Is Christianity Truly Part of the Common Law?

[Liquid Reigns]

I've been diving into some historical legal texts, and I came across an interesting argument by Thomas Jefferson. He suggests that the idea of Christianity (New Testament) being part of the common law is actually a misconception that arose from a misinterpretation of an old legal case.

Apparently, a statement made by a judge in the 15th century was later twisted by legal writers to mean that the Christian principles are embedded in the common law. This idea was then repeated by several legal authorities over the years, but Jefferson argues that there's no solid historical or legal foundation for it. He points out that the common law existed long before Christianity was even introduced to England.

Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian King of the Heptarchy, having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jefferson-the-works-vol-1-autobiography-anas-1760-1770

This got me thinking— Is there a real basis for the claim that Christianity is part of the common law, or is it simply a product of legal folklore?

 

[Mungri]

Three parts of the new testament stick out the most to me:

'Women cannot speak before men'

'Christians must not associate with non Christians'

'When Jesus returns, armageddon'.

Yes please, those three parts please, me likey, please Jesus destroy Earth, and women and christians stfu.

 

[Mungri]

I worship death Jesus too now, only the armageddon part of him, not the nice stuff.

Every human has sinned, destroy us all please Jesus!

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Three parts of the new testament stick out the most to me:

'Women cannot speak before men'

'Christians must not associate with non Christians'

'When Jesus returns, armageddon'.

Yes please, those three parts please, me likey, please Jesus destroy Earth, and women and christians stfu.

Aren't those more like guiding behavior and ethics, principles that influence societal norms? Kinda like the idea of "love your neighbor".

 

[Mungri]

Aren't those more like guiding behavior and ethics, principles that influence societal norms? Kinda like the idea of "love your neighbor".

Hmmm, how can one simultaneously love thy neighbour and not associate with other religions hmmm.

Biblical hypocrisy.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I worship death Jesus too now, only the armageddon part of him, not the nice stuff.

Every human has sinned, destroy us all please Jesus!

Loading…

www.biblegateway.com

If you knew death, you would not worship it.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I've been diving into some historical legal texts, and I came across an interesting argument by Thomas Jefferson. He suggests that the idea of Christianity (New Testament) being part of the common law is actually a misconception that arose from a misinterpretation of an old legal case.

Apparently, a statement made by a judge in the 15th century was later twisted by legal writers to mean that the Christian principles are embedded in the common law. This idea was then repeated by several legal authorities over the years, but Jefferson argues that there's no solid historical or legal foundation for it. He points out that the common law existed long before Christianity was even introduced to England.




This got me thinking— Is there a real basis for the claim that Christianity is part of the common law, or is it simply a product of legal folklore?

I would not say precisely Christian principles are the basis of English Common Law, but the 10 Commandments would be.

As there is a difference

 

[Mungri]

Loading…

www.biblegateway.com

If you knew death, you would not worship it.

Death is my mistress, the sweat release I crave from this endlessly unsatisfying & toxic world. I embrace death. I worship it. I would wish it upon all of humanity to end all of our collective sufferings. Life is entirely meaningless, a pointless waste of time between birth & death.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I would not say precisely Christian principles are the basis of English Common Law, but the 10 Commandments would be.

As there is a difference

I agree there is a difference.

What of the time before "Christianity" was introduced into England? The 10 Commandments wouldn't have had any influence then either. So where then does the English Common Law come from that pre-existed Christianity being introduced into England?

 

[Mungri]

The 10 commandments?

God 'let there be light' and made the plants and trees before creating the sun.

 

[Mungri]

Or wait thats genesis, I confuse genesis and commandments.

 

[AmericanViking]

I've been diving into some historical legal texts, and I came across an interesting argument by Thomas Jefferson. He suggests that the idea of Christianity (New Testament) being part of the common law is actually a misconception that arose from a misinterpretation of an old legal case.

Apparently, a statement made by a judge in the 15th century was later twisted by legal writers to mean that the Christian principles are embedded in the common law. This idea was then repeated by several legal authorities over the years, but Jefferson argues that there's no solid historical or legal foundation for it. He points out that the common law existed long before Christianity was even introduced to England.




This got me thinking— Is there a real basis for the claim that Christianity is part of the common law, or is it simply a product of legal folklore?

