Why not make the 10 Commandments enforceable (and punishable) law?

[s2a]

[Note: This topic is primarily directed to the attentions of those that seek to impose/mandate the biblical Ten Commandments (either Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish versions) as requisite and visible testaments of dogmatic faith in the public arena. However, perspectives of all bents are invited to comment.]

Why shouldn't the biblical Ten Commandments be a part of the U.S. Code, and/or prospective State Law? If the 10 C's are (God's) "rules for living", then why not make them a part of foundational and enforceable legal jurisprudence? Should secular enumerated rights and pluralistic constitutional precepts be allowed to override mandated scriptural "Law"?

Is there an argument to be offered that any of the commandments are lesser in comparison to another? Is blasphemy any less a sin than disrespecting one's parents, or is perjury more (or less) acceptable than a lacking reverence for honoring a day of rest? Is secret envy of your neighbor's shiny new lawnmower a wage of sin punishable by death? Should it be? If not, why not? Shouldn't public stoning of sinners be brought back as righteous justice, as commanded? Should our society endure idolaters, witches, and blasphemers without any judicial consequence? Do priests and preachers "work" on Sundays? Are all convenience store and retail salespeople condemned to eternal damnation for punching a clock on the "The Lord's Day"? Should they be, or should a conscientious society seek to avert their sinful ways in defiance of (the Biblical) God's Commandments? Within a nation of nearly 85% self-professed "Christians", surely such willful defiance and manifest improbations are displeasing to a God of purposed blessing and bestowments, and counter to His most fundamental "rules for living".

So...if you earnestly believe and accept that God's Commandments are tantamount to all other laws (being either secular or pluralistic in nature), shouldn't it be incumbent upon you to argue and support the rationale of making ALL of God's Commandments enforceable (and righteously punishable) law today? Do (or should) foundational constitutional principles trump religious dogma in any way? Shouldn't violation of the Commandment stating that: "You shall have no other gods before [or besides] me" (Exodus 20:3 - NIV). How can any "true Christian" even abide the pluralistically deferential constitutional acceptance of all religions and faith-based beliefs as equally valid and legally protected under law?

Surely, none of God's Laws are subject to mitigation or amelioration in bland acceptability or righteous countenance? Or does God suggest that only He should dispense appropriate justice in the afterlife? If so, then whom does He especially empower - within this mortal realm - to righteously adjudicate guilt or innocence on His behalf?. Scripture does not allude to any concepts of a trial by jury of one's peers, much less of a self-governing republic that is free to establish it's own laws of enforceable conduct and behavior. If a democracy - inhabited by an overwhelming majority of self-ascribed Christian adherents - rejects their responsibility to insure universal compliance to God's Will and Commandments, then what purpose does personal piety and service to His Will ultimately serve?

Why should "God Bless America"? America permits His Word to be construed as a matter of singular personal choice amongst numerous "heretical" and (errantly?) constitutionally-protected faith-based beliefs.

[One may argue that Scripture suggests that believers "render unto Caesar what is his", but that refers to the collection of taxes and claims of personal ownership, not a forfeiture of individualistic choice nor of veritable faith. If a federalized Caesar were a Christian today, whom would He feed to the voracious lions of righteous justice; adjudicated by a dispensational jury of one's peers, or by empowered and scripturally enlightened priests? God Bless America?]
​

 

[retrorich]

Why not make the 10 Commandments enforceable (and punishable) law?

Don't give George W. Bush any bad ideas. He has enough already.

 

[Kaikatsu]

If you will excuse me for saying so, I don't believe the Commandments should be made law. That would be fine if everyone believed in the Commandments, but that simply is not the case.

Are you saying that everyone, no matter who they are, would be punished for breaking the Commandments, even if they didn't know about or believe in them?

I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. There are many people of different religions that might not even know what the Commandments are. Why should Taoists, Pagans, Agnostics, and Atheists have to fear punishments because of something they don't believe in?

I'm not saying that anyone should be excused from punishment. If they commit a crime, then they shouldn't get away with it. However if the Commandments were made - as you said - enforceable and punishable law, then I believe people would be needlessly head-hunting others, and that people of other religions would be needlessly punished.

Please excuse me for saying this, but if the Commandments were law, then what would stop racists, or people who have problems with other religions, claiming that a certain person broke the Commandments simply to get them punished?

I don't like to think that there are people like that in this world, but the truth is there are. There would be absolute chaos.

So I'm very sorry, but I don't agree with that at all.

