Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

the role of religion in early america

1 view

Skip to first unread message

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

>:|> jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> >Get the point here? The past does not have to equal the future. A lot of
>:|> >things were done, a lot of things were ok at various times in the past.
>:|> >That does not men that they should always be done or would be alright, if
>:|> >they truly were ever alright, in future times.
>:|>
>:|> I think this is one of the points I've been trying to get him to
>:|> recognize without coming out and stating it for him.
>:|
>:|Why does every single thing a historian says have to have a contemporary
>:|application in the Supreme Court? It doesn't! This is one of the points I
>:|don't seem to be able to get across to you.

Duh.

(1) What does your comment have to do with what I said, which was:

>:|> >Get the point here? The past does not have to equal the future. A lot of
>:|> >things were done, a lot of things were ok at various times in the past.
>:|> >That does not men that they should always be done or would be alright, if
>:|> >they truly were ever alright, in future times.

I don't see Supreme Court mentioned there

(2) Who introduced the Holy Trinity case (a Supreme Court case) Justice
David Brewer ( A Supreme Court Justice), Justice Joseph Story (a Supreme
Court Justice, who also wrote Commentaries on the Constitution of the
United States), into these discussions?

Hint: You.

LOL

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|>
>:|> Joseph Story came from the New England area, and like it or not, there was
>:|> a different mindset regarding religion in that part of the country then
>:|> there was in other parts of the country. Unions between church and state,
>:|> established religions, etc were not alien in the thinking of most of the
>:|> leadership of that area, from founding of the various colonies in the
>:|> 1600's to almost mid 1800's at least. It is by no accident that so many
>:|> people who advance much of what you are advancing, that also try to claim
>:|> this is a Christian nation, founded on Christianity or Christian principles
>:|> or the Bible, etc quote New Englanders, and point to historical events in
>:|> the New England area.
>:|
>:|Perhaps that's because literacy in New England was much more prevalent than
>:|with her southern neighbors. Perhaps there were better opportunities there for
>:|education, for experiments with republican governments; perhaps the people
>:|there were a little more industrious, i.e., had fewer slaves doing work for them.
>:|

What does the above really have to do with what I posted?

I see a lot of perhaps mentioned but how does it address what I posted? Doe
what I posted even need addressed? What I posted is factually correct..
What else needs to be said?

>:|I know you wish it were not so, but New England was the cradle for the birth
>:|of America.

In your mind, this is very true.

However, I suspect that there are some people who are quite well versed in
history that would disagree with you.

As I recall, in 1585 or there about white folks from Europe arrived and
settled on Roanoke Island. [it is true this was not exactly a successful
undertaking]

Just a few miles up the road from me some people moved into the
neighborhood back in 1607 or so.

By 1619 despite a lot of false starts hardships etc there was a colony
established with a rudimentary form of self government , such as ther House
of Burgesses, governor, etc.

By 1624 Virginia was firmly established and beginning to flourish

Wasn't it 1620 or so that the Pilgrims began arriving?

Now the Plymouth Company, the twin to the London Company was responsible
for the Northern areas while the London company was responsible for the
southern areas, did settle a group of folks on the banks of the Kennebec
River in 1607, but those folks gave up after only a few months. Traders
and fishermen continued to visit from time and time, and the term "New
England' was given the area by Captain John Smith, you know, the guy from
Jamestown, Va, etc area>

Maybe you are a frustrated Pilgrim or Puritan, I don't know. Your biased
attitude is really getting in your way.

This latest example is as silly as your previous comment about New England
being half the country.

New England was no more the cradle of this nation then Virginia was. Both
pretty much were settled and grew during the same time frames. If anything
Virginia actually settled and established ahead of the New England area.

Both were originally corporate undertakings, by sister companies..

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|> >:|Charles Hodge's statements about this being a Christian Nation also have no
>:|> >:|legal bearing either.
>:|>
>:|> Let's keep the discussion on the subject.
>:|>
>:|> The subject is the dictum of Justice Brewer.
>:|
>:|Golly, I hope the subject of this conversation is not limited to the 1892 Holy
>:|Trinity case. If so, I have a lot better things to do.

Then I suggest you move on into doing them, because it appears you have
fallen back into your habit of game playing again instead of actually
responding to the comments made by another.

I actually give you credit for intelligence, which is good and bad. It is
good that I credit you with the intelligence to carry on a decent
discussion on the actual subject under discussion and what the other person
has actually said.

The bad is, the fact that you prefer to instead keep injecting other
things, other areas, etc into the discussion in place of actually
responding the what the other person has said.

That is commonly called game playing.

So, if you have something better to do, I recommend you do it. Your game
playing is wasting your time and my time. Limiting the discussion to only
one out of the way news group isn't even spreading word about your book, so
you aren't even accomplishing that anymore.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

Not very minimal, NO significance

>:| but I refuse to agree with your constant claim that only

Yea, it's called don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.

>:|writings which can be cited as legal precedents are at all significant.

Bull, your entire use of the Brewer dictum is based on the fact that it
"comes from the Supreme Court."

"such an esteemed body"

In your mind you can make it appear to have more value then just some
"ordinary historian"

>;|I did
>:|not know Brewer had written the book "Christian Nation" (I know you'll bash me
>:|for my ignorance); if I had, and if it elucidated the history contained in the
>:|1892 decision, I believe it might be very significant to my claims. I don't
>:|give a hoot that it is not an official court decision.

Sure you do, well actually you are correct, pardon me, you don't care if
its an official court decision, you do care that you can use it and say
"that esteemed body, the Supreme Court said this."

No, you wouldn't bother to say, it was said in dictum [judge offering his
own personal opinion about something, and should be viewed in exactly that
manner, a person offering his own personal opinion about something and it
has nothing at all to do with his position or office, etc]

>;|Like most historical
>:|texts, most of the citations in my book are not legal sources, that's because
>:|all historians are not interested in the same church/state debate that you are
>:|enamored with.

Thou doest protest too much

You have already acknowledged that the value of the Holy Trinity thingie
is, that such an esteemed body [has appeared] to put their stamp of
approval on at least parts of your theory.

No one, including you, have ever stated that Brewer was a historian. He
never claimed he was, I know of no one else who has ever said he was or
shown any evidence that he was. I don't recall anything in his bio stating
that he was a historian.

So, the truth is, you can't even use the argument that he was a historian.

His only value to you and to any who use him in that manner is that he sat
on the supreme court and he wrote his own personal opinion and thoughts, as
dictum, at the end of a opinion. The case in question dealt with the intent
of a specific law regarding labor and importing or inviting foreign workers
into this country.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|It seems to me that Madison's letter to Jasper Adams is in regard to whether
>:|the Government ought to finance a particular religious affiliation:
>:|

LOL

>:|Madison writes:
>:|
>:|"the simple question to be decided is whether a support of the best & purest religion,
>:|the Xn religion itself ought, not so far at least as pecuniary means are
>:|involved, to be provided for by the Govt rather than be left to the
>:|voluntary provisions of those who profess it."

Yep, that is a part of his letter alright.

You do like to extract.

What do the other parts of his letter say?

You forgot to mention those.

What was the entire letter in answer to?

You forget to mention that.

You seem to have some really serious selective filters installed in your
head. With all these various things you find , that you choose to find, and
extract from the data I have provided you with, it makes me question how
serious anyone should take your book.

>:|
>:|I would argue that most Protestant Christians of reknown (i.e., all those
>:|Europeans whom you don't think matter: Luther, Milton, Locke, Sydney,
>:|Harrington, etc.), agree with Madison on this point. The voluntary nature of
>:|dedication to religion is essential to true faith. If Jasper was suggesting a
>:|coerced religion, he was wrong. I'm not sure that Madison and Adams were as
>:|far apart as you perceive.

Let me ask you a simple question.

How do you manage to form conclusions about things you have never read?

BTW, did you forget that the support of religion was required by law in the
vast majority of colonies in this country until the colonies begain writing
their own constitutions and became independet states in 1776. Was that not
also true throughout most, if not all of Europe as well prior to that time?

>:|One think is clear: they both assert that Christianity is the "best and purest religion."

That is suppose to mean what?

What do you feel that means as far as Madison was concerned?

Mike Curtis

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>So, if you have something better to do, I recommend you do it. Your game
>playing is wasting your time and my time. Limiting the discussion to only
>one out of the way news group isn't even spreading word about your book, so
>you aren't even accomplishing that anymore.

I see *all* the news groups are back. :-)

It's best to limit the spectacle of getting ones butt kicked to a
single news group. I can understand that. For me doesn't bother me
much. I make mistakes. I admit when I'm wrong. No big deal. I even get
angry. I make reading mistakes. I'm not as perfect as Mr. Gardiner.
<smile> I note that he didn't even acknowledge my apology to him. Sad.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>His only value to you and to any who use him in that manner is that he sat
>on the supreme court and he wrote his own personal opinion and thoughts, as
>dictum, at the end of a opinion. The case in question dealt with the intent
>of a specific law regarding labor and importing or inviting foreign workers
>into this country.

So is turn-about fair play? Can we quote other justice's personal
views when they take up their pens to write dictum? All it'll come to
is a quote war once again. Those mean nothing. Historians, good ones,
tend to prove their theories using original source material. Secondary
material is valued if the sources and opinions are of good quality.
This makes secondary sources helpful in proving a conclusion.
Secondary sources should never be used exclusively to prove a thesis
without considering the sources used by the secondary material.

Mike Curtis

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|>Try reading some of the penalties for not going to church or otherwise
>:|>violating Sabbath laws, especially in the very early colonial times. As
>:|>IIRC death was called for in some colonies.
>:|
>:|Could you provide some sources? I don't recall New england having this
>:|severe a penalty.
>:|

American State Papers, bearing on Sunday Legislation Revised and enlarged
edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Bakely Revised Edition
By Willard Allen Colcord Published by The religious Liberty Association
Washington D C 1911.

Beginning on page 33, the Colonial period,
America's First sunday law, 1610, Virginia,
Every man and woman shall repair in the morning to the Divine service and
sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to divine
service, and catechising, upon pain for the first fault to olose their
provision and the allowance for the whole week following; for the second,
to lose their allowance and also be whipt; and for the third to suffer
death.

By 1623 - 24 it had been reduced to forfeiting tobacco. by 1705 was a
fine or forfeit of tobacco or ten lashes. By 1792 it was a fine of $1.67
but actually was for laboring on Sunday by then.

Massachusetts 1656
Further bee it enacted that whoseever shall prophane the Lords day by
doeing any servill worke or any such like abuses, shall forfeite for every
such default tenn shillings or be whipte.

Massachusetts 1671

This court taking notice of great abuse, and many misdemeanours, committed
by divers persons in these many wayes, profaning the Sabbath or Lord's day,
to great dishonour of God, Reproach of Religion, , and grief of the
Spririts of God's People,
Do Therefore Order, That whosoever shall profane the lords-day, by doing
unnecessary servile Work, by unnecessary travailing, or by sports or
recreations, he or they that so trangress, shall forfeit for everysuch
default forty shillings, opr be publickly whipt: But if clearly appear that
the sin was proudly, presumptously and with high hand committed, against
the known command and authority of the blesed God, such a person therein
despising and reproaching the Lord shall be put to death or grievously
punished at the Judgement of the court.

Conn also had an early death law regarding Sundays.

The books lists about all the Sabbath attendance etc laws from the
beginning of each colony up through probably 1790's or so.

if you are intewrested and can't Locate the book, let me know and i can
supply you with more excerpts.

**********************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."

Page is a member of the following web rings:

The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring

Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring

Legal Research Ring
**********************************************

>:|Mike Curtis
>:|
>:|

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>So, if you have something better to do, I recommend you do it. Your game

>:|>playing is wasting your time and my time. Limiting the discussion to only
>:|>one out of the way news group isn't even spreading word about your book, so
>:|>you aren't even accomplishing that anymore.
>:|
>:|I see *all* the news groups are back. :-)

>:|

Yea, I added them. I enjoy diverse opinions.

>:|It's best to limit the spectacle of getting ones butt kicked to a

>:|single news group. I can understand that. For me doesn't bother me
>:|much. I make mistakes. I admit when I'm wrong. No big deal. I even get
>:|angry. I make reading mistakes. I'm not as perfect as Mr. Gardiner.
>:|<smile> I note that he didn't even acknowledge my apology to him. Sad.

>:|

Well I am the king of typos

I don't type, even tried to learn but must have a serious mental block to
it, just really never got the hang of it

I am also blind in one eye and far from perfect sight in the other.

So the result is I make a lot of typos when I am hunting and pecking. I
also reverse letters a lot.

Next, my mind goes far faster then my fingers, so I am usually severl lines
ahead in thought from where my fingers are struggling to catch up.

Result being my sentences do not always flow the way they should.

But, usually I can be understood. LOL

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|
>:|>His only value to you and to any who use him in that manner is that he sat

>:|>on the supreme court and he wrote his own personal opinion and thoughts, as
>:|>dictum, at the end of a opinion. The case in question dealt with the intent
>:|>of a specific law regarding labor and importing or inviting foreign workers
>:|>into this country.
>:|
>:|So is turn-about fair play? Can we quote other justice's personal
>:|views when they take up their pens to write dictum? All it'll come to
>:|is a quote war once again.

Yep, other Justices can be quoted with their dictum. Some really got
carried away at times.

>:|Those mean nothing. Historians, good ones,

>:|tend to prove their theories using original source material. Secondary
>:|material is valued if the sources and opinions are of good quality.
>:|This makes secondary sources helpful in proving a conclusion.
>:|Secondary sources should never be used exclusively to prove a thesis
>:|without considering the sources used by the secondary material.

I tend to stay within the time frames and use material by those there and
involved.

The project I am working on has almost no commentary to it. It includes
all, the good, the bad, the ugly and the indifferent.

it includes material that would support separation of church and state,
material that would tend to support the opposite, and material that
supports neither side of the debate.

It consists of letters, journals, diaries, newspaper editorials and
articles, speeches, debates, court opinions, arguments in courts and
Congress, Acts of Congress, debates in Congress, laws vetoes of laws, etc
from the time period of 1780 to 1947

It goes under the working title of
THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

I don't need a bunch of commentary to tell people what it says or means. it
stands on its own merits. Let readers decide for themselves what they think
it means.

