CA and David.. Group Posting

Okay, so there is still a big stink about the Ten Commandments, the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech in the news. We decided to take Toulmin and his six interrelated element components and apply them to the Ten Commandments debate:

Toulmin address the six related components of rhetoric that include a warrant, grounds, claims, backing, modal qualifier, and rebuttal. The example that we chose to analyze was the issue of the first amendment and public displaying of the Ten Commandments.

The Claim that was discussed in this case was Van Orden v. Perry and McCreany County v. ACLU. Each of these cases involved the debate and the justification of the display of the Ten Commandments.
The Grounds for this argument is twofold: Some religious groups feel that the Ten Commandments are a part of history and have had made major significance in the formation and basis of the United States legal system and especially to that of laws and therefore should be publicly displayed in court rooms as a representation of such. The other ground for this argument is that the public display of the Ten Commandments is a violation of the separation of church and state, as well as, the recognition of such an infringement of the first amendment and freedom of speech. This is taken for the Establishment Clause that prohibits the government from recognizing an official religion or showing preference to one religion over the other.

The Warrant taken by Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist is that the Ten Commandments has "secular significance...because the have made a substantial contribution to our secular legal codes." (Fox News, "Supreme Court takes on Ten Commandments") Also that many historical and educational exhibits and works of art contain religious imagery representing many different religions can be found in state and federal municipal buildings, museums, public schools and universities, and court houses.

The Backing for this issue of the Ten Commandments relevance and importance to our legal system and as universal principle can be illustrated with this quotation, "The Ten Commandments is the very basis of our law. Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not covet, Thou shalt not falsely testify against your neighbor-that is the very basis of law." -Rev. Rod Mcdougal.

The Modal Qualifier that our government either directly or indirectly has sponsored not only Judeo-Christian beliefs through the Ten Commandments, but many other religions, can be illustrated by a quotation from Barry W. Lynn, the Executive Director of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, that "the greatness of this country is we have 2,000 religions here,(in the United States) 20 million non-believers, and we all live in relative peace. We have the right to express ourselves in public and in private," (Fox News, "Supreme Court takes on Ten Commandments,").

The Rebuttal to this argument is that the question on Ten Commandments is not that the United States government does or does not directly or indirectly sponsor religion through displays in other public buildings, and nor that the Ten Commandments has relevance to our legal system. The question of the Ten Commandments deals with the fact that the Ten Commandments is associated with Judeo-Christian beliefs, and is displayed in a United States Court House. The Ten Commandments maybe relevant to our legal system but is not the only basis of that legal system, which borrows significance from the Hamaurbai Code, as well as Greek and Roman legal philosophies, as David Friedman, an attorney for the A.C.L.U asserted, "An assertion that the Ten Commandments is THE source, THE foundation of our legal system...this is simply wrapping the Ten Commandments in the flag, and that's endorsement." (Fox News, "Supreme Court takes on Ten Commandments,").