 

[michel]

Well, let's examine them:

1. "I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."
   This commandment is to believe in the existence of God, that God exists for all time, that God is the sole creator of all that exists, that God determines the course of events in this world.
2. "Thou shall have no other gods besides Me... Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..." One is required to believe in God and God alone. This prohibits belief in or worship of any additional deities, gods, spirits or incarnations. To deny the uniqueness of God, is to deny all that is written in the Torah. It is also a prohibition against making or possessing objects that one or other may bow down to or serve, including any artistic representations of God or any sculpture of a human being. One must not bow down to or serve any being or object but God.
3. "Thou shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..." This commandment is to never take the name of God in a vain oath. This includes four types of prohibited oaths: an oath affirming as true a matter one knows to be false, an oath that affirms the patently obvious, an oath denying the truth of a matter one knows to be true, and an oath to perform an act that is beyond one's capabilities.
4. "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" thou is to declare of the greatness and the holiness of the Sabbath, and observe each Sabbath day, as God defined for the Jews during the Exodus. Each day of the Exodus, God provided food to the Jews to collect except on the Sabbath. Instead a double portion was provided the day before the Sabbath. One is enjoined from performing work on the Sabbath.
5. "thou shall honour your father and your mother..." The obligation to honor one's parents is an obligation that one owes to God and fulfills this obligation through one's actions towards one's parents. This commandment is an interesting development when compared to other laws of the Ancient East (for instance, the Code of Hammurabi) that do not call for equal respect of the father and the mother. Jewish sages note that the 5th commandment, on the border between commandments on relationship with God and those between humankind, is to "Honor your father and your mother...", and draw lessons from this that a person should respect parents (and by implication, elders) only somewhat less than one would God himself, and that parents should be moral guidance to a person as God is to society.
6. "Thou shall not murder" The Hebrew word ratsach, used in this commandment, is close to the word murder; kill is a mistranslation, but it does not translate directly to the word murder. While most uses of the word ratsach are in passages describing murder, in Proverbs 22:13 a lion ratsach a man to death, many argue since a lion cannot murder anyone, murder is a flawed translation as well. Also in Joshua 20:3, ratsach is used to describe death by negligence. A closer translation would be to kill in the manner of a predatory animal. Some Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which they hold to be a flawed interpretation, for there are circumstances in which one is required to kill, such as if killing is the only way to prevent one person from murdering another, or killing in self-defense. Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism does not dogmatically regard abortion as murder (c.f Ex. 21:22-23, and Rashi thereon), although Orthodox Judaism prohibits abortion in most circumstances based on several other prohibitions.
7. "Thou shall not commit adultery."
8. "Thou shall not steal." This is not understood as stealing in the conventional sense, since theft of property is forbidden elsewhere and is not a capital offense. It can mean "do not kidnap".
9. "Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" One must not bear false witness in a court of law or other proceeding. Lying is forbidden elsewhere and is not a capital offence.
10. "Thou shall not covet your neighbor's house..." One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. Maimonides makes a distinction in codifying the laws between the instruction given here in Exodus (You shall not covet) and that given in Deuteronomy (You shall not desire), according to which one does not violate the Exodus commandment unless there is a physical action associated with the desire, even if this is legally purchasing an envied object.

You could not apply the 10 Commandments per se.

The 1st commandment could not be applied; no atheist or agnostic could accept it. The same would apply to the 2nd, 3rd or 4th Commandments ; these four would be an infringement of the public's civil liberties. people need to work on the sabbath (doctors, nurses, firemen etc). What is more, you cannot force people to believe in God.


The fith commandment would be a good Social one that would reduce the Public's liability towards the elderly; I do honestly believe that we wash our hands of the elderly (certainly in the U.K). I looked after my Father after the death of my mother, and my Wife looks after her mother. Between us, we must have saved the state a lot of money, but it was our choice.

The sixth and eigth and 9th commandments are the law of the land anyway.

The 7th commandment would be uninforcable (and goodness knows we would not want to go back to the practices of some 3rd world countries where this law is applied).

The 10th commandment would stiffle the manufacturing industry, and retail.

 

[Valjean]

Why not institute sharia, or some other religious legal system?

Doesn't the Treaty of Tripoli states quite clearly that the United States is not a Christian nation.

 

[DakotaGypsy]

Good Gad! Which version of the Ten Commandments?

The ones cited by Michel is only one of countless versions.