It is pure historical data. That's where this historical info I post comes
from. At present I have over 1100 pages already on the puter, so it is
simple for me to post such material. LOL

Getting it on the puter is very time consuming, particularly since my hunt
and peck speed in like 20 words a minute [not counting mistakes]

Some can be scanned but the old documents do not scan well. and I use IBM
voice program that allows me to dictate some things, but even that needs
some cleanup at times.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|

>>:|>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|>

>>:|>Try reading some of the penalties for not going to church or otherwise
>>:|>violating Sabbath laws, especially in the very early colonial times. As
>>:|>IIRC death was called for in some colonies.
>>:|
>>:|Could you provide some sources? I don't recall New england having this
>>:|severe a penalty.
>>:|
>
>
>American State Papers, bearing on Sunday Legislation Revised and enlarged
>edition, Compiled and Annotated by William Addison Bakely Revised Edition
>By Willard Allen Colcord Published by The religious Liberty Association
>Washington D C 1911.
>
>Beginning on page 33, the Colonial period,
>America's First sunday law, 1610, Virginia,
>Every man and woman shall repair in the morning to the Divine service and
>sermons preached upon the Sabbath day, and in the afternoon to divine
>service, and catechising, upon pain for the first fault to olose their
>provision and the allowance for the whole week following; for the second,
>to lose their allowance and also be whipt; and for the third to suffer
>death.

Those darn Anglicans! :-)

>By 1623 - 24 it had been reduced to forfeiting tobacco. by 1705 was a
>fine or forfeit of tobacco or ten lashes. By 1792 it was a fine of $1.67
>but actually was for laboring on Sunday by then.

Pretty soon one runs out of folks to attend church. Couldn't help the
humor.

>Massachusetts 1656
>Further bee it enacted that whoseever shall prophane the Lords day by
>doeing any servill worke or any such like abuses, shall forfeite for every
>such default tenn shillings or be whipte.

Well, this ISN'T for NOT attending church.

>Massachusetts 1671
>
>This court taking notice of great abuse, and many misdemeanours, committed
>by divers persons in these many wayes, profaning the Sabbath or Lord's day,
>to great dishonour of God, Reproach of Religion, , and grief of the
>Spririts of God's People,

Again this isn't for nonattendance. There is a difference. No one that
I know of was ever put to death for not attending church in New
England. James Truslow Adams would have never let that moment pass his
notice.

>Do Therefore Order, That whosoever shall profane the lords-day, by doing
>unnecessary servile Work, by unnecessary travailing, or by sports or
>recreations, he or they that so trangress, shall forfeit for everysuch
>default forty shillings, opr be publickly whipt: But if clearly appear that
>the sin was proudly, presumptously and with high hand committed, against
>the known command and authority of the blesed God, such a person therein
>despising and reproaching the Lord shall be put to death or grievously
>punished at the Judgement of the court.

You do recognize the difference?

>Conn also had an early death law regarding Sundays.
>
>The books lists about all the Sabbath attendance etc laws from the
>beginning of each colony up through probably 1790's or so.

New Haven was a pretty severe place but I know of no one being put to
death for not attending church. Many did not. Many did not and never
broke one of these rules.

>if you are intewrested and can't Locate the book, let me know and i can
>supply you with more excerpts.

I have the records of the court of assistants in my home library along
with many other primary sources. Thanks for the info on the American
State papers. Do be careful to distinguish misbehavior on sabbath days
vs. simply attending church. VA made it much more clearer on the third
offense.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Mar 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/30/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|

>>:|>His only value to you and to any who use him in that manner is that he sat
>>:|>on the supreme court and he wrote his own personal opinion and thoughts, as
>>:|>dictum, at the end of a opinion. The case in question dealt with the intent
>>:|>of a specific law regarding labor and importing or inviting foreign workers
>>:|>into this country.
>>:|
>>:|So is turn-about fair play? Can we quote other justice's personal
>>:|views when they take up their pens to write dictum? All it'll come to
>>:|is a quote war once again.
>
>Yep, other Justices can be quoted with their dictum. Some really got
>carried away at times.
>
>
>
>>:|Those mean nothing. Historians, good ones,
>>:|tend to prove their theories using original source material. Secondary
>>:|material is valued if the sources and opinions are of good quality.
>>:|This makes secondary sources helpful in proving a conclusion.
>>:|Secondary sources should never be used exclusively to prove a thesis
>>:|without considering the sources used by the secondary material.
>
>I tend to stay within the time frames and use material by those there and
>involved.
>
>The project I am working on has almost no commentary to it. It includes
>all, the good, the bad, the ugly and the indifferent.

This could be dangerous. You are allowing people to think for
themselves. It's too bad we don't teach our children to think very
well these days.

>it includes material that would support separation of church and state,
>material that would tend to support the opposite, and material that
>supports neither side of the debate.
>
>It consists of letters, journals, diaries, newspaper editorials and
>articles, speeches, debates, court opinions, arguments in courts and
>Congress, Acts of Congress, debates in Congress, laws vetoes of laws, etc
>from the time period of 1780 to 1947
>
>It goes under the working title of
>THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
>CHURCH AND STATE, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
>
>I don't need a bunch of commentary to tell people what it says or means. it
>stands on its own merits. Let readers decide for themselves what they think
>it means.

Yes. Dangerous. But I'll buy a copy.

>It is pure historical data. That's where this historical info I post comes
>from. At present I have over 1100 pages already on the puter, so it is
>simple for me to post such material. LOL

I don't mind the material. I do like an index.

>Getting it on the puter is very time consuming, particularly since my hunt
>and peck speed in like 20 words a minute [not counting mistakes]

>Some can be scanned but the old documents do not scan well. and I use IBM
>voice program that allows me to dictate some things, but even that needs
>some cleanup at times.

Do those voice things really work. I've got carpel tunnel at the
moment.

Mike Curtis

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|This is an attempt to move away from the ad hominems and focus and argument on
>:|the historical data:
>:|
>:|THOMAS JEFFERSON wrote:
>:|
>:|"we may safely affirm that Christianity neither is, nor ever was part of the
>:|common law."
>:|
>:|(if you care to check out the entire context of the statement see http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl227.htm)
>:|
>:|JOSEPH STORY wrote in opposition:
>:|
>:|"Mr. Jefferson has, with his accustomed boldness, denied that
>:|Christianity is a part of the common Law, & Dr. [Thomas] Cooper has with
>:|even more dogmatism, maintained the same opinion. I am persuaded, that a
>:|more egregious error never was uttered by able men. And I have long desired
>:|to find leisure to write a dissertation to establish this conclusion. Both
>:|of them rely on authorities & expositions which are wholly inadmissible.
>:|And I am surprised, that no one has as yet exposed the shallowness of their
>:|enquiries. Both of them have probably been easily drawn into the
>:|maintenance of such a doctrine by their own skepticism. It is due to truth,
>:|& to the purity of the Law, to unmask their fallacies."
>:|
>:|--------
>:|

LOL, you are being funny, do you think anyone who is going to read this is
even remotely qualified to determine which might be correct?

It would take someone with a law degree, plus a degree, at least one, in
History, probably English or European History.

In short, the average reader that might even bother to read the above is
not going to have the faintest idea who might or might not be correct.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|Now let's take a look at some of the data
>:|
>:|THESE ARE JUST A FEW EXERPTS FROM THE COMMON LAW: BLACKSTONE--
>:|

ACTUALLY THE FOLLOWING COME FROM CHAPTER IV OF BOOK IV OF BLACKSTONE'S:

COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, (1772)

>:|"Basis of Judicial Oaths. The belief in a future state of rewards and
>:|punishments, the entertaining just ideas of the attributes of the Supreme
>:|Being, and a firm persuasion that He superintends and will finally compensate
>:|every action in human life, are the grand foundation of judicial oaths, which
>:|call God to witness the truth of those facts, which perhaps may only be known
>:|to him and the party attesting. All moral evidence, all confidence in human
>:|veracity [are] weakened by apostasy, and overthrown by total infidelity...
>:|
>:|Gross Impieties. We proceed now to consider some gross impieties and
>:|immoralities, which are punished by our municipal law, frequently in
>:|concurrence with the ecclesiastical; the spiritual court punishing pro salute
>:|animae, for the safety of the soul, while the temporal courts correct more for
>:|the sake of example, than for private amendment.
>:|
>:|Blasphemy. An offence against God and religion is that of blasphemy against
>:|the Almighty, by denying His being or providence, or by contumelious
>:|reproaches of Christ. Also all profane scoffing at the holy scriptures, or
>:|exposing them to comtempt and ridicule. This is punished by fine and
>:|imprisonment, or infamous corporal punishment.
>:|
>:|Cursing. This is somewhat allied to blasphemy. By statute of George II, which
>:|repeals all former acts, every laborer, sailor, or soldier profanely swearing,
>:|shall forfeit one shilling for every offence, and every other person under the
>:|degree of a gentleman, two shillings; and every gentleman or person of rank,
>:|five shillings, for the poor of the parish, and on the second offence, double,
>:|and the third offence, treble. In default of payment, the offender shall be
>:|sent to the house of correction for ten days. Profanity was expressly
>:|forbidden in stage plays...
>:|
>:|Profanation of the Lord’s Day. This offence is vulgarly called
>:|Sabbath-Breaking, and is punished by municipal law. Beside the indecency and
>:|scandal of permitting any regular business to be publicly transacted on that
>:|day in a country professing christianity, and the corruption of morals which
>:|usually follows its profanation, the keeping this day holy, as a time of
>:|relaxation, as well as for public worship, is of admirable service to a state,
>:|considered merely as a civil institution. It humanizes, by the help of
>:|conversation and society, the manners of the lower classes, which would
>:|otherwise degenerate into a wild ferocity and savage selfishness of spirit;
>:|it enables the industrious workman to pursue his occupation during the ensuing
>:|week with health and cheerfulness; it imprints upon the minds of the people
>:|that sense of their duty to their God, so necessary to make them good
>:|citizens, but which would be defaced by an unremitted continuance of labor,
>:|without any stated time to recall them to the worship of their Maker..."
>:|
>:|Now, I ask those reading this post to judge for Story or Jefferson...
>:|
>:|Please judge for yourself...which one saw more clearly??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE IS ONE OPINION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLACKSTONE'S

COMMENTARIES

THE LAW

From the Abridged Edition of Wm. Hardcastle Browne
Including a Biographical Sketch, Modern American
Notes, Common Law Maxims and a Glossary of Legal Terms

Edited by
BERNARD C. GAVIT

Dean, Indiana University School of Law

WASHINGTON LAW BOOK CO.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1892

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEAN GAVIT'S NOTES

CHAPTER IV

OFFENSES AS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION

The Federal Constitution and state constitutions prohibit an official
state religion, with the result that most of the crimes which Blackstone
describes in this chapter cannot exist in this country. Clearly a statute
which would undertake to resurrect the crime of heresy would be
unconstitutional. It is, of course, still true that religious organizations
and activities may be protected against unlawful interference, so that one
who disturbs a religious meeting or offends the religious sensibilities of
other members of society may be guilty of a crime. Statutes providing for
the observance of Sunday as a day of rest are still common, and a person
may be guilty of a crime if he engages in. common work or other activity of
a proscribed nature on this day.

What Blackstone describes in paragraphs 10 and 11, of course, are quite
outside of the field of religion as such, and statutes today generally make
this type of conduct wrongful, because such conduct offends common
standards of morality, quite apart from any religious sanctions on the
same-subject.
[paragraph 10 is Drunkenness and paragraph 11 is Open Lewdness]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|
>:|Setting aside all the rhetoric about who was a better lawyer, just judge for
>:|yourself. The material below describing how much Story hated Jefferson is
>:|really a Red Herring in this debate. The issue is not who went to the better
>:|law school, or who was the better lawyer, but who accurately assessed the
>:|common law.

LOL, what a trip.

Context only applies when it favors you, huh?

Potential motives are never important, huh?

Everything exists in a vacuum, huh?

Interesting.

Don't forget to remind the readers that Blackstone was writing from a
system that had an established Church, you know a union between Church and
state.

Don't forget to remind the readers that it was crime to "bad mouth" that
union, or that religion.

>:|
>:|jalison wrote:
>:|> Some facts you may or may not be aware of:
>:|>
>:|> Story hated Jefferson with a passion, but then, Jefferson didn't especially
>:|> like Story either.
>:|>
>:|> However, Jefferson seldom mentioned Story in letters, etc, while Story very
>:|> frequently used letters to take snips at Jefferson.
>:|>
>:|> Both were lawyers, and from all accounts I have run theacross, throughout
>:|> his cousin John Marshall. [They were considered to be perhaps the two best
>:|> time Jefferson actually practiced law, he was considered to be the equal of
>:|> lawyers in Va or at least among the very best in Va.]
>:|>
>:|> Jefferson received his law training prior to the influx of Blackstone, etc.
>:|> republican nation/state rather then a colony of England.
>:|>
>:|> Jefferson was a member of a committee of five who was selected to revise
>:|> the laws of Va. To make them more humane, and more in line with a>
>:|> This was a task that took approx 2-3 years and resulted in a series of
>:|> proposed bills that would have revised much of the current laws of the
>:|> state of Va.
>:|>
>:|> Point to all this being, not only did Jefferson go through the usual
>:|> reading and study for the law that those who wished to practice law had to
>:|> do, but he then went back and undertook a even more in depth study of law,
>:|> its history, etc in order to understand the roots of the laws in which he
>:|> was writing revisions for.
>:|>
>:|> Does that make him infallible, nope, but it at least says he was as
>:|> qualified and probably more qualified then Story in this area and on these
>:|> subjects.
>:|>
>:|> You have two lawyers, both disliking each other intensely. Story tended to
>:|> make his dislike of Jefferson much more personal then Jefferson did his
>:|> dislike of Story.
>:|>
>:|> Story represented the old conservative status quo, the ideal representative
>:|> of the New England religious mind set.
>:|>
>:|> Jefferson, the exact opposite.
>:|>
>:|> That is what it's really about.
>:|
>:|THAT IS ENTIRELY OFF THE SUBJECT OF WHETHER CHRISTIANITY WAS PART OF THE COMMON LAW!!

Was it really?

