Re: Legal System Not Ruled By Christian Bible

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

John Harrell et. al.

We all know the influence Christian beliefs have had on the legal system and 
government and many aspects of US society.  However, without delving into 
technical legal issues with court decisions, etc. our constitution also 
provided for freedom of religious worship, which means that Christians 
cannot (well let's say they should not) establish the government of the US 
as a Christian ruled government, akin to Iran or Saudi Arabia in the manner 
in which they are Islamic States.  Notice I said our legal system is not 
RULED by the Christian Bible, I did not say there was no influence of 
Christianity in the US Constitution, etc.

So do you want the USA to be a CHRISTIAN RULED government, like Iran is a 
ISLAMIC RULED state?

Ted

>From: John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.com>
>To: Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, vision2020@moscow.com
>CC: eevans@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Legal System Not Ruled By Christian Bible
>Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 22:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
>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
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com