and
the Code of Hammurabi from around 1780 BC Jewish law, as embodied in the
Mosaic Code, dates from the 13th century BC.
Considerations of space permitted this volume to devote an all too
brief span of pages to the vitally important Greco-Roman contribution to
the development of Western law. By the seventh century BC, it is believed,
most of the Greek city-states possessed written law codes, attributed
either to a ruler or to a commissioned compiler. The Athenian politician
Drakon (also Draco or Dracon; fl. 621 BC) is famous as a law codifier,
Another noted Greek lawgiver, Solon (c. 639-c. 559 BC) reformed the
Athenian law system around 594 BC.
*********************************
The above is just a shortened version that appears here
b) Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
*********************************
Now, what the above portrays is that law began before Moses, and due to
such things as trading, exploring, conquests, etc, laws and culture from
one society mixed and mingled with laws and cultures of other cultures.
I understand that there is a book that says that this man went up on this
mountain and while there received this legal code from some non-physical
source. The implication is that none of this code had ever existed anywhere
on the face of this earth before.
You have every right to belief that if you want. but you can never prove it
to be true.
The fact of the matter is five or six of the "Ten Commandments" are not
particularly unique, not particularly original and the religious
commandments among them had no and have no place in American law.
The real problem you people have it in showing that any of the "Ten
Commandments" contributed to the development of law that followed it and
ultimately American Law.
Mosaic Law contributed to or has aspects borrowed from it, just as it was
contributed to and it borrowed from elsewhere in its development.
However, Mosaic Law is more than just the "Ten Commandments."
Rather than creating some sort of sculpture that could possibly show 600+
laws that were the Mosaic Law, it was far easier to create something that
symbolically stood for that 600+ Mosaic Law. That is what the "Ten
Commandments" do.
American law is the product of the development and evolution of law from
the very earliest forms of law, a thousand or more years before Moses,
though the entire spectrum of cultures and societies that existed from that
earliest time to the present.
NO ON CULTURE, SOCIETY, CIVILIZATION is alone responsible for American Law
and that is the message of the artwork that is found in the USSC building.
Neither the "Ten Commandments" nor the Mosaic Law they represent is anymore
that roots of American Law than any of the other cultures, societies, etc.
>:|If that is ok, since it is
>:|praising the source of the Ten Commandments and a religious one at
>:|that.
The artwork of the USSC Building is ok because it depicts the whole
spectrum of the development of law from the earliest known times to
* 1740 AD: South Carolina Slave Code
* 1765 AD: Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
* 1787 AD: The Constitution of the United States of America
* 1788 AD: Through the Operation of Penal Law, A Country Is Formed
* 1791 AD: The American Bill of Rights
* 1803 AD: Marbury versus Madison
* 1804 AD: Napoleonic Code
* 1864 AD: The Geneva Convention
* 1865 AD: The Thirteenth Amendment
* 1945-46 AD: The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial
The rest of your comment is pure bullshit. It doesn't even make sense.
Some sort of mad rambling from you.
>:|Why would the words be banned? Tell me, would it be illegal to
>:|say, "Thou shalt not kill" as a current law, just because it is found
>:|in the Ten Commandments. If not, then why would the Ten Commandments
>:|be banned. After all, we have statues of Rev Martin Luther King Jr
>:|and streets named after him. He was not written in the founding
>:|documents either, but he was an influence on our country. Since
>:|religion had an influence, why would it be correct to censor that
>:|foundation? Second, do you think monuments or streets named for MLK
>:|jr should be removed as they recognize a religious source?
>:|KC (author) troll, internet nut case
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:40:56 -0400, bucke...@nospam.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>
>:|>Let me set the record straight on a few points and misconceptions, some
>:|>stated over and over by the religious right types here and some stated by
>:|>separationist that post in these threads as well
>:|>
>:|>SOME FACTS:
>:|>(1) The Ten Commandments are not the basis of American Law.
>:|
>:|It's common logic. The people who formed our laws believed the Ten
>:|Commandments. They made laws to be consistant with their beliefs.