Who was making he argument it was? Who was making the argument it wasn't?

Both these gentlemen set aside all personal thoughts, ideas, opinions, etc?

>:|
>:|> You had one lawyer saying one thing, another the opposite. You side with
>:|> the one who expresses what you already believe.
>:|>
>:|> However, that does not make Story correct..

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|JOSEPH STORY wrote in opposition:
>:|

FEBRUARY 15, 1830

Washington,
February 15th, 1830.
MY DEAR FRIEND:
I thank you for your half of the letter I lately received, and
still more for the better half from another source, which, not intending to
raise any domestic strife, I must say was quite interesting,
Have you seen Mr. Jefferson's Works? If not, sit down at once and
read his fourth volume. It is the most precious melange of all sorts of
scandals you ever read. It will elevate your opinion of his talents, but
lower him in point of principle and morals not a little, His attacks on
Christianity
are (i la mode de Voltaire; and singularly bold, and mischievous. Few
public men have escaped his reproof; but the Federalists are dealt with in
terms of unmeasured harshness.
I wish I had some news to write you, but what can a man do, whose
whole circuit is from his chamber to the Courtroom and back again? Give my
love to Mrs. Fay, and Harriet, and believe me,
Your affectionate friend,
JOSEPH STORY.
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by Justice Joseph Story to Judge
Fay, February 15, 1830, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, edited by William
Story, Volume II, Little and Brown, Boston, 1851, pp 33)

(Commentary: a letter giving showing the continuation of the intense
dislike Joseph Story had for Thomas Jefferson.)

MAY 31, 1832

MY DEAR SIR
I thank you greatly for your numerous favors, which I should have
acknowledged before if I had not for some time been engaged in my Circuit
Court duties. I especially thank you for your excellent address before the
colonization society, and for your equally excellent report on the
apportionment bill. I hope to see soon your speech on the latter. I have
considered this last subject very attentively; and I am of opinion, not
only that the amendment proposed by the Senate is constitutional, but I am
also of opinion that it is the only constitutional mode of apportionment.
If their has been any deviation from it in the prior acts on the same
subject, they cannot be sustained on principle. I have been so struck with
the reasoning on this point, that I shall introduced the substance of it
into my lectures on the Constitution in which that Clause occurs. I am
wholly unable to reason upon the point without been astonished at the
course pursued by Congress. Mr. Jefferson's argument, in my judgment, is
very flimsy and weak; his best argument is in his correspondence, and that
was his real ground; it was a contest between the North and South, and he
always went with, if he did not lead, the latter. I impute President
Washington's message and first objection entirely to his urgent influence.
The second objection, that it gave to some states more than one
representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants is, as I think,
unanswerable. Every day I perceive more and more the effects of Mr.
Jefferson's extraordinary opinions and acts in every department of our
government. It is time his correspondence was fairly and freely reviewed. I
shall be glad to receive any other documents which you can spare, on this
subject (especially Polk's report) and the other interesting subject now
before Congress. Pray tell Mr. Doddridge I have read his speech with great
pleasure, and that I think his main grounds absolutely impregnable. I
should be glad of a copy of any counter speech--I do not say argument.
I write you in great haste, and am very
truly,

Your obliged friend,

JOSEPH STORY
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Letter written by Joseph Stroy to the Hon. Edward
Everett, May 31, 1832, Life and Letters of Joseph Story, edited by William
Story, Volume II, Little and Brown, Boston, 1851, pp 94-95)

FROM JOSEPH STORY

Cambridge May 14'" 1833.

Dear Sir,

I am greatly obliged to you for the copy of your convention sermon,
which you have been pleased to send me. I have read it with uncommon
satisfaction, & think its tone & spirit excellent. My own private judgement
has long been, (& every day's experience more & more confirms me in it,)
that government can not long exist without an alliance with religion to
some extent; & that Christianity is indispensable to the true interests &
solid foundations of all free governments. I distinguish, as you do,
between the establishment of a particular sect, as the Religion of the
State, & the Establishment of Christianity itself, without any preference
of any particular form of it. I know not, indeed, how any deep sense of
moral obligation or accountableness can be expected to prevail in the
community without a firm persuasion of the great Christian Truths
promulgated in your South Carolina constitution of 1778. I look with no
small dismay upon the rashness &
indifference with which the American People seem in our day to be disposed
to cut adrift from old principles, & to trust themselves to the theories of
every wild projector in to [?] religion & politics.
Upon the point, how far the constitution of 1790 has, on the
subject of religion, superseded that of 1778, it is somewhat difficult for
me to form a decisive opinion without some additional documents, showing
the authority of the convention, which framed it, & the effect given to it.
If (as I suppose was the case) the object of the constitution of 1790 was,
to supersede that of 1778, & to stand as a substitute, (which has been the
general construction in like cases of a general
new[?] constitution) then, it seems to me, that the constitution of 1778
is by necessary implication repealed, except so far as any of its
provisions are expressly retained. It does not strike me that the 2"
section of the 8th article of 1790 retains any thing of the religious
articles of that of 1778, but only provides that the existing rights &c.
of religious societies & corporate bodies shall remain unaffected by the
change of the constitution. The rights &c., here provided for, are the more
private rights of those bodies, such as the rights of property, &
corporate immunities; but not any rights as Christians or as Protestants to
be entitled to the superior protection of the State. The first section of
the 8''' article seems to me intended to abolish all distinctions &
preferences, as to the state, between all religious persuasions, whether
Christian or other wise. But I doubt exceedingly, if it ought to be
construed so as to abolish Christianity as a part of the antecedent Law of
the
Land, to the extent of withdrawing from it all recognition of it as a
revealed religion. The 23d section of art. 1st seems to me manifestly to
point to a different conclusion.

Mr. Jefferson has, with his accustomed boldness, denied that
Christianity is a part of the common Law, & Dr. [Thomas] Cooper has with
even more dogmatism, maintained the same opinion. I am persuaded, that a
more egregious error never was uttered by able men. And I have long desired
to find leisure to write a dissertation to establish this conclusion. Both
of them rely on authorities & expositions which are wholly inadmissible.
And I am surprised, that no one has as
yet exposed the shallowness of their enquiries. Both of them have probably
been easily drawn into the maintenance of such a doctrine by their own
skepticism. It is due to truth, & to the purity of the Law, to unmask their
fallacies.

I am gratified by your favourable opinion of my Commentaries on the
constitution. If I shall be thought to have done anything to aid in
perpetuating the true exposition of its rights & powers, & duties, I shall
reap all the reward I desire. The Abridgment for colleges & schools will be
published next week. I hope it may be found a useful manual.
I cannot conclude this letter without thanking you again for your
sermon. These are times in which the friends of Christianity are required
to sound the alarm, & to inculcate sound principles. I fear that infidelity
is make [sic] rapid progress under the delusive guise of the freedom of
religious opinion & liberty of conscience.

Believe me with great respect,
Your obliged servant,

Joseph Story.

1833

CHRISTIANITY A PART OF THE COMMON LAW.
Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to Major Cartwright, recently published,
insists that the maxim, that Christianity is a part of the common law, has
no foundation in the cases cited to sup port it, they all referring to the
Year Book, 34 Henry VI. 38, 40; which he says has no such meaning.
The substance of the case in 34 Henry, VI. 38, 40, is this. It was
a quare impedit against the bishop and others; and the bishop pleaded, that
the church was in litigation between
the plaintiff and his co-defendant, as to the right of patronage. The
argument by counsel in one part of the case was, that every advowson and
right of patronage depended upon both laws, namely, the law of the church
and the common law ; For every presentment commenced at the common law and
took effect by the law of the church, as to the ability or non-ability of
the clerk presented or his being criminal. And it was said by Ashton, that
if the bishop should refuse the
clerk on account of alleged inability, and a quare impedit was brought,
and the bishop excused himself on that account, and the parties were at
issue upon the fact of ability, another judge should decide that, namely,
the metropolitan. But that was denied by Danby, who said it should be tried
by the jury. Ashton, however, persisted in his opinion, arguing that the
right of advowuon must be tried by both laws, and that before judgment wag
given, knowledge ought to be of the ecclesiatical law. Prisot then said:
"A tiels leys gue eux de sainte Esgliue, ont en auncien Scripture convenit
pui nous a doner credence, quia ceo est comen ley, sur quel toutes maners
leys sont foudues; et, auxi, sir, nous sumus obliges de conustre leur ley
de saint Esglise; et semble, ils sount obliges de coniustre- notre ley."
The literal traslation is, " 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 notice of our law."
Mr. Jefferson supposes that the words "auncien scripture" do not
refer to the Holy Scriptures or Bible, but. to writings, or the written
code of the church.
But if this be so, how could Prisot have said that they were common
law, upon which all manner of laws are founded? Do not these words suppose
that he was speaking of some
superior law, having a foundation in nature or the Divine appointment, and
not merely a positive ancient code Of the church ?
Mr. Jefferson asserts, that in subsequent cases, which he refers
to, the expression has been constantly understood referring to the Holy
Scriptures; but he thinks it a mistake of Prisot's meaning. Now it is some
argument in favor of the common interpretation, that it has always been
cited as clear -- Mr. J.'s interpretation is novel.
This case is cited in Brook's Abrid.s. Title Quare Impedit, pl..12,
and in Fitzherbert's Abridg. s. t. 89; but no notice is taken of Prisot's
saying.
Mr. Jefferson quotes sundry cases, where this saying been relied on
in proof of the maxim, that Christianity is a part of the common law.
Thus, in Taylor's case, 1 Vent. 293, indictment for blasphemous
words, Hale, C. J., said, Such blasphemous words are not only an offense
against God and religion, but a crime against the laws and government, and
therefore punishable in this court, &c.; and Christianity is a part of the
laws of England; and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to
speak in subversion of the law. In the same case in 3 Keble, 607, Hale, C.
J. is reported to have said, "Religion is a part of the law itself,
therefore, injuries to God are as punishable as to the King, or any common
power." The
case of 34 Hen. VI. 38, 40, is not here cited by the Court as a foundation
of their opinion. But it proceeds upon a general principle.
So in Rex v. Woolston, 2 Strange, R. 834, S. C. Fitzgibb. 64, the
Court said they could not suffer it to be debated whether to write against
Christianity in general was not an
offence punishable in the temporal courts, at common law, it having been
settled so to be in Taylor's case, 1 Vent. R. 293, and Rex. v. Hall, 1
Strange, R. 416. No reference was here
made to the case in 84 Hen. VI.
A reference is made by Mr. J. to Sheppard's Abridgment, title
Religion; but the only position there found is, " that to such laws as have
warrant in Holy Scripture our law giveth
credence;" and "laws made against the known law of God are void;" and for
these positions, he cites, among others, the case of 34 Hen. VI. 40.
But independently of any weight in any of these authorities, can
any man seriously doubt, that Christianity is recognized as true, as a
revelation, by the law of England, that is, by the common law? What becomes
of her whole ecclesiastical establishment, and the legal rights growing out
of it on any other supposition? What of her test acts, and acts perpetually
referring to it as a divine system, obligatory upon all? Is not the
reviling of any establishment, created and supported by the public law,
held a libel by the common law ?
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: "Christianity a part of the Common Law" by Joseph
Story, written in 1824 but unpublished until published in the American
Jurist Vol. IX, 1833. The Life and Letters of Joseph Story, ed William
Story, Vol. I, Charles C. Little and James Brown, (1851) pp 429-434)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

Let's toss in as much evidence as we can find, let's let the readers make
up their own minds

__________________________________________________________________________

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court that decided Updegraph was uncommonly
distinguished. Its five members included William Tilghman, the chief
justice, and John Bannister Gibson, his successor, both of outstanding
talent. Thomas Duncan, who wrote the Updegraph opinion, was also an able
judge. The crime of blasphemy, however, was apparently so abhorrent to
these men that it subverted their judicial craftsmanship and detachment.

Updegraph's crime, for which he was convicted at a trial in Pittsburgh,
consisted in declaring that the Bible was "a mere fable," containing many
contradictions and "lies." He made that remark as a member of a debating
association in the course of a debate about religion, and he had not
reviled the Bible. Nevertheless, a grand jury indicted him for biasphemy,
and a trial jury convicted him. Although he received only a token sentence,
a fine of 5 shillings plus costs, the principle of free speech mattered so
much to him that he appealed. He won a Pyrrhic victory. The high court
reversed his conviction on a technicality, but decided against him on the
free-speech issue. The technicality was the omission of the word
"profanely" from the indictment. That mattered because the colonial statute
under which Updegraph was prosecuted required, redundantly, that the
individual both "blaspheme" and speak "profanely" of God, Christ, the
Trinity, or the Bible.

Updegraph had argued that the statute had been superseded by the
state constitution, which protected the right to express opinions on any
subject as long as this did not tend to breach the peace. He also claime`d
that the English common law respecting religion had no existence in
Pennsylvania. Judge Duncan, for the court, contemptuously dismissed
such views, revealing an astoundingly close-minded attitude toward
criticism of Christianity. Duncan should not have even addressed these
matters, given that the court decided to reverse the conviction because the
indictment was bad. Everything he said beyond that fact constituted
OBITER DICTA.

Duncan claimed he was sorry to learn that the debating society was "a
nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the
gallows, and young women for the brothel." Any supporter of good
morals, he declared, considered such debating societies as a civic
disgrace. From the words spoken by Updegraph, Duncan could not believe
that the debate had been "serious"; rather, Updegraph's language "was
the outpouring of an invective so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the
lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when
spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience," it violated
public morals and so was criminal. Even if Christianity was not part of the
law of the land, it was the "popular religion of the country, an insult on
which would be indictable, as directly tending to disturb the peace."
Duncan gratuitously declared that Christianity was part of Pennsylvania's
common law. If it were not, he reasoned, cursing, blasphemy, incestuous
marriage, perjury, and adultery--all banned by Christianity--would be
lawful, and the measures against them would be restraints upon civil
liberty. Duncan's reasoning was as farfetched as it was biased. He
intemperately defended "the constitutionality of Christianity," which he
misdefined as the issue presented by the case.(19)

Invoking the English precedents and Kent's opinion in Ruggles Duncan
insisted that, if Updegraph's View of the scope of free speech prevailed,
blasphemy and profanity "must reach their acme with impunity, and every
debating club might dedicate the club room to the worship of the Goddess of
Reason, and adore the deity in the person of a naked prostitute." To hold
otherwise meant "the removal of religious and moral restraints."