There’s no basis for separation of church and state either. His reply to the Danbury Baptists actually told them that the state had the right to declare a state religion and the federal government should not get involved.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

There’s no basis for separation of church and state either. His reply to the Danbury Baptists actually told them that the state had the right to declare a state religion and the federal government should not get involved.

Let's clarify some historical context, especially when discussing such foundational principles.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is often cited in discussions about the separation of church and state. In that letter, Jefferson did indeed articulate the idea of a "wall of separation between Church & State." However, the interpretation that Jefferson suggested states could declare a state religion while the federal government should not interfere is not accurate.

Jefferson was addressing concerns from the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, who were worried about religious freedom in a state where the Congregational Church was effectively established. Jefferson’s letter reassured them that the First Amendment provided a clear separation between church and state, meaning that the government, whether state or federal, should not impose or endorse any religion. This separation was intended to protect individual religious liberty by ensuring that government does not favor one religion over others.

Returning to the original topic of discussion, Jefferson also made it clear that the idea of Christianity (specifically the New Testament) being part of the common law is a misconception. He pointed out that English common law predates the introduction of Christianity to England by several centuries. Therefore, the claim that Christian principles are inherently embedded in the common law lacks a solid historical foundation.

This raises an important question: if Christianity wasn’t part of the original common law, how did the notion come to be so widely accepted? It appears to be more a product of later legal interpretations and perhaps a desire to align the law with prevailing religious sentiments, rather than a reflection of the true historical origins of common law.

 

[AmericanViking]

Let's clarify some historical context, especially when discussing such foundational principles.

Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is often cited in discussions about the separation of church and state. In that letter, Jefferson did indeed articulate the idea of a "wall of separation between Church & State." However, the interpretation that Jefferson suggested states could declare a state religion while the federal government should not interfere is not accurate.

Jefferson was addressing concerns from the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, who were worried about religious freedom in a state where the Congregational Church was effectively established. Jefferson’s letter reassured them that the First Amendment provided a clear separation between church and state, meaning that the government, whether state or federal, should not impose or endorse any religion. This separation was intended to protect individual religious liberty by ensuring that government does not favor one religion over others.

Returning to the original topic of discussion, Jefferson also made it clear that the idea of Christianity (specifically the New Testament) being part of the common law is a misconception. He pointed out that English common law predates the introduction of Christianity to England by several centuries. Therefore, the claim that Christian principles are inherently embedded in the common law lacks a solid historical foundation.

This raises an important question: if Christianity wasn’t part of the original common law, how did the notion come to be so widely accepted? It appears to be more a product of later legal interpretations and perhaps a desire to align the law with prevailing religious sentiments, rather than a reflection of the true historical origins of common law.

The Magna Carta is where a lot of it came from.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Magna Carta is where a lot of it came from.

The question in the OP is where did English Common Law come from if Christianity wasn't introduced into England until 598 AD. There were 200 years of English Common Law prior to that. The Magna Carta didn't enter the picture until 1215 AD. I'm looking for info pre- 598 AD.

The timeline is crucial here. If we're looking at pre- 598 AD, we're dealing with a time when the legal traditions in England were still forming, largely independent of Christian influence. The roots of English Common Law during this period are more likely tied to pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon customs, tribal laws, and perhaps even some lingering Roman legal principles, given that Rome had a significant presence in Britain until around 410 AD.

So, the key question remains: what legal frameworks or customs influenced English Common Law during this early period before Christianity’s introduction? The Magna Carta (reinforced principles of justice, fairness, and the rights of individuals, which are foundational to common law), which came much later in 1215 AD, builds on these earlier traditions, but it doesn’t explain where the foundational elements of English law came from during that earlier era.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I agree there is a difference.

What of the time before "Christianity" was introduced into England? The 10 Commandments wouldn't have had any influence then either. So where then does the English Common Law come from that pre-existed Christianity being introduced into England?

Christianity predates what you would refer to as "england" in the modern sense.

 

[Mungri]

Christianity predates what you would refer to as "england" in the modern sense.

Well yea, Christianity > Roman Empire > Romans conquer 'Britain', war with Celts (Boudica I think?). Modern day 'England' formed in 927 AD, not too long after, battle of hastings (1066), French rule England, then whatever happened after.

