TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:KeithB,

O.G. & Nitro,

Similarities aside, aren't most of or at least many of our laws based on the Bible, not the Koran or Torah.

Laws in America come directly from Common Law from colonial times, as well as bits and pieces of Roman law. It can be argued that many laws from those times were influenced by the faiths of the people making them.

Most civilizations can agree on quite a few things, no matter what their faiths are (Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, respect authority) and most faiths have commandments stating at least this. Therefore I'd think that most of our laws are based on commonalities in faiths, not one specific faith.

nitrogen wrote:

C-dub wrote:KeithB,

O.G. & Nitro,

Similarities aside, aren't most of or at least many of our laws based on the Bible, not the Koran or Torah.

Laws in America come directly from Common Law from colonial times, as well as bits and pieces of Roman law. It can be argued that many laws from those times were influenced by the faiths of the people making them.

Most civilizations can agree on quite a few things, no matter what their faiths are (Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie, respect authority) and most faiths have commandments stating at least this. Therefore I'd think that most of our laws are based on commonalities in faiths, not one specific faith.

Yepper, that about sums it up from my view point too.

Forget not that many of our ancestors came to this "new world" to escape religious oppression in their otherwise acceptable native lands.

nitrogen wrote:

C-dub wrote:KeithB,

O.G. & Nitro,

Similarities aside, aren't most of or at least many of our laws based on the Bible, not the Koran or Torah.

Therefore I'd think that most of our laws are based on commonalities in faiths, not one specific faith.

Then this would expain many of the ambiguities, such as that of abortion where we cannot seem to come to an agreement on when life begins and when it should be protected?

I've always been slightly confused about our laws when it comes to abortion. If a person, other than the mother, does something to intentionally cause the death of the fetus they are charged with murder in most cases. Yet, when the mother chooses to intentionally abort the same fetus it is legal. Aside from the fact that the SCOTUS said it was legal, I'm still not sure I understand the difference between the two circumstances.

I dont' mean to get so deep this early in the morning and I'm not trying to get philosophical on anyone. We're just having a discussion and I'm trying to deepen my understanding of whatever.

C-dub wrote:Similarities aside, aren't most of or at least many of our laws based on the Bible, not the Koran or Torah.

Ummm, Torah is Bible and is indeed the basis of most of our Western laws. IIRC, isn't there something called the Ten Commandments that has something to do with the basis for law? More specifically Exodus 20:13 - You shall not murder.

Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. What many call Bible, I call sequel.

iratollah wrote:

C-dub wrote:Similarities aside, aren't most of or at least many of our laws based on the Bible, not the Koran or Torah.

Ummm, Torah is Bible and is indeed the basis of most of our Western laws. IIRC, isn't there something called the Ten Commandments that has something to do with the basis for law? More specifically Exodus 20:13 - You shall not murder.

Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. What many call Bible, I call sequel.

He was probably thinking Talmud (A published set of rabinnic discussions about the meaning of the torah and other parts of "Jewish Common Law")

Good afternoon everyone. I'm back from my day job.

I may have meant the Talmud, but I don't think so. I was aware that the Torah was several books of the Old Testament, but did not know which ones or if they were identical. I didn't mean to be so literal, those were just the only other examples I could think of at the time.

ClarkLZeuss wrote:Next NYT Op-Ed: "Outlaw Guns and Churches"

They might be surprised how hard we cling to our rights.

Bill O'Reilly is discussing this right now on Fox News.

Lots of good posts on this topic. While I do not support abortion - I do feel that it is a decision for the woman to make. In regards to the article..the killer committed a crime by taking the life of another person - this article goes to show that church is a place that I will be carrying my firearm..

C-dub wrote:Bill O'Reilly is discussing this right now on Fox News.

Doh! I had hoped he would, and wanted to hear his POV about it, cause he has really skewered Tiller over the years. What did he say?

Eddie2612 wrote:Lots of good posts on this topic. While I do not support abortion - I do feel that it is a decision for the woman to make. In regards to the article..the killer committed a crime by taking the life of another person - this article goes to show that church is a place that I will be carrying my firearm..

Is it me or are we seeing about one shooting every 1-2 months at a church now?
The initial part of the case raised an eyebrow as I am an usher and step up to help out the various teams about 1-2 times a month. But thats also why I wear a sport coat every time now.

ClarkLZeuss wrote:

C-dub wrote:Bill O'Reilly is discussing this right now on Fox News.

Doh! I had hoped he would, and wanted to hear his POV about it, cause he has really skewered Tiller over the years. What did he say?

He had a lot more information than I did, obviously. This guy had performed over 60,000 abortions with many being after 24 weeks gestation. I think he said that according to Kansas laws there must be a reason provided by the doctor that a late term abortion was medically necessary for the mother. Or something like that. Anyway, the excuses given by him in many of these cases was EXTREMELY flimsy.

RiveraRa wrote:^ While I agree ArmedFarmer has a good point, and while I agree that an unborn child is in fact a person, the law will try to say that defense of a 3rd person does not apply in this case because an unborn baby is not a person.

wasn't their a bill recently in the texas legislature that said babies up to 1yo weren't people? or something like that?

TexasComputerDude wrote:wasn't their a bill recently in the texas legislature that said babies up to 1yo weren't people? or something like that?

No, it was a bill lessening the penalty for murdering a child if he or she is under 1 year old, making it a state jail felony. Of course, the bill never saw the light of day.

Yeah, I think they were trying to remove it from the list of things that would be a Capital Murder.