Duncan believed that his opinion protected anyone who "fairly and
conscientiously" promulgated opinions on religion without malice. Yet
he inconsistently took the view that, because the law could not test the
degree of danger from an opinion, any danger to the public peace, no
matter how remote or slight, "is a public wrong." Moreover, he made the
law of Pennsylvania as reactionary as that of England when he held that
the offense of blasphemy included not only contumelious reproaches and
scoffing, but also "denying the Being and Providence of God." In England,
that was a statutory crime, but Duncan made mere denial a common-law crime,
regardless of scoffing or reproaching. "Christianity is part of the common
law of this state," he insistently repeated. Yet he also, inconsistently,
declared that "only the malicious reviler of Christianity" would be
punished as a blasphemer. Jews and Unitarians had the law's protection.
Only the revilers, who corrupted morals and society, stood in
jeopardy. (20)

The opinion disgraced Pennsylvania law, not because it upheld the
criminality of blasphemy against a claim of free speech, but because of its
distempered exaggerations and OBITER DICTA. They revealed how
injudiciously the court treated Updegraph's claim to free speech, and how
prejudicially it regarded his moderately expressed opinions.

In 1824 the year of Updegraph's case, Thomas Jefferson wrote a
letter to the English radical Major John Cartwright. The letter became
celebrated because of its attack on the doctrine that Christianity was
part and parcel of the law of the land. Separationists used the letter,
which had been widely republished, to help support Jefferson's doctrine
that "a wall of separation" should exist between church and state.
Cartwright had reached the conclusion that no foundation existed for the
doctrine of the common law's incorporation of Christianity, because he had
a theory that the common law had existed before the Angle-Saxons knew about
Christianity. Jefferson sought to extend his argument. In the year 1458 he
stated, a question had arisen as to how far the ecclesiastical law was to
be respected in a common-law court. Chief Justice Prisot of the Court of
Common Pleas, expressing his opinion in law French, referred to "ancien
scriprure." In 1613, Sir Henry Finch, in a book on the common law, had
quoted Prisot and rendered the crucial line as: "To such laws of our
church as have warrant in holy scripture, our law gives credence." That
gave the impression that the common law sustained Christianity. According
to Jefferson however, Finch mistranslated "ancren asipture" as "holy
scripture" instead of "ancient scripture." Then, Jefferson continued,
Edmund Wingate, in his 1658 book on legal maxims, turned the mistranslation
into a maxim of common law, a mistake repeated by William Sheppard in his
work on the common law. Finally, Lord Hale, in Tay lor's case, expressed it
in the famous words: "Christianity is parcel of the laws of England." As
Jefferson noted, Hale cited no authority, but, by various "echoings," the
doctrine had become so entrenched that in Woolston's case in 1728 Lord
Raymond refused to allow a discussion of whether writing against
Christianity was a common-law offense. Blackstone next repeated the
doctrine, and it survived unquestioned--all, according to Jefferson,
because of a mistranslation in 1613 of a line in a 1458 opinion by Prisot.
Jefferson thought the doctrine was a sort of judicial "forgery"; the
judges had "stole this law upon us," he said, describing the doctrine as
"the most remarkable instance of Judicial legislation, that has ever
occurred in English jurisprudence, or perhaps in any other.(21)

Jefferson got his legal history right, but in his eagerness to sever
church and state he drew from It a completely wrong conclusion. Not
that "anrien scripture" does mean "holy scripture" or the Bible, Rather, as
Jefferson himself observed, in Taylor's case Lord Hale did not rely on
Prisot or Finch; nor did Lord Raymond in Woolston's case. And those
were the two great cases that established the doctrine that Christianity
was part and parcel of the common law. Moreover, when Blackstone
expounded the law of blasphemy, he relied on Hale and Raymond, not
on Prisot and Finch. The doctrine had not been founded on Finch's
mistranslation.

Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court, a devout
Unitarian who believed that Christianity bulwarked the social order,
deplored Jefferson's view that Christianity was not part of the common
law. Parliamentary law had fixed the death penalty far heresy, and many
statutes had been enacted to enforce Christian rites and doctrines, Story
observed.(22) He was right, but proved nothing as to the question whether
the common law, as distinguished from statutory and ecclesiastical law,
embodied Christianity.

In a short piece in American Jurist, published in 1833, Story expanded
his argument against Jefferson. In an effort to disprove Jefferson, Story
contended first that "ancien scripture" had in fact referred to the Bible,
not just old church law. But that was a silly conclusion, because the case
in which Prisot had made the statement translated by Finch involved an
advowson or ecclesiastical office, about which the Bible says nothing but
the church law says a great deal. Story stood on firmer ground when
observing that the formative common-law cases did not rely on Prisot or
Finch, but Jefferson never said that they did. Story stood on the firmest
ground when adding that Christianity had the support of the common
law in the enforcement of laws establishing the Church of England, and
that the common law regarded reviling the establishment as a criminal
libel. (23) Nevertheless, that fact took for granted the point to be
proved: whether reviling was criminal because Christianity was part of the
common law.

The doctrine did not mean that anyone was lawfully obligated to
believe Christianity. Story claimed that he took its "true sense . . . to
be no more than that Christianity is recognized as true, and as the
established religion of England.(24) But if it meant only that, it would
have slight foundation in the United States, given the First Amendment and
the fact that the last state religions establishment died in 1833. If the
doctrine meant only that the moral teachings of Christianity underlay the
common law, no justification existed for not sustaining the moral teachings
of other religions, let alone of Christian sects that repudiated Church
of England doctrines and rites. What the doctrine meant was by no means
clear, and Story's assault on Jefferson s criticism hardly justified the
opinion of an American stare court in reading the English doctrine into its
common law.

In an 1844 opinion for the court, Story mentioned that that doctrine
was part of Pennsylvania's common law. But its truth, he added, must be
qualified, because the state constitution completely protected every
variety of opinion on religion, including infidelity. "So that we are
compelled to admit, that although Christianity be a part of the common law
of the State, yet it is so in this qualified sense,-that its divine origin
and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and
openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or the
injury of the public." That, he added, was the holding in Updegraph. (25)
Thus, in the end, Story's support of the doctrine boiled down to its being
the basis for prosecuting blasphemy, a subject on which anything he said
was OBITER DICTUM.

Because Jefferson opposed prosecutions for blasphemy, he attacked
the doctrine, as Story supported it to justify them. Jefferson would have
had a stronger case if he had explained why freedom of expression required
abandonment of the doctrine instead of nitpicking its origin. His
nitpicking ignored the strongest links in the chain of argument that
perpetuated the doctrine that Christianity was part of the common law. The
links consisted of the entire body of common-law precedent from 1676, the
year of Rex v. Taylor. Prisot and Finch counted for nothing in the creation
and development of that body of law.
FOOTNOTES:
(19). 11 Serg. & Bawl. (Pa.) 399-400. (1824).
(20). Ibid., pp. 400-408.
(21). Jefferson to Cartwright, June 5, 1824, in The Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, ed Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington, D.C., 1907, 20 vols.),
vol.15, pp. 48-51. In the appendix to his Reports of cases Determined in
the General Court of Virginia (Charlottesville, 1829), a posthumous
publication, Jefferson expanded his letter to Cartwright into a
"disquisition" on Christianity and the common law, pp. 137-41, and preface,
p. vi.
(22). Story to Edward Everett, Sept. 15, 1824, in William Wetmore Story,
The and Letters of Joseph Story (Boston, 1851, 2 vols.), vol. I, p. 430
(23). Ibid., pp. 43I-33, reprints Story's piece.
(24). Story to Everett, Sept. 15, 1824, in ibid., p. 430·
Blasphemy, Verbal Offense against the sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie,
Leonard W. Levy, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
(1993) p 407-411

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

From the review essay: Immunity of Religion, published in American Quartely
Review 17, # 34 (June 1835) p 319-340
A review of the Rev Jasper Adams published Sermon:
The Relationship Of Christianity To Civil Government In The United States

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Adams says:--

"The statute of December 12th, 1712, in adopting the Common Law of
England as
the Law of South Carolina, (Grimke's Laws of south Carolina, p. 99,) made
Christianity a part of our fundamental law, it being a well established
principle that Christianity is a part of the Common Law of England."(1)

We would remark now, in the first place, that in adopting the
common law of England, South Carolina did not adopt it unreservedly. She
only adopted such portions of it as were consistent with her Constitution
and laws. She did not, and she could not deprive herself of the power of
altering that common law, when applied to herself. If Christianity, then,
were a part
of the common law, she certainly had a right to abolish it if she thought
proper. This right she exercised in framing her Constitution in 1790.
This is a complete reply to the argument, that the statute of 1712
incorporated Christianity with the laws of South Carolina, even if we admit
his dictum--that it is a well settled "principle, that Christianity is a
part of the common law of England."
But we deny that Christianity ever was a part of the common law of
England. We do not know how we can better express our opinion on this
subject, than by copying the following extract of a letter from Mr.
Jefferson to Major Cartwright, dated Monticello, June 5, 1824.

"I was glad to find in your book of formal contradiction, at
length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the
judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a
part of the common law. The proof of the contrary; which you have adduced,
is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the
Angle-Saxons were .yet Pagans,
at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or
knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you, to show
when, and by what means, they
stole this law in upon us.
"In a case of quare impedit. in the Year-book 34, H, 6, folio 38,
(anno 1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be
respected in a common
law court? And Prisot, Chief justice. gives his opinion: in these words:
"A tiel leis qu' ils de seint eglise ont eri ancien scripture, covient a
nous a donner 'credence; car ceo common ley sur quels touts manners leis
sont fondes.. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obleges de conustre lour ley de
saint eglise; et semblablement ils sont obliges de consustre nostre ley.
Et, Sir, si polt apperer or a
nous;que l'evesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nons
devans cee adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy, " &c -- See S. C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu
imp 89, Bro.Abr. Qu. imp 12 Finch in his first book, c. 3, is the. firsf
:afterwards who quotes this case and mistakes it thus: "To such laws of the
church as have warrant in holy scripture, our law giveth credence." And
cites Prisot " mistranslating "ancien scripture," into "holy scriptures."
Whereas Prisot palpably says; "to such laws: as those of holy church have
in ancient writing; it is proper for .us to credence," to wit, to their
ancient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the
dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a
maxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot,
Wing. Max. and Sheppard, title, "religion," in 1675, copies the same
mistranslation, quoting the Y. B. Finch, and Wingate. Hale expresses it in
these words ,
" Christianity is parcel of the laws of England." 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607.
But he quotes no
authority.
"By these echoings and and re-echoings from one to another it
had become so established in 1728, that in the case f the King v.
Woolston, 2, Stra. 834, the court would not suffer to be debated, whether
to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal court at
common law? Wood, therefore, 409 ventures still to vary the phrase, and
day, that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law; ad
cites 2 str.
"Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that
"Christianity is part of the laws of England," citing Ventris and Strange.
And finally Lord Mansfield, with little qualification, in Evans' case, in
1767, says that "the essential principles of revealed religion are part of
the common law." Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament and all into common law,
without citing any authority.
"And thus we find this chain of authority hanging link by link, one
upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a
mistranslation of the words "ancien Scripture," used by Prisot. Finch
quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and
Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston's case, cites Hale. Wood
cites Woolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord
Mansfield, .like Hale, ventures it on his own authority.
"Here I might defy the best-read lawyer to produce another scrip of
authority for this judiciary forgery and I might go on further to show, how
some of: the anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's
laws, the 20th , 21st, 22nd , and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of
the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this
would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this;
between Church and State! "

We might safely rest here; but the question before us is too
important to suffer us to Pass by other authorities.
Richard Carlisle published "Paine's Age of Reason." In 1818, he was
prosecuted for blasphemy and convicted, and sentenced on the 19th November,
1819, to three years' imprisonment, and to fines of fl 500. He was, under
various indictments and convictions, confined six years.
On the 30th June, 1825, Mr. Brougham presented a petition to the
House of Commons in his behalf. In the petition it is urged,

"That Lord Hale was the first who asserted Christianity to be part or
parcel of the law of the land: that but a few years before this unfair
addition to the common law, Lord Chief Justice Coke, always considered as
good an authority as Sir Matthew Hale, distinctly laid it down as law in
mentioning the case of Caudrey; so in causes ecclesiastical and spiritual,
as BLASPHEMY, apostacy trom Christianity, heresies, schisms, &c., the
conusance whereof belongth not to the common law of England; the same are
to be determined and decided by ecclesiastical judges, according to the
king's ecclesiastical laws of this realm; and he gives as a reason, for as
before it appeareth the deciding Of matters, so many and of so great
importance is not within the conusance of the common law.(2)
"That before the abolition of the star chamber, and the decay of
the ecclesiastical courts, no cases of blasphemy towards the Christian
religion were known to the common law courts.
"That no statute can be found which has conferred authority on the
common law courts, to take conusance of a charge of blasphemy toward the
Christian religion, as assumed by Sir Matthew Hale.
"That it therefore clearly appears, that that and the subsequent
conusance of such cases by the common law courts, have been an unjust
usurpation of power, and an unlawful creation of law, contrary to the
common and statute laws of this realm.
"That later in the middle of the 18th century, Lord Mansfield
decided, that the common law did not take conusance of matters of opinion:
whence it appears, by this and the authority of Lord Coke, the immediate
predecessor of Sir Matthew Hale, that the judges are not unanimous on the
subject; and that Sir Matthew Hale evidently warped the common law to
punish an individual who had not committed an infringement of that or any
other law; and that such has been the conduct of the judges in the case of
your petitioner and others."