Also known as the Decalogue, there appear to be two quite diverse versions of that (from Wikipedia):

The Ritual Decalogue is one of the two very different lists within the Torah that are known as the Decalogue or Ten Commandments (the name decalogue (δέκα λόγο&#953 merely means ten sayings). The Ritual Decalogue is the list of commandments in Exodus 34. As they concern points of ritual, rather than ethics, they are viewed as having minor significance compared to the Ethical Decalogue. Consequently, although the Ritual Decalogue appears in the text at the point where God inscribes the Ten Commandments into the two stone tablets, and it is they rather than the Ethical Decalogue which are identified as the Ten Commandments, it is the Ethical Decalogue which is commonly believed to be inscribed on the tablets.

Compared to the Ethical Decalogue, the Ritual Decalogue is clearer as to where one commandment ends and the next begins; and as the Ritual Decalogue is less important in most modern faiths, it is less divisive to enumerate its commandments. To paraphrase,

1. Worship no other god than Yahweh: Make no covenant with the inhabitants of other lands to which you go, do not intermarry with them, and destroy their places of worship.
2. Do not make molten idols.
3. Observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days in the month of Abib.
4. Sacrifice firstborn male animals to Yahweh. The firstborn of a donkey may be redeemed; redeem firstborn sons.
5. Do no work or even kindle a fire on the seventh day. Anyone who does so will be put to death.
6. Observe the Feast of First Fruits and the Feast of Ingathering: All males are therefore to appear before Yahweh three times each year.
7. Do not mix sacrificial blood with leavened bread.
8. Do not let the fat of offerings remain until the morning.
9. Bring the choicest first fruits of the harvest to the Temple of Yahweh.
10. Do not cook a goat in its mother's milk.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Ummm ... okay maybe I'm the only one going to bring this up....

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

You cannot dictate what people believe... it is un-Constitutional and it is completely against what the country's founded on.... that's why we LEFT England to begin with remember? :bonk:

 

[Draka]

I think we all realize that this is merely hypothetical, to bring out those who are adament about the 10 commandments being in public government places, to support them in their entirety. s2a is certainly not actually advocating making the 10 commandments laws to base out society on. Moreso, he seems to be setting up for the horrid "what if" outcomes. As Michel and Dakota Gypsy have well pointed out...the 10 commandments are NOT something that could reasonably be enforced on a various group of people anywhere in this day and age.

What is being looked for here, it seems, is for someone to actually come forward and say "Yes! Make them law and punishable as the bible instructs!" Which I don't think is going to happen. And if by some slim chance it does...then that person would have a hell of a time defending their position. This is a set up to fail.

 

[bunny1ohio]

I think we all realize that this is merely hypothetical, to bring out those who are adament about the 10 commandments being in public government places, to support them in their entirety. s2a is certainly not actually advocating making the 10 commandments laws to base out society on. Moreso, he seems to be setting up for the horrid "what if" outcomes. As Michel and Dakota Gypsy have well pointed out...the 10 commandments are NOT something that could reasonably be enforced on a various group of people anywhere in this day and age.

What is being looked for here, it seems, is for someone to actually come forward and say "Yes! Make them law and punishable as the bible instructs!" Which I don't think is going to happen. And if by some slim chance it does...then that person would have a hell of a time defending their position. This is a set up to fail.

I would agree totally.... but it sure sounded like they were trying to get people to actually try to get this thing done and were asking why it wouldn't work... I was just pointing out the 3 biggest ones that popped into my head

 

[jewscout]

the problem is...
whose version do we use??

they are different believe it or not.

 

[BFD_Zayl]

i dont mean to shoot it out of the sky, well any more then it already is but... there would be riots, an over throw of the government which in turn will deposit nuclear weapons into some other maniacs hand that will more then likely use them. once they are launched all the other nuke armed nations will responed and humanity and the world will be destroyed. honestly, besides they are more "guidelines" then factual law anyways. if your getting mad at people flaming your post, then dont post it. its that simple really. i dont mean to step on peoples toes but in a situation like this. thats impossible, more like running them over with a truck in this case.:slap:

 

[Ody]

Ummm ... okay maybe I'm the only one going to bring this up....

SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION

You cannot dictate what people believe... it is un-Constitutional and it is completely against what the country's founded on.... that's why we LEFT England to begin with remember? :bonk:

Agreed the "you will have no G-ds except me" part would be woefully disgusting to religious minorities...

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Don't give George W. Bush any bad ideas. He has enough already.

Bwahahahahahaahaha!!!!! Frubals to you sir.

B.

 

[s2a]

Draka said:

I think we all realize that this is merely hypothetical, to bring out those who are adament about the 10 commandments being in public government places, to support them in their entirety.