Elizabeth I, Victoria and Winston Churchill were the times of England / Britains best, the rest of the leaders not that great.

Fucking Henry 8th 'If wife produces a girl for a child, chop wifes head off'.

Also all the Christian dark ages with killing 'witches', oh and black plague.

And today we let in all the deplorable terrorskins because cucked mayo whites think 'Yay, unlimited migration & multiculturalism is the future yay'. Barf.

So when wypipo call out other wypipo for being crap, that's fine. When I call out other shitstains for being bad, 'dats racist yo'. Liberal white supremacy gogo, destroy your countries by filling them with me. If Islam takes over, I just convert and go smash whiteys with a crowbar or whatever.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Christianity predates what you would refer to as "england" in the modern sense.

It's true that Christianity as a religion predates the formation of what we now recognize as "England." However, the point I'm focusing on is the development of English Common Law and its relationship with Christianity.

While Christianity existed as a global religion well before the concept of "England" as a unified nation, the influence of Christianity on English legal systems didn't begin until it was formally introduced into the region around the 7th century. Before this time, the legal traditions that would evolve into English Common Law were shaped by a mix of pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon customs, remnants of Roman law, and other tribal codes.

So, while Christianity as a religion is ancient, its specific influence on English legal traditions—and therefore on English Common Law—did not begin until much later, well after these early legal systems were already in place. The question at hand is about those formative years before Christianity's introduction into the region and how the law developed during that time.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I think this video explains it rather well

 

[weaponoffreedom]

the development of English Common Law and its relationship with Christianity.

hmmm...relationship? not sure I follow or agree, but speak further and I might understand what you are saying

The question at hand is about those formative years before Christianity's introduction into the region and how the law developed during that time.

This is about impossible to answer, IMO. First you have to establish when Christianity proliferated in "england". That is hard to answer.

I argue that Christian culture did not really establish much in the world until the "reclamation" in the 1850s or so.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

hmmm...relationship? not sure I follow or agree, but speak further and I might understand what you are saying

My point is there is no relationship with Christianity. English Common Law pre-existed Christianity in England, thus Christianity had no influence on what is Common Law.

This is about impossible to answer, IMO. First you have to establish when Christianity proliferated in "england". That is hard to answer.

You're right that pinpointing exactly when Christianity fully proliferated in what we now call England is challenging. The introduction of Christianity to the region is generally marked by the mission of St. Augustine in 597 AD, when he was sent by Pope Gregory the Great to convert the Anglo-Saxons. This period marks a significant turning point, but the full integration of Christian culture into society took centuries.

I argue that Christian culture did not really establish much in the world until the "reclamation" in the 1850s or so.

Regarding the idea that Christian culture didn't establish much until the 1850s, I think there's a bit of a mix-up here. The 19th century saw a resurgence of Christian influence, particularly during the Victorian era, but Christianity had already been a central part of English culture for over a thousand years by that time. The spread and establishment of Christian culture in England began much earlier, around the 7th century, and by the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066, it was deeply embedded in the fabric of English society.

The crux of the original question is about the legal traditions in England before Christianity's formal introduction. It's about understanding how English Common Law developed during those early centuries, influenced by various pre-Christian legal customs, rather than the later periods of Christian influence.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

My point is there is no relationship with Christianity. English Common Law pre-existed Christianity in England, thus Christianity had no influence on what is Common Law.

You're right that pinpointing exactly when Christianity fully proliferated in what we now call England is challenging. The introduction of Christianity to the region is generally marked by the mission of St. Augustine in 597 AD, when he was sent by Pope Gregory the Great to convert the Anglo-Saxons. This period marks a significant turning point, but the full integration of Christian culture into society took centuries.

Regarding the idea that Christian culture didn't establish much until the 1850s, I think there's a bit of a mix-up here. The 19th century saw a resurgence of Christian influence, particularly during the Victorian era, but Christianity had already been a central part of English culture for over a thousand years by that time. The spread and establishment of Christian culture in England began much earlier, around the 7th century, and by the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066, it was deeply embedded in the fabric of English society.