Mr. Brougham supported the petition in a very able and eloquent
argument. None of the law officers of the crown attempted a reply. The
fine was remitted by a warrant of the king, dated 12th November, 1825.
We will now refer to the argument of Carlisle, in 12 Repub. 652. It
was to the following effect.
The common law has been loosely described as that to which the
memory of man runneth not to the contrary But the time of legal memory has
been more accurately defined, to be any time within the first year of
Richard I.
Now the Christianity that existed before that time was that of the
Roman Catholic church--and that Christianity the church of England
pronounces "idolatrous and damnable."
Parliament, in 1713, pronounced it blasphemy to impugn the doctrine
of the Trinity; and in 1813 declared it lawful to impugn that doctrine.
What then is the Christianity which is part and parcel of the
common law of England!
We would ask Mr. Adams what was the Christianity which South
Carolina adopted, in adopting the common law of England, when the
Protestant religion was the established religion of the state? Was the
Protestant religion ever a part of the common law? We have seen that it was
not. But if ever, it was clearly repealed when South Carolina in her
Constitution declared, that the free exercise of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, should for ever be allowed
within her limits to all mankind. Mr. Adams refers to the speech of
Whitlock, 2 State Trials, 275. The reference is unfortunate; in that very
page we find the lord commissioner, Whitelock, mentioning a case where the
bishop committed a man for heresy, "for denying that tithes were due to the
parson." Does Mr. Adams acknowledge this to be law?
The reference to Emlyn's preface to the State Trials is equally
unfortunate. The preface contains some judicious remarks--among them, the
following concerning indictments for blasphemous libels: "It is customary
to insert the words 'falsb et malitiose scripsit [one wrote falsely and
maliciously], &c.' and indeed they are the very gist of the indictment, and
absolutely necessary to constitute the offence; for as no words can be
blasphemy, (viz. a reproachful reflection on God or religion,) which are
true--(for truth can be no reflection on the God of truth)-so no opinion,
however erroneous, can merit that denomination, unless uttered with a
malicious design of reviling God or religion. Yet how often have persons
been found guilty on
these indictments, without any proof of the falsehood of the positions, or
of the malice of him who wrote them. Nay, sometimes there is a great deal
of reason to think they were published from no other principle but a
sincere love and regard for truth."
We come now to the decision in the case of the People vs. Ruggles,
cited by Mr. Adams from 8th Johnson's Reports, 292. In that case, the
Supreme Court of New York relied on the authorities already examined, and
shown to be illegal. Their positions are utterly untenable. The decision
was made in 1811; we have not the then Constitution of New York by us, but
it is clear as the sun at mid-day, that the case is overruled by the 7th
Art. 3d Sec. Constitution New York, adopted in 1821. The words of the
section are: "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for ever be allowed in
this state
to all mankind." We will not dwell longer on this point; but in taking our
leave of it, we must advise Mr. Adams, who seems fond of quoting decisions,
whenever he again assumes the part of a lawyer, to bear in mind what the
books say, viz. "The LAW and the opinion of the judge are not always
convertible terms, or one and the same thing, since it sometimes may happen
that the judge may mistake the law.
It appears then that the assertion, that Christianity is a well
established principle of the common law, is erroneous. It is a judicial
forgery, a usurpation of legislative powers by the court, a bench-made,
judge-enacted law, unsupported by proper legal authority. They who wish to
see this subject fully treated, will do well to peruse "Cooper's Law of
Libel"--particularly that portion of it which treats of ecclesiastical
libels. It is replete with learning and argument; its style is clear,
vigorous, and striking, although occasionally rough and abrupt; it is
sometimes witty, and sometimes eloquent; it exhibits great power of
condensation, notwithstanding it is frequently dis-
figured by repetitions; it is always fearless in the expression of
opinions, and its legal argument is unanswerable.
Mr. Adams, having noticed the common law, proceeds to quote an act
passed by South Carolina in 1712, prohibiting persons from traveling on
Sunday, or employing their slaves at work on that day. But this law is
obsolete. Persons are continually traveling on Sunday. The mail is carried
and opened on Sunday. Passengers crowd the stages on Sunday. In fact, this
act of 1712 is repealed by the Constitution of 1790. With regard to not
employing slaves at work on Sunday, we would observe, that public
opinion--which is stronger than the law--causes this to be observed.
Independently of our own individual religious profession, which induces us
to observe the Sabbath, we are satisfied that in a political point of view,
the observance of the day is attended with beneficial effects. These have
been frequently pointed out. It is a day of rest for those who have
laboured hard throughout the rest of the previous week. As such, it
invigorates both body and mind. The certain prospect of a holiday is
exceedingly exhilarating. It diffuses cheerfulness over the heart. It gives
the poor an opportunity to prepare for its enjoyment. It insures them a
period of rest, which would otherwise depend on the caprice of the
task-master. Sunday is indeed a day of jubilee and rest, of enjoyment and
ease. Ordinary occupations are suspended: and if a cheerful heart be
pleasant in the sight of God, to that day HE must look with peculiar
delight! It is unnecessary to dwell on the advantages of Sunday as a period
of rest for cattle--for horses, mules, oxen, &c.
These and other considerations, make it politic to have a fixed day
of rest: and no reason can be given for preferring any other day to Sunday.
__________________________________________________________________________

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

The following is from a e-mail I sent to someone back in Feb 1997.

December term 1853 Ohio Supreme court
Bloom v Cornelius

The case involved a contract that was signed on a Sunday.

The court ruled the it being signed on a Sunday did not make it invalid.

(Some states had laws on their books that did make such contracts
invalid.)

However what is important for us is not just the decision but the
following quotes which can be found in the opinion and which are in direct
conflict with some of the quotes that both Brewer and Barton use to prove
their arguments.

"Christianity is a part of the common law of England, but, under the
provisions of our constitution, neither Christianity nor any other system
of religion is a part of the law of this state."

(BTW, this is a part of the holding of this case and not part of dicta.
If an Ohio Supreme Court could have made that ruling in the 1850's a Mass
and or Pa court could have made a similar ruling had it wanted to at
earlier times in the 1800's)

From the same holding:

"We have no union of Church and State, nor has our government ever been
vested with authority to enforce any religious observance simply because
it is religious."

From the same holding
"The statute, prohibiting common labor on the Sabbath, could not stand
for a moment as the law of this state, if its sole foundation was the
Christian duty of keeping the day holy, and its sole motive to enforce the
observance of that duty. It is to be regarded as a mere municipal or
police regulation, whose validity is neither strengthened nor weakened by
the fact that the day od rest it enjoins is the Sabbath day."
(Signing a contract on Sunday would have been viewed as common labor)

*Some* states thought that Christianity was part of the common law;
others didn't. It wasn't universal.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

Back in early 1997 we received a letter from a group of attorneys in
Alabama.

They were in the process of gathering historical evidence to be used in
their Friends of the Court brief filing with the Alabama Supreme Court in
the Judge Moore, Ten Commandments, Prayer in the courtroom case.

We were asked if we could send them some historical data that they could
use.

The following was part of what we sent.

I place it here because of it's references to common law and to religion
and the uproar it created at the time.

_________________________________________________________________________
1. Clergy in the courtroom; prayer in the courtroom.

Eidsmoe's first affidavit characterizes the practice of prayer in the
courtroom as commonplace at or around the time of the drafting and
ratification of the Constitution. He cites as examples a number of
New England federal circuit court cases which entreated clergy to "address
the throne of Grace" as evidence that such practices were accepted. John
Jay's stellar reputation excepted, the following quote from a 1919 work on
John Marshall notes a slightly different interpretation of clergy-courtroom
politics. From Vol. III. The Life of John Marshall (Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1916-19, Beveridge, Albert J.):

"But if the National judges had caused alarm by treating the common law as
though it were a statute of the United States without waiting for an act of
Congress to make it so, their manners and methods in the enforcement of the
Sedition Act aroused against them an ever increasing hostility.

"Stories of their performances on the bench in such cases -- their
tones when speaking to counsel, to accused persons, and even to witnesses,
their immoderate language, their sympathy with one of the European nations
then at war and their animosity toward the other, their partisanship in
cases on trial before them -- tales made up from such material flew from
mouth to mouth until finally the very name and sight of National judges
became obnoxious to most Americans. In short, the assaults upon the
National Judiciary were made possible chiefly by the conduct of the
National judges themselves." (l)

Footnote (1) says:

(1) The National judges, in their charges to grand juries, lectured and
preached on religion, on morality, on partisan politics. "On Monday last
the Circuit Court of the United States was opened in this town. The Hen.
Judge Patterson .. delivered a most elegant and appropriate charge. "The
Law was laid down in a masterly manner: Politics were set in their true
light by holding up the Jacobins [Republicans] as the disorganizers of our
happy country, and the only instruments of introducing discontent and
dissatisfaction among the well meaning part of the community. Religion. &
Morality were pleasingly inculcated and enforced as being necessary to good
government, good order, and good laws; for 'when the righteous
[Federalists] are in authority, the people rejoice.' . .
"After the charge was delivered the Rev. Mr. Alden addressed the
Throne of Grace in an excellent and well adapted prayer." (United
States Oracle of the Day, May 24, 1800, as quoted by Hackett, in
Green Bao. 11. 264)

(SOURCE OF ABOVE MATERIAL: THE LIFE OF JOHN MARSHALL, By Albert J.
Beveridge
Volume III Conflict and construction, 1800-1815, Houghton Mifflin Company
(1918) page 29-30. Additional background material included covering pages
26 -33, all under the title of EXHIBIT A)

[The footnote contains the same passage used by Eidsmoe on page X of his
first Affidavit. The Rev. Mr. Alden addressing the Throne of Grace in
prayer. The meaning given the whole process differs from the conclusion
Eidsmoe comes away from it with.]

_____________________________________________________________________________

Gardiner

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Let's toss in as much evidence as we can find, let's let the readers make
> up their own minds
>

>[followed by massive unedited material]

You have this strange approach to debate for which I am inclined to coin the
phrase fallacy ad magnum: the idea that whoever can cut and paste the longest
citation is most accurate.

I suppose I could follow suit and cut and paste all of the laws of Alfred,
Bracton, Magna Carta, Hale, Coke, and Blackstone. That would surely take up a
lot of space on this bulletin board, and a good bit of it would demonstrate
that Christianity indeed was part of the Common Law.

But instead of taking your tack and cutting and pasting 100 volumes of common
law authorities, which I suppose I could do, but I think is a bit rude, I will
quote the significant passages, and refer the reader to the larger work if the
"context" needs to be explored. My guess is that people are much more
interested in reading a more succinct argument. Economy of expression was
always considered a virtue in my English education.

If, on the other hand, you insist that the whole of a document must be posted
on this newsgroup to be valid, I will comply. My computer has probably enough
RAM to cut and paste Blackstones Commentaries.

Gratia,
Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html

Gardiner

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

By the way, the final paragraph of your "source" seems to me to be indicating
the Jefferson's claim that "Christianity was no part of the Common Law" was
misguided. The suggestion of the author seems to be that in his conflict with
Blasphemy Laws, Jefferson should have argued why the Common Law should be
"abandoned" rather than "nitpicking the origin" of Blasphemy Laws. The author
seems to concede that Jefferson's evidence "ignored the strongest links in the
chain of argument," and that Jefferson's claim regarding the error in Prisot's
language was really irrelevant to the question.

Did you mean to cite this secondary source who ends up concluding that
Jefferson was wrong about the Common Law? Have you read this last paragraph
very carefully?

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Because Jefferson opposed prosecutions for blasphemy, he attacked
> the doctrine, as Story supported it to justify them. Jefferson would have
> had a stronger case if he had explained why freedom of expression required
> abandonment of the doctrine instead of nitpicking its origin. His
> nitpicking ignored the strongest links in the chain of argument that
> perpetuated the doctrine that Christianity was part of the common law. The
> links consisted of the entire body of common-law precedent from 1676, the
> year of Rex v. Taylor. Prisot and Finch counted for nothing in the creation
> and development of that body of law.

Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html

Gardiner

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

You do realize, I hope, that the argument posted below which argues that
Christianity is not part of the common law is essentially a carbon copy of
Jefferson's claim which rests on the theory that Prisot's words were
mistranslated and Christianity suddenly became an illegitimate part of the
Common Law. The last source you cited (which was unidentified) argued that
Jefferson was in error by making that argument.

One thing is clear, both Jefferson and the author below concede that
Christianity was perceived to be part of the Common Law in the 17th century.
To wit:

> Hale [a recognized common law expert] expresses it in

> these words ,
> " Christianity is parcel of the laws of England." 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607.
> But he quotes no
> authority.
> "By these echoings and and re-echoings from one to another it
> had become so established in 1728, that in the case f the King v.
> Woolston, 2, Stra. 834, the court would not suffer to be debated, whether
> to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal court at

> common law? Wood [another common law expert], therefore, 409 ventures still to vary the phrase, and

> day, that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law; ad
> cites 2 str.

> "Then Blackstone [perhaps the premiere common law expert], in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that

> "Christianity is part of the laws of England," citing Ventris and Strange.

> And finally Lord Mansfield [a common law expert], with little qualification, in Evans' case, in

> 1767, says that "the essential principles of revealed religion are part of
> the common law." Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament and all into common law,
> without citing any authority.

So their argument is not that common law commentators did not unanimously
agree that Christianity was part of the common law, but whether it came to be
so through a perpetrated error.

Gardiner

unread,

Mar 31, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/31/99

Let me concede one of your points. Joseph Story did not think highly of Jefferson.

Now let's deal with Jefferson's claim: "Christianity is not, nor ever was,

part of the common law"

Is he right or wrong?

Mike Curtis

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

Two very good refutations this average reader says. I don't think
he'll read them, though. :-)

>**********************************************
> THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
> SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
>
>"Dedicated to combatting 'history by sound bite'."
>
> Page is a member of the following web rings:
>
>The First Amendment Ring--&--The Church-State Ring
>
> Freethought Ring--&--The History Ring
>
> Legal Research Ring
>**********************************************

Mike Curtis

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>By the way, the final paragraph of your "source" seems to me to be indicating
>the Jefferson's claim that "Christianity was no part of the Common Law" was
>misguided. The suggestion of the author seems to be that in his conflict with
>Blasphemy Laws, Jefferson should have argued

LOL!

> why the Common Law should be
>"abandoned" rather than "nitpicking the origin" of Blasphemy Laws. The author
>seems to concede that Jefferson's evidence "ignored the strongest links in the
>chain of argument," and that Jefferson's claim regarding the error in Prisot's
>language was really irrelevant to the question.
>
>Did you mean to cite this secondary source who ends up concluding that
>Jefferson was wrong about the Common Law? Have you read this last paragraph
>very carefully?