All? Apparently not...;-)

s2a is certainly not actually advocating making the 10 commandments laws to base out society on.

I am exposed as charlatan! (Frubals on yer head fer that).

But let's yet ponder the possibilities...

Moreso, he seems to be setting up for the horrid "what if" outcomes. As Michel and Dakota Gypsy have well pointed out...the 10 commandments are NOT something that could reasonably be enforced on a various group of people anywhere in this day and age.

As if reason had anything to do with it...

I envy your surety.

What is being looked for here, it seems, is for someone to actually come forward and say "Yes! Make them law and punishable as the bible instructs!" Which I don't think is going to happen.

While I agree that few would actually expose themselves by publicly advocating such a position, I would submit that there are more than a few folks that would very much like to see such a possibility become actual.

Lest we readily forget, there are numerous and intentioned bits of legislation and constitutional amendment proposals proffered during each and every new session of Congress. State legislatures routinely pass new and purposefully "unconstitutional" laws, to force focused political/ideological agendas upon the judicial system for deliberation and decision, in order to divide and separate an otherwise unconcerned/unconsumed electorate. When courts of appeal are bound to established precedent, and rule that these facile and divisive laws are indeed unconstitutional, the proponents of such defeated law may then readily protest and claim that the majority electorate is being ill-served by "elitist" and "activist" judges.

The recent State law passed in South Dakota that "bans" (in fact, criminalizes) medical abortion throughout the state (yes, there's only one clinic in the entire state that accommodates such a procedure, but that's a mere aside to the larger issue). The primary purpose of this blatantly unconstitutional law serves only one goal - to bring a direct challenge to the established precedent of the SCOTUS ruling of "Roe v. Wade". The SD legislators know that the SD Supreme Court will not countenance such a law, so a "showdown" in SCOTUS is virtually guaranteed, and inevitable.

Let's not forget that (after) the (in)famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" (hint: Scopes was found guilty of the charge, despite the fact that the prosecution's case was utterly deconstructed and ridiculed) - if not in sweeping legal precedent - a nonetheless "free license" (of tacit approval) for other states to ban/criminalize the teaching of evolution theory in public school science classrooms for nearly forty years. It took the "godless" commies of the Soviet Union to launch Sputnik into orbit, and appropriately scare our legislatures and schools into rethinking policies of repressing scientific knowledge for the sake of popular/majority religious beliefs/sensibilities alone.

If even the highest court of the Judicial Branch of the federal government is unwilling to bow to overwhelming contemporary popular/majority opinion in siding with purposed unconstitutional laws and precepts, there's always the process of amending the Constitution itself to sidestep any meddlesome or troublesome court. Every new session of congress sees the re-introduction of proposed amendments to ban/ criminalize: abortion; (US) flag burning; same-sex marriage, etc. Other proposed amendments seek to enforceably mandate: prayer in public schools; display of the 10 Commandments in all public arenas; American English as the "official" language; Christianity as the "official" and lone founding religion of the US.

These proponents essentially see the Constitution as an obstacle (instead of a shield) to their interests; a wall to overcome by any and all means necessary and available.

[James Madison argued in Federalist Paper No. 49 that the Constitution should only be amended on “great and extraordinary occasions.”
You know, "extraordinary" things like: balanced budgets, tax reform, term limits, flag desecration, and...ensuring that Little Johnny and Suzie can (and should) read the 10 Commandments or pray from their classroom desks.]

What does it take to make these (or any) proposed amendments a matter of constitutional law? Simple 2/3 passage in both houses, and ratification by 3/4 of the States. Democracy in action. Majority opinion. You know, like a "fair" trial overseen by a first-rate lynch mob.

Is it crazy, or fallacious "slippery-slope" rationale to suppose or suggest that a constitutional amendment mandating (a popular version of) the Ten Commandments is impossible, or even counter to an overwhelming majority of the populace? Perhaps so, but...

In a CNN/Gallup poll taken conducted in Sept. of 2003, respondents were asked whether they "Approve", "Disapprove, or "no answer/didn't know" to the following:

1) "Monument of the Ten Commandments in a public area."
Approve - 70%; Disapprove - 29%; Don't know - 1%

2) "Monument of the Qur'an (Koran) in a public area"
Approve - 33%; Disapprove - 64%; Don't know - 3%

In the same poll, a full 77% of respondents disapproved of the decision by the U.S. District Court to have the Ten Commandments monument removed from the rotunda of the Alabama Justice Building.

