vision2020
Re: Legal System Not Ruled By Christian Bible
This U.S. Supreme Court decision cites a number of examples that America was founded on
Christian principles, and concludes, "There is a universal language pervading [these
examples], having one meaning; they affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation.
These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic
utterances; they speak the voice of the entire people. . . . These, and many other
matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of
organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
--Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 9-10.
The quotes I give below show without a doubt that the judicial system (along with the
founding fathers) knew this was a Christian country and based their verdicts on the
christian world-belief system.
I. What Did the States Do Just After Declaring Independence?
Just after signing of the Declaration of the Independence the individual states
considered themselves brand new independent countries. Within a few months each
country threw out their compacts (contracts) that they had with England and the
England companies and created new constitutions describing the government upon which
the new country would govern itself.
Read what some of the new countries constitutions said (all new countries had very
similar language somewhere in their new constitutions):
- Delaware, Article 22: "Every person, who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust shall...make and subscribe the following
declaration, to wit: 'I, __________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus
Christ, His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do
acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine
inspiration.'"
- Pennsylvania, Frame of Government, Section 10: "And each member [of the legislature]
before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: 'I
do believe in one God, the creator and governour of the universe, the rewarder of the
good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowldedge the scriptures of the Old
and new Testament to be given by divine inspiration.'"
- Massachusetts, Chapter VI, Article I: "[All persons elected to State office or to the
Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. 'I, __________, do
declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth.'"
- North Carolina, Article XXXII: "No person, who shall deny the being of God, or the
truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New
Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and
safety of the state, shall be capable of holding any office, or place of trust or
profit in the civil department, within this state."
- Maryland, Article XXXV: "That no other test or qualification ought to be required...
than such oath of support and fidelity to this state...and a declaration of a belief
in the Christian religion."
And later, other countries had in their constitutions the following:
- Vermont (1786), Frame of Government, Section 9: "And each member [of the legislature],
before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: 'I
do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the
good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and
new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian]
religion.' And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required
of any civil officer or magistrate in this State."
- Tennesee (1796), Article VIII, Section II: "No person who denies the being of God,
or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil
department of this State."
II. Quotes from our Judicial System
"No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged,
and is the religion of the country...Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep...
it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of
all human laws...Christianity is part of the common law." Updegraph v. Commonwealth
826
In 1844 in Philadelphia, a school took an unprecedented position: it would teach its
students morality, but not Christianity. The Court ruled it could not do so-the Bible
and Christianity must be included: "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New
Testament...be read and taught as divine revelation in the [schools]-its general
precepts expounded...and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? Where can
the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly as from the
New Testament?" Vidal v Girards Executors, 1844
In 1892, the United States Supreme Court concluded that only an "absurd" application
of the Constitution would allow a restriction on Christianity: "No purpose of action
against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this
is a religious people...This is a Christian nation."1892 Churh of the Holy Trinity v.
United States, 1892
On blasphemy the courts have ruled: Abner Updegraph...on the 12th day of December
[1821]...not having the fear of God before his eyes...contriving and intending to
scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the
scriptures of truth, in the presence and hearing of several persons...did unlawfully,
wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully, and blasphemously say...'That the Holy
Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they
contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies.' To the great
dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian
religion." Updegraph v The Commonwealth, 1824 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Again, on blasphemy the courts have ruled: "The defendant was indicted...in December,
1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810...wickedly, maliciously, and
blashpemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of
divers of good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of
and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous
words following: 'Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore,' in
contempt of the Christian religion...The defendant was tried and found guilty, and
was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of
$500." The People v Ruggles, 1811, Supreme Court of New York
On the freedom of the press with regards to blasphemy was a legal indictment against
Abner Kneeland for "willfully blaspheming the Holy name of God" and for a public
disavowal of Christ. Commonwealth v Abneer Kneeland, 1838, Supreme Court of
Massachusetts.
III. Conclusion
The courts viewed this country without a doubt as a "Christian Nation." I stopped
with only those few verdicts above but there are many, many more. People may argue
about it, some people may not like it, but it is in the court verdicts, written for
all to see for all of history.
John Harrell
--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> EEVans, et. al.
>
> Actually, now we are getting somewhere. The legal system in the USA is not
> ruled by the Christian Bible. It is ruled by the US Constitution and
> related documents and related court and legislative decisions. Therefore
> people who think the Christian Bible should determine law are trying to some
> extent to establish a government run by religion, which is unconstitutional.
> I know there is disagreement on the separation of church and state as
> expressed in the constitution, but numerous court decisions in the US have
> supported this separation.
>
> Ted
>
>
> >From: eevans@moscow.com
> >To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, vision2020@moscow.com,
> >eevans@moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: Legal Nudist Colonies Prove Relative Values Claim: Re: Law Is
> >Objectively Wrong:
> >Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:14:21 GMT
> >
> > >
> > > EEvans et, al.
> > >
> > > Your question could be posed regarding any ethical standard or law when
> >it
> > > is compared to a differing standard or law. And these sorts of
> >questions
> > > are difficult to answer. Some of the greatest thinkers in history have
> > > concluded there is no way to prove any ethical standards to be absolute
> >and
> > > objective.
> > > But back to the real world of the USA in 2002.
> > >
> > > If we take the US Constitution, its amendments, and The Bill of Rights
> >as a
> > > starting point for "objective ethics," an assumption that is of course
> > > questionable, there are rules indicating equal treatment for citizens
> >under
> > > the law. Therefore the nudity ordinance should have applied to the
> >nipples
> > > of both sexes. This is one reason why it is "objectively wrong."
> ><snip>
> > > My version of a nudity law would first treat the sexes equally under the
> > > law, which does not mean the sexes must be defined as "the same" or
> > > identical. This would render it "objective" according the above
> > > interpretation of the US Constitution.
> ><snip>
> > > I'm afraid that nudity laws do not lend themselves to easy definitions
> >of
> > > ethical absolutes, like laws regarding theft, murder, rape, assault,
> > > battery, etc., where there is no disagreement over the wrong being done,
> > > just discussions about the details around the edges. Many people in the
> >USA
> > > engage in full nudity in special settings with children and families,
> >and it
> > > is hard to argue some social harm is being done by these people.
> ><snip>
> > > The fact that the laws allow nudist colonies is a clear
> > > demonstration that the law recognizes that nudity may not be such a bad
> > > thing, and is a matter of taste, a (here we go again) "relativistic
> >cultural
> > > norm!!!!!!!"
> >
> >So this is your framework:
> ><The law> is right because it is consistent with my interpretation of <some
> >document>, which is a starting point for objective ethics. Also, <some
> >group of
> >people> exist under it with no harm as defined by the opinion of myself and
> ><some group of people>.
> >
> >Understand then, that many people who think the nudity ordinance will work
> >as
> >it now stands are just as consistent as you are, provided <some document>
> >is
> >the Christian Bible.
> >
> >I think this is appropriate ending for our on-going thread. It's gone on
> >long
> >enough and you've answered my original question, which was "Who's objective
> >standard?"
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >-Ed Evans
> >
> >
> >---------------------------------------------
> >This message was sent by First Step Internet.
> > http://www.fsr.net/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
Back to TOC