He simply puts it out there honestly with the rest of the stuff. Why
don't you comment on the rest of what he offers.

I accused you of using tactics that I see holocaust deniers using in
their approach to history. They take little minutiae and turn that
minutiae into this big raving argument that will deny a massive
historical event. You do the same thing to refute all the other
evidence against your view by finding little minutiae and building it
up to a raving argument.

Telling Jefferson how to argue. That's choice. It's also beside the
point of what Alison is trying to offer here. I think Alison needs to
do more but he isn't getting paid to post. But we can have a
reasonable discussion if someone would cooperate.

>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> Because Jefferson opposed prosecutions for blasphemy, he attacked
>> the doctrine, as Story supported it to justify them. Jefferson would have
>> had a stronger case if he had explained why freedom of expression required
>> abandonment of the doctrine instead of nitpicking its origin. His
>> nitpicking ignored the strongest links in the chain of argument that
>> perpetuated the doctrine that Christianity was part of the common law. The
>> links consisted of the entire body of common-law precedent from 1676, the
>> year of Rex v. Taylor. Prisot and Finch counted for nothing in the creation
>> and development of that body of law.
>

>Rick
>http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html

Mike Curtis

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|

>:|>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>:|>
>:|>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>>:|

>:|>I tend to stay within the time frames and use material by those there and

>:|

I spose it could be dangerous :-)

Ultimately I end up proving separation, by providing all the factual
evidence I can find, that which supports,, that which counters and that
which is basically neutral.

Reason being, its true.

We could go back to the time period that Gardiner is so enamored with, the
early 1600's and onward.

We can look at all the laws that bound state and church together that
existed at that time.

They don't exist anymore. They have ben repealed, etc.

I begin on the Federal level with 1780.

Same thing. I can show all that existed that bound state and church
together, I can quote both sides of the Jefferson-Story debates, I can show
all that I can find, and in the process I am also showing how each string
of that union was broken, and broken with full approval of the citizens of
the time.

I end up showing what was common then, the various forms of union, near
union, unofficial unions, etc and then now {well actually 1947]

Night and day difference.

So while there were times when the anti separation side had influence and
thins slowed down to a crawl, ever a few times a step or two was taken
backwards, ultimately separation of church and state did take place and is
still taking place.

I can present a complete a picture as possible the high points and all the
warts because history clearly shows that progression

I don't have to be selective, or pick material to try and show something
that is only partly true, or not true at all.

>:|>it includes material that would support separation of church and state,

>:|>material that would tend to support the opposite, and material that
>:|>supports neither side of the debate.
>:|>
>:|>It consists of letters, journals, diaries, newspaper editorials and
>:|>articles, speeches, debates, court opinions, arguments in courts and
>:|>Congress, Acts of Congress, debates in Congress, laws vetoes of laws, etc
>:|>from the time period of 1780 to 1947
>:|>
>:|>It goes under the working title of
>:|>THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF
>:|>CHURCH AND STATE, ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
>:|>
>:|>I don't need a bunch of commentary to tell people what it says or means. it
>:|>stands on its own merits. Let readers decide for themselves what they think
>:|>it means.
>:|
>:|Yes. Dangerous. But I'll buy a copy.

>:|

I suspect when finished it will be a set of book numbering from 6 to 12
volumes or more perhaps.

>:|>It is pure historical data. That's where this historical info I post comes

>:|>from. At present I have over 1100 pages already on the puter, so it is
>:|>simple for me to post such material. LOL
>:|
>:|I don't mind the material. I do like an index.

>:|

Oh, bummer an index? LOL

really? you insist on an index?

Bet you want us to proof read it too, huh?

(mumble, grumble,)

>:|>Getting it on the puter is very time consuming, particularly since my hunt

Yes they can be very good. I had a cheaper version and had it working
pretty decent, but then had my teeth pulled. LOL

Do yo realize how differently you talk after having your teeth pulled?

The program didn't recognize a single word spoken by me after that.

So I got the top of the line version [it would have been easier to begin
with a new program then try and retrain the old version]
You do have to teach it in some cases so that the more you use it the
better it gets

I have planes from a Naval Air
Station flying overhead at times and barking dogs next door. and the
program tries to turn those sounds into words as well. Therefore I have to
pick quite times to use it but yes, I am happy with it.

It isn't perfect, but it gets better each time I use it, and when scanning
isn't a good option, then this comes in very handy.

Mike Curtis

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>>:|>
>>:|>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|>>:|
>>:|>I tend to stay within the time frames and use material by those there and
>>:|>involved.
>>:|>
>>:|>The project I am working on has almost no commentary to it. It includes
>>:|>all, the good, the bad, the ugly and the indifferent.
>>:|
>>:|This could be dangerous. You are allowing people to think for
>>:|themselves. It's too bad we don't teach our children to think very
>>:|well these days.
>>:|
>
>I spose it could be dangerous :-)
>
>Ultimately I end up proving separation, by providing all the factual
>evidence I can find, that which supports,, that which counters and that
>which is basically neutral.
>
>Reason being, its true.
>
>We could go back to the time period that Gardiner is so enamored with, the
>early 1600's and onward.
>
>We can look at all the laws that bound state and church together that
>existed at that time.
>
>They don't exist anymore. They have ben repealed, etc.
>
>I begin on the Federal level with 1780.

And before to various degrees at the state level. He seems to want to
make a point about common law now. He's a moving target.

-snip

>>:|>I don't need a bunch of commentary to tell people what it says or means. it
>>:|>stands on its own merits. Let readers decide for themselves what they think
>>:|>it means.
>>:|
>>:|Yes. Dangerous. But I'll buy a copy.
>>:|
>
>I suspect when finished it will be a set of book numbering from 6 to 12
>volumes or more perhaps.

Copies.

Please. Keywords. You are putting out volumes, remember?

>really? you insist on an index?
>
>Bet you want us to proof read it too, huh?

Naaa.

>(mumble, grumble,)

--snip

>>:|Do those voice things really work. I've got carpel tunnel at the
>>:|moment.
>
>Yes they can be very good. I had a cheaper version and had it working
>pretty decent, but then had my teeth pulled. LOL
>
>Do yo realize how differently you talk after having your teeth pulled?

Not yet.

>The program didn't recognize a single word spoken by me after that.
>
>So I got the top of the line version [it would have been easier to begin
>with a new program then try and retrain the old version]
>You do have to teach it in some cases so that the more you use it the
>better it gets

I'll have to try.

Mike Curtis

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|
>:|Two very good refutations this average reader says. I don't think

>:|he'll read them, though. :-)

>:|

Probably not. Some of what I provided didn't fit perfectly, yet nothing
exists in a vacuum, and many things are related.

So I provided a larger picture then he was, and let the facts fall where
they will. let the readers, if there are any readers [my experiences have
been that when a thread drops to one or two people back and forth, most
others have left long before, and they don't bother reading any longer.
Will in fact frequently put both people into a kill file or ignore any
future posts that carry either name]

Anyways. let the readers decide for themselves the answers to what, when,
where, who, why.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Let's toss in as much evidence as we can find, let's let the readers make
>:|> up their own minds
>:|>
>:|>[followed by massive unedited material]

>:|
>:|You have this strange approach to debate for which I am inclined to coin the
>:|phrase fallacy ad magnum: the idea that whoever can cut and paste the longest
>:|citation is most accurate.
>:|
>:|I suppose I could follow suit and cut and paste all of the laws of Alfred,
>:|Bracton, Magna Carta, Hale, Coke, and Blackstone. That would surely take up a
>:|lot of space on this bulletin board, and a good bit of it would demonstrate

>:|that Christianity indeed was part of the Common Law.

What ever floats your boat..

Let's see. IIRC you were totally unaware of this whole thing. I pointed out
to you in reply to something that you had posted that not all agreed with
Blackstone regarding Christianity being part of the Common Law, and said
that Jefferson, for example didn't

You challenged me to produce the cites, etc.

Well, it is far easier for me to produce the material, especially since I
was not aware of it being on line at that time.

Not everything is on line, and hard copies are not obsolete yet. Hard
copies do allow one to check for accuracy. So I am old fashioned enough to
do the footwork, to go to the libraries, etc and actually look up the
material, etc.

I provided you with three letters written by jefferson to Cooper and John
Adams on the subject. [There is a fourth, but ODU is missing the book it is
contained in, and I have not gone to W&M to get it there yet]

At that time you were all happy and gee compliments and thanks tossed about
like crazy

Then you said, well, even if true, it didn't alter or hurt your thesis any.

And besides even if true, all those people thought it was part of the
Common Law and that is all that really matters.

Then you must have thought about it some more, because now we have this
whole thread devoted to just that topic, and you seem very determined to
attempt to prove that Blackstone and ultimately Story are correct and
Jefferson is wrong

Well, I guess you would because that idea is a central pillar in the whole
concept of this being a Christian nation, that it's laws and institutions
are based on Christianity, etc

Just about everyone on that side of this debate advances that claim Hell,
even Pat Robertson has made that claim in enough of his articles and books.

The thinking goes something like this
Christianity is part and parcel of the English Common law, the English
Common law is the foundation of American law, therefore Christianity is the
foundation of American law and its institutions, etc.Hence, a Christian
nation founded on Christianity.

Now, if you want to post all that stuff, be my guest. I don't care.
You aren't going to prove you are right, because it is not something that
truly can be proved.

Oliver Wendall Holmes, wasn't he the one who said most of or a good part of
the Common Law or law as we know it began as a result of blood feuds in
ancient times.

I posted something to you before on this and you ignored it. But I pointed
out that English Common law with or without its so called Christian side
kick was just one of many way stations along the rail lines that one could
call the history of the development of law.

You have come a long way in such a short time.
You began on here by saying you were seeking the truth, thought you could
learn a lot from my material, etc. LOL

Now look at you.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|By the way, the final paragraph of your "source" seems to me to be indicating

>:|the Jefferson's claim that "Christianity was no part of the Common Law" was

>:|misguided. The suggestion of the author seems to be that in his conflict with

>:|Blasphemy Laws, Jefferson should have argued why the Common Law should be

>:|"abandoned" rather than "nitpicking the origin" of Blasphemy Laws. The author

>:|seems to concede that Jefferson's evidence "ignored the strongest links in the
>:|chain of argument," and that Jefferson's claim regarding the error in Prisot's

>:|

Yes, I read the whole thing.

Seems you didn't.

What a shame.

The "secondary source" was written by one of the most respected
Constitutional scholars in the country. Just wanted to be sure to let you
know that there are very qualified scholars that would not agree with your
assessment of things.

What you seemed to miss was
(1) Levy did claim that Jefferson did not advance what might have been a
better argument or position to take.

(2) He did state that Jefferson, while accurate on the history had formed a
wrong conclusion

(3) He also stated that while on some matters Story had firmer ground to
stand on, he wasn't correct either.

(4) He also pointed out what really lay at the core of the whole thing.
Which is what I tried to tell you all along.

(5) The core was religion, and the fundamental difference in the thinking
of Story and Madison, the Traditional New England religious mindset and the
mind set of others in other parts of the nation.

Madison, Jefferson, and many others thought that religion was a personal
matter between the individual and his God, or his Conception of his God.
it was a matter of intellectual property, if you will, in fact, Madison
defined it as property. Jefferson as having the mind free. it was tied in,
in their minds as part and parcel of free expression, free speech.

Blasphemy (which even you claim is part of this
Blackstone-Christianity-Common Law-Story, etc) and free speech cannot
co-exist, especially as blasphemy was being prosecuted in those days
(blasphemy and freedom or religion cannot co-exist either)

Story, with his traditional New England religious mind set supported such
laws. and of course the only remote reason to have such laws was that (well
you know the speel by now-Christianity is yada yada yada.) and the only
authority to persecute others under such laws was to make such claims.

That was the real battle, the struggle between the past and lack of
religious liberty and the future and religious liberty

Story represented one side of the spectrum and Jefferson the other. You are
still fighting the battle.
Read again what Levy wrote and you will find those things you didn't want
to find before.

You see, ultimately, it doesn't matter one hill of beans if Christianity
was or is part and parcel of the English Common law, this isn't England,
and while many aspects of English Common law may have applied and may have
been the foundations of American law, our Constitution and the ultimate
constitutions of the several states ruled any part and parcel of
Christianity from being part and parcel of our laws. It just took a few of
those people a bit of a time to understand that.

IIRC of that time period, the New York Constitution states that the English
Common Law only applies to New York law so long as it does not conflict
with Constitution os the nation and state.

Bottom line of what Levy said was neither Story or Jefferson were
completely right in positions, facts, conclusions, etc.

Sorry, you missed that

So, did I know what he said? Yes I did. Beginning with the thing about the
Supreme Court Justices and other national Judges abusing their offices,
Jefferson's letters, Story's letters, J Q Adams letter, the quote from the
court opinion, and finally up to Dean Gavit's comments regarding
Blackstone's BOOK IV, CHAPTER IV: OFFENSES AS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION, you
have a pretty complete picture of the real issue

Course it was then topped off by Levy's comments.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> I entertain
>:|> some very heretical opinions upon the merits of that common law, so
>:|> idolized by all the English common lawyers and by all the parrots who
>:|> repeat their words in America. These opinions have not been adopted hastily
>:|> or without consideration. They are deeply rooted in my mind, and could not
>:|> easily be eradicated.
>:|> (Source of Information: Excerpt of a letter written by John Quincy Adams to
>:|> his father, John Adams, July 21, 1811, explaining some of his reasons for
>:|> turning down President James Madison's appointment to the U S Supreme
>:|> Court. Writings of John Quincy Adams, ed Worthington Chauncey Ford, Volume
>:|> IV, 1811-1813, the Macmillian Company, N Y 1914. pp 144-145)
>:|

First of all, why do you keep changing the addy?

What is it about that ap exam and rev war that you like so much.

I keep deleting them, and when I see your reply to what I sent and I go
answer back they are back in there.

>:|This document indicates that John QUincy Adams had reservations about the
>:|Common Law of England. Tell me, please, what on earth does this have to do
>:|with whether or not Christianity was part of the Common Law?

Common Law, the topic is the Common Law of England.
One of those who made the idea famous that Christianity was part and parcel
of the English Common Law was one fella known as Sir W Blackstone.

So we have a connection now between Blackstone and English Common Law and
Christianity.