Granted that simple approval or consent to display of the Ten Commandments is not the same as favoring legal establishment and enforcement of "God's Laws", and I suspect that a good many Jews and Christians themselves would not care to see an enforcing "Bible police" arresting and punishing (especially) themselves for their pieties of convenience and/or "imperfect" hypocrisies. Far easier to accuse others, than to be accountable for oneself.

I'd like to believe that it's an improbable stretch to reasonably accept the notion that a sufficient majority of today's electorate would actually support such a proposal, but that's looking at things from a contemporary perspective.
History tends to be cyclical in evinced trends - and if we've learned anything from the lessons of history, it's that we find that we have learned almost nothing at all, or worse, repeat the same errors in expectation of a differing outcome.

And it would seem, that religious fundamentalism is on the rise once again; both abroad, and here in the US. Yet, it's not about either personal faith or organized religion in which the battles are engaged. It's "fear and ignorance" versus "reason" and equal justice for all.

There was a time (no so long ago) when it was perfectly legal and righteously justified to adhere to "God's Law(s)" and burn "witches" in Massachusetts... because there are such things as Biblically-defined "witches", dontchaknow?

Today, most righteous folk seem to be satified in only burning "Harry Potter " books, but Exodus 22:18 is still there in the Bible, and there are many that believe that all Scripture is meant to be construed quite literally...by everyone. Reason has nothing to do with it.

 

[gnostic]

I am glad it is not imposed in any Western country, otherwise I would not live beyond the age of 2. Humphrey B. Bear and Santa Clause were my idols at that age, so I would have been stoned to death.

 

[bunny1ohio]

The recent State law passed in South Dakota that "bans" (in fact, criminalizes) medical abortion throughout the state (yes, there's only one clinic in the entire state that accommodates such a procedure, but that's a mere aside to the larger issue). The primary purpose of this blatantly unconstitutional law serves only one goal - to bring a direct challenge to the established precedent of the SCOTUS ruling of "Roe v. Wade".

Ummm... are you aware of the fact that the woman who originally "legalized" abortion with that sensational RvW case... is now an avid right-to-lifer? Do you also realize that medical abortions are still permitted within limits in that "one clinic" in that state, but they have made common everyday "birth control" abortions illegal? As well they should.

How do the laws and Constitution change?.... by challenging them.... and States have a right to govern their own laws for things such as gay marraige and abortion... how is it unconstitutional to prevent people from heedlessly killing their children for no other reason than "I didn't think he'd make a good enough dad"?

If it is murder to strike a woman and cause her to lose a child she wants then it should also be murder should that same woman choose to have an abortion if the father wants the child. Where are HIS "rights" in the abortion issue? Where are the rights of the child being murdered?

 

[D.L. Dallman]

Off Topic: No. Fetuses are not living beings. If you can remove a fetus from a mother's womb, and show me that fetus living independently, perhaps in a flat in New Jersey, I will consent to the idea that it sustains independent life. Abortions, for any purpose, must be legal until the child is capable of sustaining life on its own.

... I don't need to go into the details of how Biblical law ruins civilization, or anything of the sort. The only way that I, as a judge, would be convinced that Biblical law should be enforced, would be if anyone were to raise a bit of inerrant proof of God's existence. Otherwise, absolutely not.

Yes, of course the government is pressing towards theocracy. They have been since Reagon. This is not a suprise. Remember the Newdow case, where the entire senate and house, along with Bush, went on the senate steps and chanted the prayer... err pledge in unison, until they came to the "Under God" section, at which point they started screaming the lyrics? How patronizing, right? Yes. Oh well. This country is the next Holy Empire.

I was kicked out of one highschool for refusing to say the pledge, and another for refusing to agree to be a "Good Christian." (The latter was more due to my response to the continued assertion that I should be such a thing.) I have already faced prejudice in the work-place, and lost a job over my belief. I wrote a newspaper article in regard to my unbelief, when I was a child, and received death threats! I was twelve years old!

This is already a theocratic nation, ethically, and it will soon be so legally. Just let it pass. Exodus is always an option.

 

[s2a]

Hello bunny1ohio,

You said/inquired:

Ummm... are you aware of the fact that the woman who originally "legalized" abortion with that sensational RvW case... is now an avid right-to-lifer?

