• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Christianity and modern law

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Christian principles permeate modern laws. The fact that most US states operate under common law, which was handed down in part from Britain suggests Christian principles; because Britain too was once quite Christian... The 'English Civil War' which saw the rise of parliament was began in part over religion.

The USA had many Christian colonies at its founding.
http://www.geocities.com/iconoclastes.geo/constitution.html is an interesting site, because it's trying desperately to deny the Christian influence. For instance it recognises...'March 4, 1629 - The first Charter of Massachusetts read in part:

“For the directing, ruling, and disposing of all other Matters and Thinges, whereby our said People may be soe religiously, peaceablie, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderlie Conversacon, maie wynn and incite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Savior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth, which in our Royall Intencon, and The Adventurers free profession, is the principall Ende of the Plantacion..”

But then counters by saying 'Let us now see the legal means the Christians of the Massachusetts Bay Colony enacted only a year later to achieve these goals: In 1630 it was made illegal to:
“shoot off a gun on any unnecessary occasion except an Indian or a wolf.” [SH241]'
So, their argument then is not that there was no Christian influence, just that it was limited.

The Women's Christian Temperance Union wanted laws changed in regards to alcohol. This was achieved in the 1920s; showing that Christian pressure groups could influence law-makers along Christian lines. This influence of Christians is still being exerted on law; through the laws of negligence (which I shall detail in another post).

Your calendar, and some public holidays are influenced by the Christian world; so your whole fabric of nation is yearly influenced by Christianity

“Justice Joseph Story and Chancellor James Kent were among many sitting judges during the nineteenth century who cited the maxim that “Christianity is part of the common law.” As early as 1764, Thomas Jefferson attributed the phrase to a misinterpretation made by Sir Henry Finch in 1613 that had subsequently been perpetuated by Matthew Hale and William Blackstone. But Justice Story disputed Jefferson's contention that it was a “judicial forgery” and quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Prisot of the Court of Common Pleas, which established the precedent in 1458:
As to those laws, which those of holy church have in ancient scripture, it behooves us to give them credence, for this is common law, upon which all manner of laws are founded; and thus, sir, we are obliged to take notice of their law of holy church; and it seems they are obliged to take notice of our law”*
http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v2n2/ant_v2n2_law.html

That is why blasphemy** was a crime under common law when it was codified. A law which US law-makers recognised...

“Following the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the First Amendment and most state constitutions prohibited the establishment of an official religion. Nevertheless, states still occasionally prosecuted persons for blasphemy against Christianity!

In a typical 19th-century blasphemy case, a man called Ruggles made highly insulting remarks about Jesus Christ and his mother, Mary. The state of New York tried and convicted Ruggles and sentenced him to jail for three months plus a $500 fine. Appealing his case, Ruggles' attorney argued that his client could not be prosecuted for blasphemy since there was no state law against it.

In 1811, New York's highest appeals court unanimously rejected Ruggles' arguments. The court said that New York did not need a blasphemy statute. Ruggles' words violated the common law inherited from England, which made blasphemy against Christianity the law of the land. Based on this interpretation of the law, the New York court stated that reviling Jesus was a crime since it “tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order.”

The court seemingly ignored that New York's state constitution prohibited the establishment of any government-sponsored religion. Nevertheless, most other states adopted this legal opinion. Although very few persons were prosecuted, blasphemy remained a crime in several states well into the 20th century.”
http://www.crf-usa.org/terror/rushdie.htm

When Pilgrims/Puritans legislated against witches (a negative influence; but an influence no less), this law took precedence over any common right.
 

Montalban

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
395
Reaction score
0
Location
Sydney
Tort of Negligence

The principle of 'love thy neighbour' is enshrined in law.
Hebrew law restricted our view of 'neighbour'
*Exodus 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21

Jesus fundamentally changed this
Mat:5 38 ”You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'* 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
The question was asked...
Luke 10:29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”
The law of Tort of Negligence* stems from the decision of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) in which case Lord Atkin asked the same question about 'neigbour'.

Lord Atkin said... “The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omission which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.”
http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/case5.html

Lord Atkin applied it...
“In the House of Lords, her appeal was upheld. What interests us here is the very practical application made by Lord Aitkin of Christ's teachings.”
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2883

“The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are in question.?