We also have a reasonably intelligent New Englander, who indicates he has
serious reservations about the Englaish Common Law, Blackstone lawyers
[those trained under the ideas etc of Blackstone, and presumably stating
the same theories that Blackstone advanced, including possibility the
Christianity is part of theory]

It is called providing a more complete picture of things of that time. More
balanced picture. It is called allowing the jury [readers] to decide the
facts for themselves.

This was a man who felt so strongly about the direction the law, in this
country, had taken because of the Common law applications and the
Blackstone taught lawyers that he could not bring himself to accept a
position on the Supreme court of the United States and be a part of that
whole scene.

SIDE NOTE: That decision then forced Madison to make an alternative
nomination, which turned out to be none other then Joseph Story.

Joseph Story, who in turn also made the same arguments.
Thomas Jefferson warned Madison against nominating Story Jefferson stated
that Story was not what he appeared to be. Story did not appreciate that.

Thus, we have all sorts of connections that my little story brings to the
table.

How important is any of it? Let's those who care to read it decide for
themselves.

>:|
>:|This is an excellent example of your random
>:|cut-and-paste-everything-and-anything ad magnum fallacy.

Really? You think so, huh?
Hmmmm, so I guess we can pretty much figure you do not give a very full
picture with the things you have carefully selected to include in your
book, huh?

I guess we can pretty much figure, you don't really want your readers to
decide for themselves, huh?

Mike Curtis

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:

>mi...@x.aimetering.com.nospam (Mike Curtis) wrote:
>
>>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>:|
>>:|Two very good refutations this average reader says. I don't think
>>:|he'll read them, though. :-)
>>:|
>
>
>Probably not. Some of what I provided didn't fit perfectly, yet nothing
>exists in a vacuum, and many things are related.

Nothing fits perfectly. that's why I get suspicious when I'm presented
with data that fits perfectly. The only time I'm not suspicious is
when it comes to math. 2 is 2 and 1 is 1. History involves human
beings and nothing ever fits perfectly. Most people I meet are a mix
of beliefs and contradictions.

>So I provided a larger picture then he was, and let the facts fall where
>they will. let the readers, if there are any readers [my experiences have
>been that when a thread drops to one or two people back and forth, most
>others have left long before, and they don't bother reading any longer.
>Will in fact frequently put both people into a kill file or ignore any
>future posts that carry either name]
>
>Anyways. let the readers decide for themselves the answers to what, when,
>where, who, why.

Look, a little of common law might have something of Christianity to
it. It'll probably reflect the moral system they inherited from the
cave man all the way up to Jefferson who had to struggle with the laws
of his colony and write, not the first, but the third declaration of
independence. In my collection that I have for sale I have a 1780 copy
of Burke's History of the Civil War in America. In the appendix are
all three declarations.

What we have here, with Gardiner, is the expanding a tiny
(unsubstantiated) bit into "a part of" into a lot then, for good
measure, all. I really don't know what more there is to say to the
guy. I wish I had the documentation you have but I don't. It isn't my
area really, so that's one reason why I do not.

Mike Curtis

Gardiner

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

Mike Curtis wrote:
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >By the way, the final paragraph of your "source" seems to me to be indicating
> >the Jefferson's claim that "Christianity was no part of the Common Law" was
> >misguided. The suggestion of the author seems to be that in his conflict with
> >Blasphemy Laws, Jefferson should have argued
>

> LOL!

>
> > why the Common Law should be
> >"abandoned" rather than "nitpicking the origin" of Blasphemy Laws. The author

> >seems to concede that Jefferson's evidence "ignored the strongest links in the

> >chain of argument," and that Jefferson's claim regarding the error in Prisot's
> >language was really irrelevant to the question.
> >
> >Did you mean to cite this secondary source who ends up concluding that
> >Jefferson was wrong about the Common Law? Have you read this last paragraph
> >very carefully?
>

> He simply puts it out there honestly with the rest of the stuff. Why
> don't you comment on the rest of what he offers.

I have a job. My time is limited. I don't get paid to post. If I post the
entire text of Blackstone and you refuse to comment on each and every section,
does that mean that I can complain that you are "running away"?

Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html

Gardiner

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

Mike Curtis wrote:
>
> And before to various degrees at the state level. He seems to want to
> make a point about common law now. He's a moving target.

The Common Law debate was one of the very first topics brought up in this
thread. I'm the only one trying to return us to the original point.

Gardiner

unread,

Apr 1, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/1/99

jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>
> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> >:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
> >:|>

> >:|> Let's toss in as much evidence as we can find, let's let the readers make
> >:|> up their own minds

I concede the accuracy of your recollection thus far; not sure the compliments
were "like crazy."

> Then you must have thought about it some more, because now we have this
> whole thread devoted to just that topic,

Non-sequitir.

> and you seem very determined to
> attempt to prove that Blackstone and ultimately Story are correct and
> Jefferson is wrong

If you go back and look at the post, what you will find that I said is that
Jefferson may have been right about Christianity not being part of the common
law originally (i.e., under the Anglo-Saxon regime in the early middle ages),
and that the common law may have been suspiciously introduced, but that
Jefferson himself even implies that Christianity was perceived to be part of
the common law by common lawyers such as Blackstone.

Thus when Jefferson says "Christianity neither is nor ever was part of the
Common Law" he contradicts himself.

> Well, I guess you would because that idea is a central pillar in the whole
> concept of this being a Christian nation, that it's laws and institutions
> are based on Christianity, etc

It certainly is relevant.

> Just about everyone on that side of this debate advances that claim Hell,
> even Pat Robertson has made that claim in enough of his articles and books.

Hell, even Hitler made the claim that the church should be separated from the
state. Okay. Enough with the rhetoric of association with "flakey people."

> The thinking goes something like this
> Christianity is part and parcel of the English Common law, the English
> Common law is the foundation of American law, therefore Christianity is the
> foundation of American law and its institutions, etc.Hence, a Christian
> nation founded on Christianity.
>
> Now, if you want to post all that stuff, be my guest. I don't care.
> You aren't going to prove you are right, because it is not something that
> truly can be proved.

You would know better than the leading law authorities on the history of
common law, I guess. (viz., Harold Berman)

> Oliver Wendall Holmes, wasn't he the one who said most of or a good part of
> the Common Law or law as we know it began as a result of blood feuds in
> ancient times.

No disagreement from me.

> I posted something to you before on this and you ignored it. But I pointed
> out that English Common law with or without its so called Christian side
> kick was just one of many way stations along the rail lines that one could
> call the history of the development of law.

thanks.

> You have come a long way in such a short time.
> You began on here by saying you were seeking the truth, thought you could
> learn a lot from my material, etc. LOL

I am not interested in learning about your opinion of Pat Robertson. I do
appreciate the relevant citations you have quoted (I have cut and pasted a
number into my own files). I don't cut and post your editorials about my
partnerships. That's just not at all educational.

> Now look at you.

Still hoping to learn more. That's why I'm still here. Please stay on topic.
Please stick to history.

Blessings,
Rick
http://www2.pitnet.net/Gardiner/nbh.html

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Could you kindly point out all this large Christian influence in the
>:|> Constitution?
>:|
>:|Just for starters:
>:| The root principle of the new Constitution was denoted by the word
>:|“federal,” a term based in Calvinist theology. The word “federal” signified
>:|two things. First, it referred to the nature of the new union. Second, it
>:|referred to the new way that the government was organized, and particularly to
>:|the relationship between the individual states and the whole American nation.
>:|The founders called their new government a “federal” government. They called
>:|the constitution a “federal” constitution.

I am sure you have heard of this guy:

"We formed our Constitution without acknowledgement of God; without any
recognition of his mercies to us, as a people, of his government, of even
his existence. The [Constitutional] Convention, by which it was formed,
never asked, even once, his direction, or his blessing upon their labours,
Thus we commenced our national existence under the present system, without
God."

Reverend Timorthy Dwight (1812)
Timothy Dwight, A Discourse in Two parts, 2nd ed. (Boston: Fagg & Gould,
1813)
The Rhetoric and reality of the "Christian Nation" Maxim in American Law,
1810-1920 by Steven Keith Green--An unpublished Ph. D. dissertation
submitted to the Faculty of the university of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,
(1997) p 1

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/2/99

(excerpts regarding religion)

NEW YORK
NEW YORK CONSTITUTIONS
1777; 1822; 1846; 1869; 1897; 1967

NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OF 1777

ARTICLE VIII. That every elector, before he is admitted to vote,
shall, if required by the returning-officer or either of the inspectors,
take an oath, or, if of the people called Quakers, an affirmation, of
allegiance to the state.

ARTICLE XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by
the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and
declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute
law of England and Great Britian, and of the acts of the legislature of the
colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the
19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand severn hundred and
seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this state, subject to such
alterations and provisions as the legislature of this state, shall, from
time to time make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are
temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration
respectively.
That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the
said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to
establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their
ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the
supremacy, sovereignty, government, or perogatives claimed or exerised by,
the King of Great Britan and his predecessors, over the colony of New York
and its inhabitants, or are repugant to this constitution, be, and they
hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth further
ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of
New York, and of the convention of the state of New York, now in force, and
not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be
considered as making part of the laws of this state; subject, nevertheless,
to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this state, may
from time to time, make concerning the same.

ARTICLE XXXVIII. And whereas we are required, by the benevolent
principles of the rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but
also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith
the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have
scourged mankind, this convention doth further, in the name and by the
authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and desire,
that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall be forever hereafter be
allowed, within this state, to all mankind: PROVIDED That the liberty of
conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of
licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety
of this state.

ARTICLE XXXIX. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are, by their
profession, dedicated to the service of God and the care of souls, and
ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function,
therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomination
whatsoever, shall, at any time hereafter, under and preference or
description whatever, be eligible to, or capable of holding, any civil or
military office or place within this state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Probe

unread,

Apr 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/3/99

Let's get back to basics. The Common Law is inherently evolutionary, so
citing ancient authority is of little use if that authority has been
"disapplied" or "superseded" by subsequent caselaw. That being so, in all
jurisdictions which regard themselves as the inheritors of the Common Law of
England (whether in England & Wales today, or Australia, or Canada, or the
West Indies or the several states of the United States, there will be
growing differences between the differing branches within this tree of the
Common Law. Nowhere is this more evident than with regard to Blasphemy.
There is, as previous postings have noted, no separation of Church and State
in the United Kingdom. And so we can find in a current edition of
Blackstone's Criminal Practice (one of the two "bibles" -- the other one
being Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence & Practice) that will
invariably be found in front of every barrister and every judge in criminal
proceedings in the courts of England & Wales:

"At common law, blasphemy is defined as the publication (orally or, for
libel, in writing) of matter which vilifies or is contemptuous of or which
denies the truth of the Christian religion or the Bible or the Book of
Common Prayer and which is couched in indecent, scurrilous or offensive
terms likely to shock and outrage the feelings of the general body of
Christian believers." Blasphemy and blasphemous libel are triable on
indictment, and the statement of the offence is now based upon that used in
Whitehouse v. Lemon [1979] AC 671: it is "Blasphemous libel contrary to
common law". The maximum penalty, upon conviction, is imprisonment for life
and/or a fine. Needless to say, people are not commonly imprisoned for it
today and, notwithstanding the fact that there are people who are prepared
to undertake private prosecutions against those whom they regard as having
offended against this common law, very few cases come to trial (see below).

It may seem obvious (but has been the subject of a number of judgments over
the years) that it is impossible for anyone in England & Wales to be
convicted of blasphemy against any religion other than Christianity. When
the Court of Appeal last considered the issue in Regina v. Chief
Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex. parte Choudhury [1990] 3 WLR 986,
it refused to extend the offence to cover a similar "publication" offensive
to Moslems on the grounds that there had only been two prosecutions for
blasphemy in 70 years and that the Law Commission had recommended in 1985
that the offence ought to be abolished altogether. In any case, since the
mid-19th century, it was no longer blasphemous to "publish" a "sober,
reasoned attack" and "a libel is not blasphemous unless it is a scurrilous
vilification".

So to cut to the chase, one has to look back from the present, in whatever
jurisdiction one finds oneself, and in the United States whatever Common Law
provisions existed at one time will have been re-interpreted, disapplied,
re-affirmed or constrained by the absolute necessity of complying with the
Federal Constitution and its Amendments.

Oh, and while I'm quite sure that most members of this list are perfectly
capable of reading plain English and reaching their own conclusions on these
matters (which in England, being triable only on Indictment, must be put to
a jury in relation to matters of fact), I guess I should declare that I am
both a professional historian and a trained lawyer.

Have a Happy Easter.

Probe

********************************

Gardiner wrote in message <3702D6AC...@pitnet.net>...

>jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>>
>> Let's toss in as much evidence as we can find, let's let the readers make
>> up their own minds
>>

>>[followed by massive unedited material]
>
>You have this strange approach to debate for which I am inclined to coin
the
>phrase fallacy ad magnum: the idea that whoever can cut and paste the
longest
>citation is most accurate.
>
>I suppose I could follow suit and cut and paste all of the laws of Alfred,
>Bracton, Magna Carta, Hale, Coke, and Blackstone. That would surely take up
a
>lot of space on this bulletin board, and a good bit of it would demonstrate
>that Christianity indeed was part of the Common Law.
>

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/5/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|Stephen Voss wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Actually most of Common law had nothing to do with the christian church.
>:|> Common law decended from Celtic law and its hybridization with Dane Law
>:|> and Anglo-saxon law in England from the 5th to the 11th century. The
>:|> Celts
>:|> ,anglo saxons and vikings were very much individualists. The church on
>:|> the other
>:|> hand had most of its origins in Roman society and its laws are similar
>:|> to roman laws even the papacy
>:|> in ways was a mirror image of the roman empire. While the Church
>:|> was an important part of pre-norman English society,
>:|> the roman and christian influence was very limited in legal formations
>:|> which
>:|> had been ongoing since before england became christian.
>:|
>:|You are accurate in the sense that the Common law drew largely from Germanic
>:|origins; however, in the medieval period much of the Canon Law was grafted
>:|into the English Common Law to the extent that by the time of the American
>:|Colonial era, British Common Law was permeated with Christian concepts.
>:|

Which means, in your mind, exactly what?