The crux of the original question is about the legal traditions in England before Christianity's formal introduction. It's about understanding how English Common Law developed during those early centuries, influenced by various pre-Christian legal customs, rather than the later periods of Christian influence.

I agree with no relationship with Christianity.

I could see English common law having some relationship with other religions aswell, such as Sharia.

 

[Mungri]

I agree with no relationship with Christianity.

I could see English common law having some relationship with other religions aswell, such as Sharia.

Perhaps today, when England was formed, Islam was barely 200 years old so would have still been unheard of.

Today, the Labour party straight up serves Islam above all else.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:


King Henry II was crowned King of England in 1154. He is generally accepted as the father of common law. As a child King Henry II's father got on the wrong side of emperors and, consequently, young Henry spent much of his younger years in exile. He became a Christian, a Catholic to be exact and remained loyal to his religious leanings throughout his life. When King Henry was crowned, there was a mishmash of laws that had been adopted. It consisted of a lot of Anglo Saxon customs and Norman procedures and organizational methods. The point here being is that one cannot deny or diminish the Christian influence of the common law. It should also be remembered that it was King Henry II's son, King John that signed the Magna Charta.

The Magna Charta begins with these words:

"JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.



KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church..."

The Magna Charta was one of the most influential inspirations (outside the Bible itself) in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. The most important point that the Magna Charta that was utilized by our founders is that people can assert their authority over a tyrannical government and that government can be limited in their actions due to the unalienable Rights of the citizenry. So influential that document is on our own laws, the phrase "law of the land" comes directly out of the Magna Charta.

I realize that is an over-simplification of the facts, but we have to start somewhere. While it is true that King Henry II incorporated a lot of organizational and procedures aspects from Anglo Saxon law, the morality of the decisions were ultimately based on biblical precepts. Right, wrong, fair, unfair were judged according to whether an action would be an action against God.

Finally, absent any court statutes, the early courts in America relied on the English common law as a standard of justice until the courts interpreted our own Constitution and laws passed by the legislature.

Your post brings up some valuable points about the influence of Christianity and the Magna Carta on English common law and its subsequent influence on American legal and constitutional development. However, there are some twisted nuances and historical details that need further explanation to provide a clearer picture of your biased interpretation.

Origins of Common Law and King Henry II:​

While it is true that King Henry II is often credited with developing the common law system in England, it's important to recognize that common law is not a singular creation of one individual or era. Instead, it is a system of law that evolved over centuries, incorporating various customs, traditions, and legal precedents from Anglo-Saxon, Norman, and other influences. King Henry II's contribution was primarily in unifying the administration of justice and establishing the royal courts, which applied common law across England, but the moral and ethical standards of these laws were diverse and not solely based on Christian precepts.

Christian Influence on Common Law:​

It is undeniable that Christianity had an influence on the moral framework of medieval Europe, including England. However, the argument that Christian principles solely defined common law oversimplifies the historical development of legal systems. Common law also drew heavily from pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon customs, Roman law principles, and the pragmatic needs of governance. The Christian moral influence was one of many factors and did not dictate the entirety of the legal system. This aligns with Sir Francis Bacon's statement, as quoted earlier, that English law was derived from various sources, including but not limited to Christian scripture.

The Magna Carta and Its Influence:​

The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, indeed opens with a religious invocation, reflecting the deep integration of the church in medieval European governance. However, the document itself was more a practical response to the political crisis of its time than a religious or moral manifesto. Its significance lies in the assertion of certain rights and the limitation of monarchical power, principles that were revolutionary in asserting that even the king was subject to the law. The Magna Carta's influence on American legal thought, particularly its ideas about due process and the rule of law, is well-acknowledged, but its religious language reflects the era’s norms rather than the primary drivers of its legal principles.

Christian Principles and American Law:​

The influence of the Magna Carta on the Declaration of Independence and American constitutional development is well-documented. However, it’s critical to differentiate between the cultural presence of Christianity and the establishment of legal principles. The Founders drew from a variety of sources, including Enlightenment philosophy, which emphasized reason, individual rights, and secular governance. While Christian ethics may have informed personal beliefs, the legal framework was intentionally secular to ensure religious freedom and prevent the establishment of any single religion.