*************************************
Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
The Court Building
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf
The West Pediment
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/westpediment.pdf
The East Pediment
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
Courtroom Friezes: East and West Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
The Bronze Doors
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf
The Oak Doors leading into the courtroom
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
************************************
The US Supreme Court Building
http://architecture.about.com/library/blgilbertsupremecourt.htm
Biography of Cass Gilbert
Cass Gilbert - Skyscraper Pioneer born November 29, 1859 - died May 17,
1934
http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-gilbert.htm
Neoclassical Architecture
Neoclassical and Federalist and Idealist
http://architecture.about.com/cs/neoclassical/index.htm
History of the US Supreme Court
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm
In the decision of the Moore case, Judge Thompson has written:
************************************
COMMENTS BY ME
************************************
The story also refers to skirmishes in other states in which politicians
have tried or are trying to follow Moore's lead. Some have asked, "What's
so bad about what Moore has done?" That's somewhat like the legendary
question, "What is jazz?" If you have to ask, well, maybe you'll never get
it -- or maybe you'll never see it as I see it and as other people who
believe in the separation of church and state see it. I think a better
question is, Do I think there's a place for "The Ten Commandments" in a
court house or court room? My answer to that is "Yes, come to the Supreme
Court's main court room in the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul or go to
the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. and see for yourself."
Both buildings were designed by Minnesota's greatest architect, Cass
Gilbert. In Minnesota Gilbert assigned to John La Farge the task of
executing four huge paintings to fill lunettes inside the court room. La
Forge's paintings relate to the history or evolution of the law. One, in
the north lunette, depicts Confucius and three disciples recording
precedents. The one in the west lunette is of Socrates and his disciples
and is intended to depict, among other things, freedom of thought and
expression. The one in the south lunette relates to the Roman law; its
theme is the need for law to mediate the great antinomies or opposing
truths, such as freedom and order. The one in the east lunette, over the
bench where the justices sit, is of Moses receiving the moral and divine
law on Mt. Sinai. In the court room in Gilbert's U.S. Supreme Court
building are marble friezes depicting the great lawgivers of history
sculpted by Adolph Weinman. If you've ever possessed a 1916-45 Winged
Liberty or "Mercury" head dime, you've owned a piece of art created by
Weinman. The model for the 1913 bust on which the coin design is based was
Elsie Kachel Stevens, the wife of one of America's greatest poets, the
lawyer Wallace Stevens. Anyhow, in the court room friezes Weinman included
18 "lawgivers," specifically, Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus,
Solon, Draco, Confucius, Octavian, Napoleon Bonaparte, John Marshall,
Blackstone, Grotius, Louis IX, King John, Charlemagne, Muhammad and
Justinian. For more, see Joan Biskupic, Great Figures Gaze Upon the Court
Washington Post 03.11.1998.
EXCERPT FROM: BurtLaw's Court Gazing II BurtLaw.Com
- LawAndEverythingElse.Com - Copyright (c) 2001 Burton Randall Hanson
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id50.htm
************************************
SHOW AND TELL TIME:
The Fedral Distritct Court Ruling in Moore Ten Commandments Case
http://www.almd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Glassroth%20v%20Moore%20Opinion.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
>:|<<... In each of these displays, the Ten Commandments
>:|are situated in a secular context and the secular nature of the
>:|display is apparent and dominant.
SEE:
Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
>:|In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building,
>:|the Ten Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held
>:|by Moses sitting amongst many other historical lawgivers.
SEE:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
>:|The
>:|Commandments displayed on the door to the Supreme Court's
>:|courtroom are so small as to be almost unnoticeable, are among
>:|many other decorations such as a lion's head and a head of
>:|wheat, and are simply two tablets containing the Roman numerals
>:|I through X.>>
SEE:
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
***************************************
The roots of American law come from a variety of sources:
(a)Study Guide: The Roots of American Democracy
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/studygd8.htm
[This one contains a good many additional URLs as well.]