Which means, in your mind, exactly what as far as this nation was concerned
as the various States began writing their own Constitutions?

Which means, in your mind, exactly what as they got a little better at this
constitution writing business and they began writing revisions to their
original constitutions?

Which means, in your mind, exactly what as each other several states began
disestablishment of religion, and as each, even the ones who did not have
any official establishments, began breaking all unions between state and
church?

Finally, which means, in your mind, exactly what as the Federal
Constitution was framed, ratified, went into effect? The amendments were
framed, ratified and became part of that Constitution?

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/9/99

From: "Harold Leahy" <hle...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
misc.legal,alt.conspiracy,alt.law-enforcement,alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Common Law
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:47:18 -0500
_________________________________________________________________________
> Below are some authorities in support of Common Law.

And the following is the section on Common Law from the Constitution
annotated at the findlaw.com site.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment05/13.html#11

"Congressional Power to Abolish Common Law Judicial Actions.-- Similarly,
it
is clearly settled that ''[a] person has no property, no vested interest,
in
any rule of the common law.'' (footnote153) It follows, therefore, that
Congress in its discretion may abolish common law actions, replacing them
with other judicial actions or with administrative remedies at its
discretion. There is slight intimation in some of the cases that if
Congress
does abolish a common law action it must either duplicate the recovery or
provide a reasonable substitute remedy. (footnote154) Such a holding seems
only remotely likely, (footnote155) but some difficulties may be
experienced
with respect to legislation that retrospectively affects rights to sue,
such
as shortening or lengthening statutes of limitation, and the like, although
these have typically risen in state contexts. In one interesting decision,
the Court did sustain an award of additional compensation under the
Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, made pursuant to a
private act of Congress passed after expiration of the period for review of
the original award, directing the Commission to review the case and issue a
new order, the challenge being made by the employer and insurer.
(footnote156)"

The footnotes cited:
153 Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 U.S. 1, 50 (1912). See also
Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117, 122 (1929) (a state case).

154 The intimation stems from New York Central R.R. v. White, 243 U.S. 188
(1917) (a state case, involving the constitutionality of a workmen's
compensation law). While denying any person's vested interest in the
continuation of any particular right to sue, id. at 198, the Court did seem
twice to suggest that abolition without a reasonable substitute would raise
due process problems. Id. at 201. In Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl.
Study
Group, 438 U.S. 59, 87-92 (1978), it noticed the contention but passed it
by
because the law at issue was a reasonable substitute.

155 It is more likely with respect to congressional provision of a
statutory
substitute for a cause of action arising directly out of a constitutional
guarantee. E.g., Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18-23 (1980).

156 Paramino Co. v. Marshall, 309 U.S. 370 (1940).

Also from findlaw.com, search by using either the party name or the case
citation.

ERIE R. CO. v. TOMPKINS, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
"Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of
Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. And
whether the law of the state shall be declared by its Legislature in a
statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal
concern. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to
declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a state whether they
be local in their nature or 'general,' be they commercial law or a part of
the law of torts. And no clause in the Constitution purports to confer such
a power upon the federal courts."

By SCOTUS ruling a statute can and does override the common law. In the
United States, most of the common law has been replaced by statutes.

In regards to taxation, the 16th Amendment, 1921, gave Congress the power
to
levy income taxes, without regard to the census. The Constitution, being
the
supreme law of the land, trumps the common law.

jal...@pilot.infi.net

unread,

Apr 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/9/99

Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:

>:|jal...@pilot.infi.net wrote:
>:|>
>:|> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>:|>

>:|> >:|You are accurate in the sense that the Common law drew largely from Germanic
>:|> >:|origins; however, in the medieval period much of the Canon Law was grafted
>:|> >:|into the English Common Law to the extent that by the time of the American
>:|> >:|Colonial era, British Common Law was permeated with Christian concepts.
>:|> >:|
>:|>
>:|> Which means, in your mind, exactly what?
>:|

>:|Which means, in my mind, in the medieval period much of the Canon Law was

>:|grafted into the English Common Law to the extent that by the time of the
>:|American Colonial era, British Common Law was permeated with Christian concepts.
>:|

This American colonial era covers what years, in your mind?

>:|> Which means, in your mind, exactly what as far as this nation was concerned

>:|> as the various States began writing their own Constitutions?

>:|
>:|That they borrowed heavily upon Blackstone.
>:|

I do recall you saying at one point in time that 99% of American law came
from Blackstone.

I asked you about that, and you never did say any more about it.

Do you still insist that is an accurate statement?

The real point is in only one area. That area is the so called religious
aspect.The Christian aspect that is.

The rest is irrelevant to any of these discussions.

So, it is your claim that the states borrowed heavily on Blackstone in the
area of religion?

>:|> Which means, in your mind, exactly what as they got a little better at this

>:|> constitution writing business and they began writing revisions to their
>:|> original constitutions?

>:|
>:|That they still relied heavily upon Blackstone.
>:|

In the area of religious laws?

>:|> Which means, in your mind, exactly what as each other several states began

>:|> disestablishment of religion, and as each, even the ones who did not have
>:|> any official establishments, began breaking all unions between state and
>:|> church?

Sensible? Why do you frequently couch your claims in this manner?
Integrity, honest, smart enough, sensible, etc.

Why is that? What, I your mind, is your reasons for doing this.

You see, I ask this question, because after being on here for over four
years, and being on another national, thought smaller net for two years
before that, and being on several local bbses, you are one of the very few
people I have ever run across who do this.

Regardless what you want to say, you are setting a person up with these
little thingies of yours.

Why, do you feel such is needed?

>:| enough to know that Wisconsin, founded 1848, was not an unusually
>:|"Christian" state, and that the laws of other states in the Midwest were
>:|similar to the laws of Wisconsin. This is Wisconsin Law 1848-1880:
>:|
>:|Formerly called “Crimes against God and Religion,” by Wisconsin Statutes
>:|(1850) Wisconsin Revised Statutes (1871) label this section “offences against
>:|chastity, morality, and decency:” The section includes the following
>:|
>:|SABBATH-BREAKING:
>:|
>:|--------

>:|
>:|Keep in mind, Wisconsin was not one of those states, like Massachusetts, which
>:|originally established Christianity. This was not an "old law" that had been
>:|on the Wisconsin books in the colonial days. It was written into their
>:|statutes in the 1800's, well after Madison (whose namesake was given to the
>:|Wisconsin capital) grafted first amendment principles into the fed. Const.
>:|
>:|What might explain this? Could it be the fact that the entirety of the
>:|Wisconsin Statutes reflects the form, organization, and content of
>:|Blackstone's Commentaries? Or is that just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence
>:|that Blackstone labeled a section "Offences against God and Religion" and
>:|Wisconsin Statutes labled a section "Crimes against God and Religion"? Is it a
>:|coincidence that in this section Blackstone addresses the matter of
>:|Sabbath-breaking? What a coincidence!
>:|
>:|Could it be that Blackstone and the common law continued to lie at the base of
>:|legal theory throughout the states in the 19th century?

>:|
>:|Or will you allege that Wisconsin was very odd and out of step in its
>:|statutes? All I really need to do is take a trip to Marquette Law and pull
>:|down Indiana Statutes of the 19th century to show that to be wrong.
>:|

This has already been answered, but I will answer it again.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAW

BOOK IV, CHAPTER IV
OFFENSES AS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION

[The crimes as listed in his Commentaries]

(1) APOSTACY or total rejection of Christianity
(2) HERESY
(3) OFFENCES AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH
(1) Reviling the ordinances of the [national] church
(2) Non-conformity
(4) BLASPHEMY
(5) SWEARING OR CURSING
(6) CRIME OF WITCHCRAFT, CONJURATION, INCHANTMENT, SORCERY
(7) RELIGIOUS IMPOSTERS
(8) SIMONY
(9) PROFANATION OF THE LORD''S DAY [Sabbath Breaking]
(10) DRUNKENNESS
(11) LEWDNESS
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, one can really see this tremendous influence of Blackstone on the laws
of Wisconsin in the mid 1800's LOL Yea Right!!!!!

BLACKSTONE'S

COMMENTARIES

THE LAW

From the Abridged Edition of Wm. Hardcastle Browne
Including a Biographical Sketch, Modern American
Notes, Common Law Maxims and a Glossary of Legal Terms

Edited by
BERNARD C. GAVIT

Dean, Indiana University School of Law

WASHINGTON LAW BOOK CO.
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1892

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEAN GAVIT'S NOTES

CHAPTER IV

OFFENSES AS AGAINST GOD AND RELIGION

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Moving on here:

I would suggest you might want to examine the following article:
The Death of the Christian: The Judiciary and Chruch-State Relations, by
Frank Way. Journal of Church and State, Volume 29, Autumn 1987, Number 3 pp
509

The following are excerpts from that article [I think I already posted some
of this to you before]

Between 1800 and 1920 there were 254 state court cases involving
religion/church/state issues on the state.

That is the total package 254 cases which average 2.116 (actually you can
keep adding 6's forever, such as 2.116666666, etc) cases per year LOL

Point is there was very little religious cases and the ones that did exist
break down as follows:
112 recorded church property disputes
87 recorded Sabbath closing law cases
18 public school prayer and Bible reading cases
15 cases involving public aid to sectarian schools
22 reported blasphemy cases

Between 1800 - 1920 and especially between 1870 and 1920 the state courts
moved away form a perception of America as a Christian nation, from a
religious communitarian conceptual framework and moved increasingly in the
direction of a secular based perspective in church-state relations.

Between 1817 and 1887, 25 percent of the recorded state Sunday closing
cases offered a Christian nation or Christian piety rationale. Between 1888
and 1920 this percentage dropped to less than 10 percent, and has dropped
from 1920 to the present where such case are even brought about anymore to
zero percent.
[ my comment: considering the climate, it is remarkable that only 25 % of
the Sunday closing cases offered a Christian reasoning between 1817 and
1887. That means that 3 out of 4 offered some other rationale for the
closings]

In the case of public schools the turning point seemed to be the 1850's for
it was after that, and especially after the Civil War that increased
pressures caused by increasing immigration bringing in Jews and especially
Catholics that the Protestant majority and Protestant having its own way
began to be attacked in courts and sometimes in the streets with increasing
frequency and success.

From the time of the War of Independence to the period of time of 1850
valid arguments could be made that this was indeed a "Christian nation," so
long as Christian was understood to mean White Protestant male dominated
nation.
(The sexiest and raciest nature of the code words Christian nation are
seldom ever openly mentioned, acknowledged or discussed.)

But beginning with increasing frequency at about mid point of the 1800's
that began to change. In the case of Sunday laws change came about mostly
because of such things as Railroads, Telegraphs, commercial enterprises,
even baseball. Massive influx of people from other countries helped change
many of the other areas. For example in 1785 the Catholic population in all
13 states was about 35,000. By 1850 that pop had increased to 1.7 million,
by 1870 6 million, 1900 12 million and by 1906 Roman Catholics constituted
the majority religious population of 16 states, including all of New
England, New York, New Jersey, Michigan. it was the largest single church
in 29 of the 45 states. I don't have information on the Jewish population
but it also had drastic increases as well.

>:|> Finally, which means, in your mind, exactly what as the Federal

>:|> Constitution was framed, ratified, went into effect? The amendments were
>:|> framed, ratified and became part of that Constitution?

>:|
>:|Apparently, from what I cited above, it did not mean that the common law and
>:|Blackstone were no longer to be at the foundation of state laws.

Try again.

You offer Sunday closings as your evidence. One out of eleven "offenses"
listed as crimes against religions and God by Blackstone.

That does not show overwhelming influence. Sorry, you did not meet your
burden of proof.

To finish up:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Probe" <kem...@globalnet.co.uk>
Newsgroups:
alt.history.colonial,alt.history,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,soc.history,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Was Christianity part of the Common Law?
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999 19:10:06 +0100
So to cut to the chase, one has to look back from the present, in whatever
jurisdiction one finds oneself, and in the United States whatever Common
Law provisions existed at one time will have been re-interpreted, dis
applied, re-affirmed or constrained by the absolute necessity of complying
with the Federal Constitution and its Amendments.

, I guess I should declare that I am both a professional historian and a
trained lawyer.

Probe
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> Dear Rick,
> [i.e., Was Christianity part of the Common Law] is "Yes, it
> was, at least prior to ratification of the Federal Constitution of the
> United States."

>In the case of blasphemy, that is quite clear cut, and I
> chose that example because in substance it lies at the heart of much of the
> debate. It would be less clear in relation to other matters, but I would
> need to know (and do not know) the context in which Jefferson made a remark
> that on its face appears to have been dead wrong. Within context, it may
> well be that his remark made sense. On the other hand, no man alive was ever
> infallible (apart from, we are told, a chap whose resurrection many of us
> may celebrate tomorrow).
>
> John ["Probe"]
>
> Dr. R. John Pritchard
> The Director
> The Robert M.W. Kempner Collegium
> Programmes & Publications on the History & Jurisprudence of
> International Criminal Law, International Humanitarian Law
> and Related Subjects
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Stephen Voss <vo...@gate.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.history.colonial,alt.history,alt.history.american.ap-exam,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.deism,alt.deism,soc.history.war.us-revolution,alt.atheism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Was Christianity part of the Common Law?
Date: Sun, 04 Apr 1999 22:51:26 -0400

> Gardiner <Gard...@pitnet.net> wrote:
>
> Most of this probably came from the Jews first. They probably got
> their views from somewhere else. Some probably came from Pagan Rome
> and Greece and some probably came from common sense. Most of it
> Western European in culture. Christianity came later. Christians then
> persecuted themselves and forced the Gnostics into hiding. I'm sure
> those persecuted had wonderful ideas.

Actually most of Common law had nothing to do with the christian church.
Common law decended from Celtic law and its hybridization with Dane Law
and Anglo-saxon law in England from the 5th to the 11th century. The
Celts ,anglo saxons and vikings were very much individualists. The church
on the other hand had most of its origins in Roman society and its laws
are similar to roman laws even the papacy in ways was a mirror image of the
roman empire. While the Church was an important part of pre-norman English
society, the roman and christian influence was very limited in legal
formations which had been ongoing since before england became christian.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(excerpts regarding religion)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**********************************************************************************

_____________________________________________________________________________

I rest my case.

0 new messages