Someone asked me
what I thought about how well the ancient Jews followed their
biblical laws.
That is an
interesting question. Most of the records which have survived were
those they considered most important, religious records mostly, which
is why the books of the Bible survived but more common records
didn't.
2 Kings 22 gives us
an interesting look into how well the religious laws were protected.
One of the priests suddenly finds a copy of the law in the Temple.
This suggests that priests were not actually studying the law that
often. What probably happened was that people followed an idea of
"common" law and it is anyone's guess how important gender
laws were, but, from Josiah's reaction, "Great is the Lord’s
anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us
have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in
accordance with all that is written there concerning us.” I would
imagine that most of Judah was breaking laws of the scripture.
People forget the
law all the time. Who knows what happened several thousand years ago.
I imagine the law and public opinion "ebbed and flowed"
much like it does today. Even those we expect should be most aware
of the law and the Constitution totally ignore it.
I can remember
watching Senate hearings of Supreme Court Nominees where Senators
actually questioned nominees about their religious beliefs, something
that is specifically forbidden in the Constitution. Hard to imagine
Senators and SCOTUS nominees ignoring the Constitution, but, it
happened during our lifetime.
United States
Constitution, Article 6: "...no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States."
Therefore, no civil
servant can ever be questioned about their religious beliefs. What I
think is interesting is that reporters constantly violate this law,
the Senate often twists religious belief questions into questions
regarding the first amendment, making religious beliefs an important
political issue in the selection of those serving in public office.
This creates a
"hierarchy" where Freedom of the Press is prioritized over
the prohibition of religious testing for public office.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
"Senator
DURBIN. Let me ask you a few starting points. The question was asked
of John Roberts about his personal religious and moral belief. And I
would ask you in the most open-ended fashion. We all come to our
roles in life with life experience and with values. When you are
calculating and making a decision, if you were on the Supreme Court,
tell me what role your personal religious or moral beliefs will play
in that decision process.
Judge ALITO. Well,
my personal religious beliefs are important to me in my private life.
They are an important part of the way I was raised and they have been
important to Martha and me in raising our children. But my obligation
as a judge is to interpret and apply the Constitution and the laws of
the United States, and not my personal religious beliefs or any
personal moral beliefs that I have, and there is nothing about my
religious beliefs that interferes with my doing that."
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg25429/pdf/CHRG-109shrg25429.pdf
Page 576
Not everyone can or
should trust my statements to be facts unless I am willing to provide
the resources to back them up.
No comments:
Post a Comment