Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All though common law has it's roots in ecclesiastical churches, that is different than saying Common law is Christianity. That is the part I disagreed with.
You obviously have never had anything to do with the common law. I have. Do you want to know some common law? Here's one for you: Premise liability. A store owner has a duty of reasonable care for anyone in his premises, and if someone slips and falls on milk left spilt in an isle, the owner may be sued. Vicarious liability is from the common law also, etc.
Tell me how any of that is christianity - regardless of the fact that some types of courts had ecclesiastical roots.
Common Law is based on Christianity, something the framers understood. There was no other way. Your example is a modern case, and another will come up in the future. I'm talking about the foundation of Common Law, based on Christianity:
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:
The true principles of natural religion [law of right reason] are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion [Scriptures] are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.
The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
[SIZE=2]The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . "He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.
[/SIZE][SIZE=2]"One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society."
-Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.
That Jefferson disagreed with the foundations of Common Law is irrelevant. He was wrong, because he tried to say there was a time when Christianity wasn't the law in pagan England. Jefferson was wrong because he got his dates mixed up. Even Lord Coke said Common Law was based on Christianity. Everything, our entire system of government and law is based on the Bible; an established fact!
[/SIZE]
Common Law is based on Christianity, something the framers understood. There was no other way. Your example is a modern case, and another will come up in the future. I'm talking about the foundation of Common Law, based on Christianity:
In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law:
The true principles of natural religion [law of right reason] are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion [Scriptures] are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law.
The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court:
[SIZE=2]The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . "He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.
[/SIZE][SIZE=2]"One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. . . . I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society."
-Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845) was appointed to the Court by President James Madison. Story is considered the founder of Harvard Law School and authored the three-volume classic Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833). In his 34 years on the Court, Story authored opinions in 286 cases, of which 269 were reported as the majority opinion or the opinion of the Court and his many contributions to American law have caused him to be called a “Father of American Jurisprudence.
That Jefferson disagreed with the foundations of Common Law is irrelevant. He was wrong, because he tried to say there was a time when Christianity wasn't the law in pagan England. Jefferson was wrong because he got his dates mixed up. Even Lord Coke said Common Law was based on Christianity. Everything, our entire system of government and law is based on the Bible; an established fact!
[/SIZE]
This part is at least partially true. Had you said "Christianity was common law", I would have agreed with you in part. But as I've said a few times, it's not true that Christianity is common law. And in fact, the ecclesiastical courts were just one of two types of courts that created the common law. The historical roots of motions for specific performance and injunctions are based on the ecclesiastical courts. The other types of common law actions have roots in the kings courts.
Common law still exist and is growing. (Not all law is statutory based.) But today, it has nothing to do with Christianity. That's one of the reasons it's wrong to say "Christianity is common law." The other reason is that it only accounts for part of the historical roots of common law. The rest came from the King's courts.
It is a fact, Luther and Calvin, amongst the other Reformers espoused freedom of conscience. The Founding Fathers left Religion to the States, which is your freedom of religion.
You need to present evidence Divine Law predated the Exodus, which you can't. Besides, those people were pagans, who worshipped the creation rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. They also sacrificed their babies to the god moloch. The Founding didn't take one thing from them, they took everything from the Scriptures.
If it wasn't for the Reformation, and Christianity, there would still be slaves in this country. The abolition of slavery started with Christian framers: John Jay, Richard Stockton, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon, etc.
In most states atheists couldn't even serve as witnesses in court, because of their ignorance in denying God!
This part is at least partially true. Had you said "Christianity was common law", I would have agreed with you in part. But as I've said a few times, it's not true that Christianity is common law. And in fact, the ecclesiastical courts were just one of two types of courts that created the common law. The historical roots of motions for specific performance and injunctions are based on the ecclesiastical courts. The other types of common law actions have roots in the kings courts.
Common law still exist and is growing. (Not all law is statutory based.) But today, it has nothing to do with Christianity. That's one of the reasons it's wrong to say "Christianity is common law." The other reason is that it only accounts for part of the historical roots of common law. The rest came from the King's courts.
It isn't fact at all. Ecclesiastical Courts trumped the King's Courts!
You need to present evidence Divine Law predated the Exodus, which you can't.
Non-sequiter. There's no such thing as divine law. All law is man made.
Quote:
Besides, those people were pagans, who worshipped the creation rather than the creator,
There is no evidence for a creator. Who or what they worshipped is irrelevant to law.
Quote:
The Founding didn't take one thing from them, they took everything from the Scriptures.
Again, nothing was taken from your plagiarized book of fairytales. If that were so we'd be stoning our children, still own slaves and women would be servants to their husbands. The Bible is only useful for theocratic dictatorships - not civilized democracies.
Quote:
If it wasn't for the Reformation, and Christianity, there would still be slaves in this country
.
The Bible was used to condone slavery. The book is practically a slave-owner's manual.
No, the slaves were ultimately freed by secular, progressive freethinkers, not religious nuts. Such is the case with all progress this country has achieved.
Quote:
In most states atheists couldn't even serve as witnesses in court, because of their ignorance in denying God!
Which only goes to show how a free country cannot exist under Christianity. Christians are irresponsible, selfish children who need to be controlled, not in control.
In most states atheists couldn't even serve as witnesses in court, because of their ignorance in denying God!
That's an extremely annoying statement. America is not an officially Christian nation which the Supreme Court has upheld numerous times. Also, atheists are not ignorant because they recognize that invisible beings do not exist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