(b) Roots of American Law
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/histlaw.htm
****************************************
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS BY OTHERS
From: forl...@aol.commode (Lord Calvert)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Date: 12 Sep 2003 18:08:10 GMT
Subject: Re: 10 Com, USSC, Founding FACTS
Yes. I'd like him to go to the USSC building and quote for us the text of
the commandments which appear in the building and just how meaningful that
text is.
Here, I'll even quote the text which is used on the US Supreme Court
display.
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
Impressive, isn't it??
****************************************
From: gal...@hotmail.com (Dave)
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.religion.christian
Subject: Re: 10 Com, USSC, Founding FACTS
Date: 12 Sep 2003 21:51:00 -0700
I think it's nice that the U.S. Supreme Court building contains graven
images of Moses, which thus ignores Commandment #2, and also includes
graven images of Muhammad (pox be upon him), an image which Islam
strictly forbids. It is also nice to see Moses standing in a line of
dull personages looking like just one more forlorn joker. Not
surprising that the fundies keep cropping the photos to make Moses
seem more important. It is rather sad that on the East Pediment (back
entrance) of the Supreme Court building the image of Moses is indeed
central and slightly larger than the other figures, although he does
not seem very much larger, and of course the building was only
constructed in the 1930's.
http://architecture.about.com/library/blgilbertsupremecourt.htm
****************************************
I have to add a comment to the above.
I see they have a made a change in the online version versus the booklet
that we received from them in 96 or 97
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
I don't know which of the two versions, the one from the printed booklet:
In the frieze located directly above the Bench, on the East wall, two
male figures in the center represent "Majesty of Law" and "Power of
Government." The tablet between them symbolizes early written laws. The
allegorical figures on either side symbolize "Wisdom" and "Justice."
Grouped on the right side are figures that, according to sculptor Weinman,
embody the "Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their
pursuit of Happiness," while those on the left side depict "The Defense of
Human Rights and Protection of Innocence."
or this from the website at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on
two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of
Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet
between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also
known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either
side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on
the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the
Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of
Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and
Protection of Innocence.
actually best represents what the letter from Weinman to Gilbert says.
The booklet version that we received back in the mid 90s gave a little more
support to those who claimed it represented the 10 Commandments since it
depicted Roman Numerals I-X and the BORs was not numbered that way as
originally written
Originally the BORs was Article the First, Article the Second, through
Article the twelfth
****************************************
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:14:09 -0700
From: Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.education,alt.religion.christian,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: 10 Com, USSC, Founding FACTS
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> commenting on the south wall frieze in
the court room of the USSC building:
Among the other lawgivers are Hammurabi (god-king of Babylon), Confucius
(expounder of Confucianism) and Mohammad (founder of Islam.) I demand,
therefore, that all government placements of the 10 Commandments include
extracts of the Enuma Elish, the Analects, and the Koran.
Lycurgus, founder of the _polis_ of Sparta, is also depicted. Sparta
strongly encouraged homosexuality among its warriors and allowed men to
live with women and marry only after they retired from the miliary... at
the age of 50. Any presentation of the 10 Commandments must also
promote homosexuality and same sex marriage.
The frieze also includes Menes, the legendary founder of the Egyptian
empire, and Octavian, the first Emperor of Rome. Both were worshipped as
gods (as was Hammurabi, but I've already covered him.) All government
sponsored monuments proclaiming the 10 Commandments must therefore also
proclaim the godhood of the sitting President, and all citizens may be
required, at any time, to prove their loyalty by making sacrifice to the
President. Failure to do so will be taken as de facto proof of treason and
will be dealt with appropriately.
The problem is that Hugo Grotius, the Dutch scholar who wrote one of the
first books on international law, is also depicted. Having seen the
religious wars that had ravaged the Netherlands and which continued to
sweep through Europe, he was a very strong advocate against any and all
religious expression of government. Perhaps it would be best to prohibit
government display of the 10 Commandments altogether.
That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their representations)
are totally removed from their religious setting and placed in a accurate
and proper setting of the development of secular law throughout history.