I am aware of Norma McCorvey (once employing the pseudonym of "Roe"), and familiar with her current stance regarding abortion choice. I am also aware that this fact is entirely irrelevant and moot. Your point is no more compelling or interesting than any anecdotes I might provide in noting names of former "believers" that have abandoned theistic or faith-based beliefs as some valuable presented "evidence" of the corrupt and uncritical thinking nature of religion. I would gladly weigh the personal regrets of Ms. McCorvey against the gratitude and relief of millions of women that (having determined for their own distinctly personal reasons) a safe, medical provided, legal abortion was available as an option to a state-imposed full-term delivery of an unwanted pregnancy.

Do you also realize that medical abortions are still permitted within limits in that "one clinic" in that state, but they have made common everyday "birth control" abortions illegal? As well they should.

Yes. *sigh*

There are numerous online resources that readily detail the specifics of the blatantly unconstitutional SD law. The usual "exceptions" (life/heath endangerment of the mother; rape, incest) are inserted therein, alongside other typical "conditions" like parental notification, mandated state-directed "counseling" to actively discourage an abortion choice (with a mandatory 24 waiting period afterward). So what?

You cite "one clinic" in parentheses for what qualifying purpose? Would you have preferred the term "abortion provider" instead, or do you doubt the assertion itself? I recommend some simple research on your part before you answer the second question.

I will not be baited by anti-abortion advocacy rhetoric akin to "'birth control' abortions". Such rash generalizations and purposed mischaracterizations are inflammatory, unhelpful, inaccurate, and profoundly stupid.

How do the laws and Constitution change?.... by challenging them.... and States have a right to govern their own laws for things such as gay marraige and abortion... how is it unconstitutional to prevent people from heedlessly killing their children for no other reason than "I didn't think he'd make a good enough dad"?

[While I recognize and accept that threads within topics of general debate sometimes stray from the initially presented premise (I myself bearing some previous accountability in such lent commentaries), I will redirect your attention to focus upon the thread topic at hand, and invite you to either defend or support the premise as presented. There are dozens of threads within REF itself that engage discussion/debate regarding: Roe v. Wade; abortion morality/ethics; the merits of precedent setting (or unconstitutional) case law; abortion-relevant statistics and incidences; social policy and impact of abortion, etc.

If you like, you can read my lent commentaries within the topical thread:
"Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort?"
Both here, and here.

You are invited and welcome to rebut any of the facts, sentiments, or opinions I have expressed therein regarding abortion (with attendant issues of morality/ethics) and the established laws that protect and preserve a woman's constitutionally held right to privacy and personal choices in reproductive health.]

Yes, I concede the painfully obvious sentiment that laws (local, state, federal, and constitutional) are effectively changed by challenge on the parts of citizens and their elected representatives. I am also quite familiar with both historical and contemporary arguments/defenses that favor "State's Rights" over federal and constitutional law. Heck, there was even a Civil War in the U.S. that dealt with such an argument. Slavery, segregation, criminalized homosexual conduct, criminalized abortion, etc., have all been defended by arguments founded upon "State's Rights". Indeed, these "Rightful" laws of state-sanctioned and legally imposed bias, prejudice, and group-specific usurpation of civil liberties were challenged, and eventually purged in part or in whole as unmistakably unconstitutional.

Coincidentally, this very thread topic addresses the concept of challenging or changing law, or amending the Constitution, to make The Ten Commandments the law(s) of the land. Would you care to comment on that?

If it is murder to strike a woman and cause her to lose a child she wants then it should also be murder should that same woman choose to have an abortion if the father wants the child. Where are HIS "rights" in the abortion issue? Where are the rights of the child being murdered?

I will leave you to reintroduce those precepts in your apt rebuttal to my proffered commentaries within the referenced links I provided you above.

I would note that biblical Scripture describes your first scenario in Exodus 21:22 (NIV), and suggests:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [or miscarries] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows."

An unspecified fine for "murdering" a fetus? A fine demanded by the aggrieved husband, and thusly mitigated by a court? The passage continues, and suggests that only in the case of the mother being killed (not the "unborn"), has any "murder" actually taken place - with suitable "eye for an eye" dispensational justice in kind to be enforced.

I also note the words of Jesus, who said (Luke 23:29 NIV):
"For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!'"

Hmmm. Maybe abortion is a blessing after all...?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We can't have freedom and justice in a country that codifies the 10 commandments. The Taliban would be an excellent case-study for any Bible-thumping wackos that lust for that kind of thing.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We can't have freedom and justice in a country that codifies the 10 commandments. The Taliban would be an excellent case-study for any Bible-thumping wackos that lust for that kind of thing.

That's faulty logic assuming guilt by association.