English Common Law in Early America:​

It is accurate that early American courts used English common law as a foundation in the absence of local statutes, which was a practical approach given the legal heritage shared with England. However, the Founders, particularly figures like Jefferson and Madison, were careful to construct a system that allowed for adaptation and evolution, ensuring that American law could reflect the unique principles of liberty and self-governance that defined the new nation. This is why the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights include explicit protections for freedom of religion, speech, and the separation of church and state.

Conclusion:​

While Christianity and the Bible undoubtedly influenced the cultural and moral landscape of medieval and early modern Europe, however the development of English common law and its influence on American law was a complex process that integrated many sources. The Founders sought to establish a government that respected religious diversity and individual rights, ensuring that no single religious perspective would dominate public life. This nuanced approach is crucial to understanding the foundations of American law and governance.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I agree with no relationship with Christianity.

I could see English common law having some relationship with other religions aswell, such as Sharia.

I wouldn't say no relationship to Christianity, we know Common Law is not based on Christianity. Christian morals and ethics have played some role in more recent law (1200 - present). I agree that other religions have some laws that are in English/US Common Law.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

I quoted from the American Law Register earlier and there is more to be said about the common law as it relates to Christianity. Here is more from that same source:

"In I819, in King v. Carlile, 3 B. & Al. 161, on an information the same as the indictment in King v. Williams, it was declared that, independent of statute, blasphemous libel was an offence at common law. It was said by BEST, Chief Justice, in King v. Waddington (I822), I B. & C. 26, that denying the truth of the Scriptures maliciously was by the common law a libel, and the legislature could not alter the law whilst the Christian religion was considered to be the basis of that law.

The last thing we should be arguing in this country is whether or not the common law is based on Christianity. It is. That is indisputable. I am glad that we could add to that and end any debate. Some writers that have studied Jefferson, who is the go to guy for disputing the origins of common law rulings, theorize that Jefferson was limited in what he knew by the fact that law books weren't all that accessible. Jefferson was known to go from town to town practicing law from a few books that he could carry with him. That Jefferson was influenced by the Illuminati cannot be dismissed. It's just that his supporters can't accept the fact that, in Jefferson's day, he fell flat on his face in court arguing against a legal reality. But, while the Freemasons were trying to make their mark, so were Christians. AND, like it or not, believe it or not, there was an understanding that we were (at that time) a Christian nation.

The whole concept of Liberty is not a Freemason doctrine nor was it thought up by those in the Enlightenment. To quote someone from the other side of the fence, let me quote United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story:

“There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1829 speech at Harvard

This should conclude this aspect of the discussion. People are going to accept Jefferson's debunked ideas OR they are going to consider that Story, at 32, was the youngest person ever confirmed to sit on the United States Supreme Court. If we were to list accomplishments (cases he ruled on or positions he held) down to the nine books he authored, this would be a long thread. Story agreed with all the cases and materials I've cited in earlier posts here regarding the presupposition that the common law is based on Christianity.

Let's consider something else before moving along. Let us presuppose that the Enlightenment is 100 percent right and America NEVER had any Christian influence (I don't know how we can ignore that every state constitution in the founding and framing periods acknowledged a Christian God in one form or another). But let's play the game. If those people are in charge and always have been, then all the problems in America happened on their watch and maybe secular humanism isn't so great after all. They weren't and now we can move forward.

Your comments touch on significant points about the influence of Christianity on common law and its role in the development of American law. However, there are important clarifications and distinctions that must be made to fully understand the relationship between Christianity, common law, and the foundation of the United States.

Christianity and Common Law:​

It's accurate to say that Christianity influenced English common law, especially given the historical context of medieval and early modern England, where the church played a significant role in societal norms and values. However, saying that Christianity is the sole basis of common law oversimplifies a complex legal history. Common law was shaped by various sources, including pre-Christian Anglo-Saxon laws, Roman law, and practical needs for social order and governance. The statements from Chief Justice Best and other 19th-century legal opinions reflect the context of their time, but they do not negate the diverse origins of common law.

Thomas Jefferson’s Perspective:​

Thomas Jefferson's skepticism about Christianity being embedded in common law was based on historical analysis. Jefferson argued, as noted in earlier discussions, that common law existed before Christianity was introduced to England, indicating that it is not exclusively rooted in Christian doctrine. Jefferson's views were not a result of ignorance or lack of access to law books, but rather a considered position based on his studies and the Enlightenment ideals that influenced many of the Founders. The Enlightenment emphasized reason, individual rights, and secular governance, which played a crucial role in shaping American political philosophy.