**************************************
From: ca...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell)
Newsgroups:
alt.education,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,law.court.federal
Subject: Re: Today's Founder Quote: How far the Judiciary has come to annoy
the Constitution by its lack of 'seperaton'
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:39:54 +0000 (UTC)
. . . Everyone keeps repeating the claim that the Ten Commandments
form the basis of our Judicial system, but no one -- noooo one --
will reply to the following logical examination of this claim.
Here, let me try again and perhaps you'll be brave enough to step forward?
If the Ten Commandments historically underpin our legal system,
then we will perforce find them embodied in our laws. That would
seem particularly to be true of the First Commandment, which was
the only one Jesus singles out as necessary. So, can these
essential and absolutely fundamental principles of all American
jurisprudence actually be found embedded prominently in American laws?
If they are not, then the claim that they have led to our system of
laws is clearly bogus, however reassuring it may feel to repeat it.
You do not build a legal system on a certain foundation and then rip
out that foundation.
1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Do we outlaw worshipping other gods? If not, why not?
2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."
Is statuary a misdemeanor or perhaps a felony? If not, why not?
God clearly seems to think it should be.
3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"
Can I be fined for a "goddamit!" on hitting my thumb? If not,
then why does our legal system, founded on the Ten Commandments,
not mandate this?
4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
There are so-called Blue Laws still on the books, but
the Supreme Court has said they may stand only if they
are demonstrably there for secular, and not religious, reasons.
Needless to say, this rules out stoning, which God elsewhere
in the Bible clearly designates as the necessary penalty for
violation of this commandment.
5. "Honor thy father and thy mother."
The Bible makes clear that flouting this is a capital crime.
Is it a capital crime in our system? Is it a crime at all?
If not, then how does this underpin our legal system?
6. "Thou shalt not kill."
This one we do encapsulate. As does ever other, non-
Judeo-Christian culture. It's not specific to the
Ten Commandments, it's universal.
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
Are there still laws such as this on the books, or have
they all been repealed by now? In any event, our legal
system NEVER enforces this, except as grounds for divorce.
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
Check. We have this one. So does every other culture.
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Is lying a crime in our system of laws? It is, but only
in very limited circumstances, involving the police and
the courts. Everyday lying is not even a misdemeanor.
10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything that
is thy neighbor's."
Obviously there are now laws against coveting. If there were,
our entire consumer-based capitalilstic system would be in
serious jeopardy.
So here you have the ten that historically underlie our system
of laws. Or so it is claimed. Why, then, are only two of them
fully realized in our actual laws (the universal two), five of them
entirely absent -- including the most important one -- and the remaining
three weakly represented at best?
-- cary
**************************************
The Seven Lost Commandments
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/7lostcom.htm
**************************************
Rev. John Leland on the Ten Commandments, Judge Moore and other
related things
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/leland10.htm
Moses and the 10 Commandments are featured prominently in the
Supreme Court Building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8.htm
Where do Moses and the 10 Commandments appear in the Supreme Court
building?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8a.htm
The Supreme Court Building Commission deferred to the artists of
the Supreme Court in making decisions.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8b.htm
A critique of Catherine Millard's interpretation of the artistic
embellishment of the Supreme Court building.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg8c.htm
How often did the founders quote the Bible?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/arg9.htm
Did Madison ever say that our future is staked on the 10
commandments?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq1.htm
Did Madison ever say that religion is the foundation of government?
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq2.htm
Madison's Arguments Against Special Religious Sanction of American
K C
In fact, I think it furthers my point. Please, everyone, go check it
out. The document that cary provides shows that those in the freize
each have a religious heritage, from Sun God worship to Judaism.
K C
Moses entry at that PDF file that commandments 6-10 are visible on the
frieze. I think the fact that you censored it and posted incomplete
info here only shows you are not interested in the truth but your own
point-of-view. It's really irrelevant, since the whole display is
FILLED with religious people and is on a federal government building
(which is the point), but if you are not going to be honest in your
postings, I'm not going to waste my time debating you. You've already
made up your mind.
bucke...@nospam.net wrote in message news:<6ud4mv0lkkaurk81r...@4ax.com>...