The case established the general principle of (tort of) negligence, that is, that persons who have some relation or proximity owe a duty of care to each other. Since it was established, this precedent has been further refined and applied and referred to in thousands of fact situations where a person complains of physical harm to their person or property.”

And although this case was in Britain, it has a persuasive influence on the United States, by fact that it operates also under common law (except the state of Louisiana).
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Montalban said:
Christian principles permeate modern laws. The fact that most US states operate under common law, which was handed down in part from Britain suggests Christian principles; because Britain too was once quite Christian...
But all you have to look at is the Treaty of Tripoli to see that the US is NOT a 'christian' nation. There are x-ian principles in nearly all laws around the world. And Islamic, Pagan, etc. There are most Pagan laws in the Bible in it's stories and most specifically the OT. Christianity is really just a perversion of Paganism anyway. Why do you think we celebrate Christmas in the winter when Christ was born in the Spring?? Or that we have Easter Bunnies? I particularly find it amusing how Satan crawled in to american culture through the idea of Christianty with 'Santa' -- he's even wearing the same red suit that Satan did in ancient myths and the letters are the same -- do you think that was just a coincidence?

But passing laws that would end gay marriage would mark a precedence by mixing religion with government because as it is, the 'Special' right of religious heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional. Gay marriage WILL come in the US, it is merely a matter of 'when'.
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
sissy-boy said:
But all you have to look at is the Treaty of Tripoli to see that the US is NOT a 'christian' nation. There are x-ian principles in nearly all laws around the world. And Islamic, Pagan, etc. There are most Pagan laws in the Bible in it's stories and most specifically the OT. Christianity is really just a perversion of Paganism anyway. Why do you think we celebrate Christmas in the winter when Christ was born in the Spring?? Or that we have Easter Bunnies? I particularly find it amusing how Satan crawled in to american culture through the idea of Christianty with 'Santa' -- he's even wearing the same red suit that Satan did in ancient myths and the letters are the same -- do you think that was just a coincidence?

But passing laws that would end gay marriage would mark a precedence by mixing religion with government because as it is, the 'Special' right of religious heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional. Gay marriage WILL come in the US, it is merely a matter of 'when'.
Awesome Post...

I agree with the bible a lot more than church. I hate church. Its tainted pure ****. I dont give a **** if religion is banned in the USA. It would be better for anyone. It should be a personal thing. You want to push it on me, ill whoop your ass pre-emptivly I know about the crusades. Im not judging but Its my belief that if the rapture came durring church 2 hours after church there parking lots would be empty.... They all still be here to take their cars.
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
Awesome Post...

I agree with the bible a lot more than church. I hate church. Its tainted pure ****. I dont give a **** if religion is banned in the USA. It would be better for anyone. It should be a personal thing. You want to push it on me, ill whoop your ass pre-emptivly I know about the crusades. Im not judging but Its my belief that if the rapture came durring church 2 hours after church there parking lots would be empty.... They all still be here to take their cars.

I do agree with you about religion being a personal thing. My hunch is that people who choose to join a church are just not as strong in their faith as those who keep their Spirituality between themselves and God. Why else would they need the constant reassurance that they are 'correct' -- that is really the biggest thing that church's do. But I do not think that they should be 'banned'. It's a free country, if someone needs to have reassurance to feel 'better than' someone else, then they certainly have that right.

Just like I think christians have the right to hate homosexuals -- I could care less -- but they WILL be tolerant of our rights too. Gay marriage is coming, it's just a matter of WHEN.
 

Youve Got To Be Kidding!

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
319
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
sissy-boy said:
I do agree with you about religion being a personal thing. My hunch is that people who choose to join a church are just not as strong in their faith as those who keep their Spirituality between themselves and God. Why else would they need the constant reassurance that they are 'correct' -- that is really the biggest thing that church's do. But I do not think that they should be 'banned'. It's a free country, if someone needs to have reassurance to feel 'better than' someone else, then they certainly have that right.

Just like I think christians have the right to hate homosexuals -- I could care less -- but they WILL be tolerant of our rights too. Gay marriage is coming, it's just a matter of WHEN.

Im not saying they should ban it I am just using sarcasm.
 

sissy-boy

Banned
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
0
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Youve Got To Be Kidding! said:
Im not saying they should ban it I am just using sarcasm.

Point well-taken. I agree with you. Relgion has NOTHING to do with Spirituality. A religious person fears Hell, a Spiritual person has BEEN THERE!

 
Top Bottom