Joseph Story and Historical Context:​

Justice Joseph Story did express that Christianity had a role in the moral foundation of common law, but it is important to understand what this meant in the context of his time. Story was reflecting on a period when societal values were heavily influenced by Christianity, and his views were consistent with the cultural norms of the early 19th century. However, Story also recognized the importance of religious freedom and the separation of church and state, as enshrined in the First Amendment. His acknowledgment of Christianity's influence does not mean that American law is exclusively Christian, nor does it support the establishment of a theocratic government.

Influence of the Enlightenment:​

The Enlightenment played a significant role in shaping the principles of liberty, democracy, and individual rights that are foundational to the American political system. While these ideas may have roots in earlier philosophical and religious thought, the Enlightenment's emphasis on reason, scientific inquiry, and secular governance was a driving force behind the American Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution. The idea that liberty is not a concept developed by the Enlightenment misunderstands the broader intellectual currents that influenced the Founders.

Religious References in State Constitutions:​

It is true that many state constitutions during the founding era contained references to God or Christianity, reflecting the prevailing religious beliefs of the population. However, the inclusion of such references does not equate to an endorsement of a Christian government. The Founders were careful to design a federal system that allowed for religious diversity and freedom, as evidenced by the First Amendment's prohibition on establishing a state religion. The U.S. Constitution itself is notably secular, with no mention of God, and its focus is on the rights of individuals and the structure of government.

Contemporary Relevance and Secularism:​

The argument that if secular humanism has been in charge, all problems must be attributed to it overlooks the historical complexity of governance and societal development. American history is marked by a continuous interplay of religious, secular, and philosophical influences. The challenges faced by any society are not the product of a single ideological influence but rather the result of various factors, including economic conditions, social dynamics, and political decisions.

Conclusion:​

The relationship between Christianity, common law, and American law is complex and multifaceted. While Christianity has undeniably influenced the moral and cultural framework of the West, including the development of law, it is one of many influences. The Founders, informed by Enlightenment ideals, sought to create a government that protected individual rights and ensured freedom of religion. This approach reflects a commitment to secular governance and the protection of liberty for all, regardless of religious belief. Understanding this nuanced history is essential for a balanced perspective on the role of religion in public life and the foundations of American law.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

I wouldn't say no relationship to Christianity, we know Common Law is not based on Christianity. Christian morals and ethics have played some role in more recent law (1200 - present). I agree that other religions have some laws that are in English/US Common Law.

I suppose, in my mind, it is all or nothing.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

weaponoffreedom inspired this with his thread asking if America were founded on Christian principles. That the common law was ruled to be based on Christianity is beyond debate. Thomas Jefferson seems to not have understood that and, today, I wonder if weaponoffreedom got the message. Be that as it may. I have another point to make:

The United States does not rely on the English Common Law much any longer. The United States ratified their own Constitution, passed their own statutes and their own regulations. We still use the procedural and organizational aspects of the common law, but have developed our own values of right, wrong, fair, unfair, etc. It cannot be stressed enough that all the early state constitutions all acknowledged Christianity in one form or another. It is the only religion the founders and framers ever alluded to in the many Charters, statutes, and later state constitutions and various laws. Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution states:

"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

See the standard of justice there. The people were expected to practice Christian forbearance toward each other. Regardless of religious (or non-religious) persuasion the expectation was the same for all citizens. You do not have to join a religion; the state imposes no doctrinal tenets of faith; citizens just respect the prevailing culture. It's straight, direct, forward and simple.

It appears that sometimes the Freemasons sided with the Christians; others sided with the Illuminists among the Freemasons. The average person in the days of the founders and framers had their ideas of what they wanted and they all signed onto an idea. Today it is disputed because we no longer live under the original intent of the founders and framers.

Several clarifications are necessary to fully understand the relationship between Christianity, common law, and the founding principles of the United States.