Cary Kittrell
Well, no. You are claiming that Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon
were noted religious figures?
And what religions were founded or notably promoted by Hammurabi,
Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Octavian, Justinian, King John, Grotius, and Louis IX?
What all these have in common is that they are associated with important
judicial innovations or systems of law. None of them is there because of
whatever god he believed or did not believe (do you know what John's
religious views were? How about Hugo Grotius?)
-- cary
Carol Lee Smith
> <> A picture is worth a thousand words, so here's two thousand worth,
> <> thanks to Gregory Gadow:
> <> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
> <> I think one look at these and KC will have no further questions
> <> as to why Moses is acceptable in this context.
> <In fact, I think it furthers my point. Please, everyone, go check it
> <out. The document that cary provides shows that those in the freize
> <each have a religious heritage, from Sun God worship to Judaism.
> Well, no. You are claiming that Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon
> were noted religious figures?
> And what religions were founded or notably promoted by Hammurabi,
> Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Octavian, Justinian, King John, Grotius, and Louis IX?
> What all these have in common is that they are associated with important
> judicial innovations or systems of law. None of them is there because of
> whatever god he believed or did not believe (do you know what John's
> religious views were? How about Hugo Grotius?)
Hugues Grotius? Huig de Groot? Hugo Grotius?
The Humanist?
Yikes. Get out that jackhammer!!!!!!!!!!
;-)
<<One of the pioneering natural rights theorists of the late 16th and
early 17th centuries, Grotius defined natural law as a perceptive
judgement in which things are good or bad by their own nature. This was a
break from Calvinist ideals, in that God was no longer the only source of
ethical qualities. These things that are by themselves good are associated
with the nature of man. Grotius, of the humanist school of thought,
battled Calvinism all of his life. Within his struggle, he dealt with the
international laws of war and issues of peace and justice. Although most
famous for his theories of natural law, Grotius was also considered to be
a great theologian. While occasionally writing about Christianity and
religion, his intention for law was to write of it as independant of
religious opinions. ... >>
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/g/grotius-hugo_international-law.html
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|In fact, I think it furthers my point. Please, everyone, go check it
>:|out. The document that cary provides shows that those in the freize
>:|each have a religious heritage, from Sun God worship to Judaism.
>:|
>:|KC
Duh. remember the theme
excerpts from the following URL [EMPHASIS ADDED]
http://snurl.com/2c1i
(d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
there have the function of portraying the development of SECULAR LAW.
The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of SECULAR LAW
throughout history.
(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the symbolic "Ten
Commandments" representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
The correct formula is simple. The laws of ancient Israel and this includes
the Ten Commandments, do occupy a shelf in the bookcase of the history of
law. When the Ten Commandments are included in a display of the type that
shows that over all development of SECULAR LAW, they are perfectly
acceptable.
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Your intent to deceive is clearly seen in that you censored from the
>:|Moses entry at that PDF file that commandments 6-10 are visible on the
>:|frieze.
LOL, you are desperate aren't you?
I censored? You're full of shit.
>:| I think the fact that you censored it and posted incomplete
>:|info here only shows you are not interested in the truth but your own
>:|point-of-view.
Well dippy, since there was no censoring you're entire premise falls flat
on it's face and you are loft with egg on your face again.
BTW sonny, would you kindly read whatever Ten Commandments that you can
find anywhere in the artwork of the USSC building.
I can save you the trouble, the very best you can do is to read I, II, III,
IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X.
Aren't those words very inspiring? LOL
>:|It's really irrelevant, since the whole display is
>:|FILLED with religious people and is on a federal government building
>:|(which is the point),
THE POINT IS:
excerpts from the following URl [EMPHASIS ADDED]
http://snurl.com/2c1i
(d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
there have the function of portraying the development of SECULAR LAW.
The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of SECULAR LAW
throughout history.
(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the symbolic "Ten
Commandments" representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
The correct formula is simple. The laws of ancient Israel and this includes
the Ten Commandments, do occupy a shelf in the bookcase of the history of
law. When the Ten Commandments are included in a display of the type that
shows that over all development of SECULAR LAW, they are perfectly
acceptable.
>:|but if you are not going to be honest in your
>:|postings, I'm not going to waste my time debating you. You've already
>:|made up your mind.
LOL chicken shit.
You aren't going to respond because you don't have the resources and
knowledge to respond and you are getting your ass kicked.
However, it doesn't mater if you respond or not, I can respond to you in
all those newsgroups. Gee, more and more people will get to see how biased,
and uninformed you really are.
You not replying is defaulting, that's fine.
THE COMPLETE TEN COMMANDMENTS WITH REGARDS
TO THE ARTWORK OF THE USSC BUILDING, ETC.
*************************************
Supreme Court of the United States
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
The Court Building
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf
The West Pediment
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/westpediment.pdf
The East Pediment
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
Courtroom Friezes: East and West Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
The Bronze Doors
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/bronzedoors.pdf
The Oak Doors leading into the courtroom
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
************************************
The US Supreme Court Building
http://architecture.about.com/library/blgilbertsupremecourt.htm
Biography of Cass Gilbert
Cass Gilbert - Skyscraper Pioneer born November 29, 1859 - died May 17,
1934
http://architecture.about.com/library/bl-gilbert.htm
Neoclassical Architecture
Neoclassical and Federalist and Idealist
http://architecture.about.com/cs/neoclassical/index.htm
History of the US Supreme Court
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa081400a.htm
In the decision of the Moore case, Judge Thompson has written:
************************************
COMMENTS BY ME
excerpts from the following URl [EMPHASIS ADDED]
http://snurl.com/2c1i
(d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
there have the function of portraying the development of SECULAR LAW.
The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of SECULAR LAW
throughout history.
(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the symbolic "Ten
Commandments" representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
The correct formula is simple. The laws of ancient Israel and this includes
the Ten Commandments, do occupy a shelf in the bookcase of the history of
law. When the Ten Commandments are included in a display of the type that
shows that over all development of SECULAR LAW, they are perfectly
acceptable.
[other comments by me]
http://snurl.com/2c1j
[Judge Thompson]
>:|<<... In each of these displays, the Ten Commandments
>:|are situated in a secular context and the secular nature of the
>:|display is apparent and dominant.
SEE:
Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
>:|In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building,
>:|the Ten Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held
>:|by Moses sitting amongst many other historical lawgivers.
SEE:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
>:|The
>:|Commandments displayed on the door to the Supreme Court's
>:|courtroom are so small as to be almost unnoticeable, are among
>:|many other decorations such as a lion's head and a head of
>:|wheat, and are simply two tablets containing the Roman numerals
>:|I through X.>>
SEE:
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
***************************************
Impressive, isn't it??
I see they have a made a change in the online version versus the booklet
that we received from them in 96 or 97
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
I don't know which of the two versions, the one from the printed booklet:
In the frieze located directly above the Bench, on the East wall, two
male figures in the center represent "Majesty of Law" and "Power of
Government." The tablet between them symbolizes early written laws. The
allegorical figures on either side symbolize "Wisdom" and "Justice."
Grouped on the right side are figures that, according to sculptor Weinman,
embody the "Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their
pursuit of Happiness," while those on the left side depict "The Defense of
Human Rights and Protection of Innocence."
or this from the website at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on
two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of
Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet
between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also
known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either
side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on
the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the
Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of
Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and
Protection of Innocence.
actually best represents what the letter from Weinman to Gilbert says.
The booklet version that we received back in the mid 90s gave a little more
support to those who claimed it represented the 10 Commandments since it
depicted Roman Numerals I-X and the BORs was not numbered that way as
originally written
Originally the BORs was Article the First, Article the Second, through
Article the twelfth
****************************************
That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their representations)
are totally removed from their religious setting and placed in a accurate
bucke...@nospam.net
>:|Your intent to deceive is clearly seen in that you censored from the
>:|Moses entry at that PDF file that commandments 6-10 are visible on the
>:|frieze.
LOL, you are desperate aren't you?
I censored? You're full of shit.
>:| I think the fact that you censored it and posted incomplete
>:|info here only shows you are not interested in the truth but your own
>:|point-of-view.
Well dippy, since there was no censoring you're entire premise falls flat
on it's face and you are loft with egg on your face again.
BTW sonny, would you kindly read whatever Ten Commandments that you can
find anywhere in the artwork of the USSC building.
I can save you the trouble, the very best you can do is to read I, II, III,
IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X.
Aren't those words very inspiring? LOL
>:|It's really irrelevant, since the whole display is
>:|FILLED with religious people and is on a federal government building
>:|(which is the point),
THE POINT IS:
excerpts from the following URl [EMPHASIS ADDED]
http://snurl.com/2c1i
(d) All of the artwork in and on the outside of the USSC building
are part of a central theme. That theme is: The designs, artwork, etc,
there have the function of portraying the development of SECULAR LAW.
The Mosaic Law was a part of that development. along with all the other
examples given. That is the entire point, the Ten Commandments (their
representations) are totally removed from their religious setting and
placed in a accurate and proper setting of the development of SECULAR LAW
throughout history.
(6) There is a certain formula that is depicted by the artwork found inside
and one the outside of the USSC building that makes the symbolic "Ten
Commandments" representation that can be found there to be acceptable.
The correct formula is simple. The laws of ancient Israel and this includes
the Ten Commandments, do occupy a shelf in the bookcase of the history of
law. When the Ten Commandments are included in a display of the type that
shows that over all development of SECULAR LAW, they are perfectly
acceptable.
>:|but if you are not going to be honest in your
>:|postings, I'm not going to waste my time debating you. You've already
>:|made up your mind.
LOL chicken shit.
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
************************************
************************************
COMMENTS BY ME
[Judge Thompson]
>:|<<... In each of these displays, the Ten Commandments
>:|are situated in a secular context and the secular nature of the
>:|display is apparent and dominant.
SEE:
Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/north&southwalls.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
>:|In a mural on the United States Supreme Court building,
>:|the Ten Commandments are displayed as two blank tablets, held
>:|by Moses sitting amongst many other historical lawgivers.
SEE:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/eastpediment.pdf
[Judge Thompson]
>:|The
>:|Commandments displayed on the door to the Supreme Court's
>:|courtroom are so small as to be almost unnoticeable, are among
>:|many other decorations such as a lion's head and a head of
>:|wheat, and are simply two tablets containing the Roman numerals
>:|I through X.>>
SEE:
Entire door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor.jpg
Close up of door
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/scdoor3.jpg
***************************************
Impressive, isn't it??
I see they have a made a change in the online version versus the booklet
that we received from them in 96 or 97
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
I don't know which of the two versions, the one from the printed booklet:
In the frieze located directly above the Bench, on the East wall, two
male figures in the center represent "Majesty of Law" and "Power of
Government." The tablet between them symbolizes early written laws. The
allegorical figures on either side symbolize "Wisdom" and "Justice."
Grouped on the right side are figures that, according to sculptor Weinman,
embody the "Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their
pursuit of Happiness," while those on the left side depict "The Defense of
Human Rights and Protection of Innocence."
or this from the website at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/east&westwalls.pdf
The East wall frieze is located directly above the Bench and focuses on
two male figures that represent the Majesty of Law and the Power of
Government. According to a letter from Weinman to Gilbert, the tablet
between them symbolizes the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also
known as the Bill of Rights. The allegorical figures standing on either
side of the central figures symbolize Wisdom, on the left, and Justice, on
the right. Weinman described the figures grouped to the right side as the
Safeguard of the Liberties and Rights of the People in their pursuit of
Happiness and those on the left side as The Defense of Human Rights and
Protection of Innocence.
actually best represents what the letter from Weinman to Gilbert says.
The booklet version that we received back in the mid 90s gave a little more
support to those who claimed it represented the 10 Commandments since it
depicted Roman Numerals I-X and the BORs was not numbered that way as
originally written
Originally the BORs was Article the First, Article the Second, through
Article the twelfth
****************************************