Christianity and Common Law:​

The assertion that "the common law was ruled to be based on Christianity" simplifies a nuanced issue. While historical figures such as Sir Matthew Hale and William Blackstone linked common law to Christian moral principles, the common law itself is a complex body of law shaped by a variety of influences, including Roman law, local customs, and judicial decisions. Christianity played a role in shaping the ethical and moral considerations of those who applied the law, but it is not accurate to state that common law is exclusively or fundamentally based on Christian doctrine. Instead, common law evolved over centuries to incorporate various cultural, social, and religious influences.

The Role of English Common Law in the United States:​

It's true that the United States no longer relies heavily on English common law. The U.S. Constitution, federal and state statutes, and judicial interpretations have shaped a distinct legal system. However, the foundational principles of common law—such as due process, the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence—remain influential. These principles are not inherently Christian but are rooted in a broader tradition of legal and moral philosophy that transcends any single religion.

References to Christianity in Early American Documents:​

You are correct that many early American documents and state constitutions made references to Christianity or God, reflecting the religious beliefs of the time. However, these references do not equate to the establishment of a Christian government. For example, the Virginia Constitution's Section 16, which you cited, emphasizes the free exercise of religion "according to the dictates of conscience" and calls for "Christian forbearance, love, and charity." These are values that can be appreciated in a broader ethical context, not necessarily confined to Christianity alone. The emphasis on freedom of conscience and the absence of religious compulsion aligns with Enlightenment ideals of individual rights and secular governance.

Original Intent of the Founders:​

The Founders were a diverse group with varying views on religion and government. While many were influenced by Christian principles, they were also deeply influenced by Enlightenment ideals, which prioritized reason, individual rights, and separation of church and state. The U.S. Constitution reflects this balance by ensuring religious freedom and prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. This careful balance was intended to accommodate a pluralistic society where individuals could freely practice their faith or choose not to adhere to any religion.

Freemasons and Illuminists:​

The role of Freemasons and their influence on the founding of the United States is a subject of much speculation and debate. While it is true that some Founders were Freemasons, there is no clear evidence that Masonic or Illuminist ideologies significantly shaped the core principles of American government. The emphasis on liberty, democracy, and individual rights can be traced back to a wide array of intellectual traditions, including classical antiquity, Enlightenment philosophy, and the practical experiences of self-governance in the American colonies.

Contemporary Application and Secular Values:​

Today, the United States is a nation of diverse beliefs and practices. While Christian values have historically influenced American culture and law, the legal system is designed to uphold the rights of all citizens, regardless of their religious beliefs. The original intent of the Founders, as embodied in the Constitution, was to create a government that protected freedom of religion, allowing individuals to practice their faith as they see fit while ensuring that no single religion would dominate the public sphere.

Conclusion:​

The influence of Christianity on early American thought and law is undeniable, but it must be understood within the broader context of a commitment to religious freedom and secular governance. The Founders crafted a framework that respects religious diversity and individual conscience, drawing from a wide range of philosophical and religious traditions. Understanding this complexity is crucial for appreciating the true nature of American democracy and its foundational principles.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The cases cited by those that claim the Common Law is based on Christianity, such as Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) and U.S. v. MacIntosh (1931), certainly provide insight into how the U.S. Supreme Court has viewed the role of Christianity in American society at certain points in history. However, interpreting these cases as definitive proof that America was founded on Christian principles and that common law is inherently Christian requires a nuanced analysis. Let's explore these points:

Historical Context of the Supreme Court Decisions:​

• The Holy Trinity case is often cited for its statement that "this is a Christian nation," but this phrase must be understood in its broader context. The case itself dealt with interpreting a statute regarding the importation of foreign labor, and the Court referred to the Christian character of the nation to support a narrow reading of the law. The statement reflects the cultural and social context of the time, but it does not establish Christianity as a legal basis for the American government.
• U.S. v. MacIntosh deals with the issue of conscientious objection and religious belief in the context of national allegiance. While it acknowledges the Christian character of the people, the case emphasizes the supremacy of the Constitution and national laws over individual religious beliefs when it comes to matters of national security.

Christianity and Common Law:​

• The statement that "Christian religion is a part of the common law" reflects a historical view that the moral and ethical standards of the time were heavily influenced by Christianity. However, common law, as a system, developed through various influences, including Roman law, local customs, and judicial precedents. Christianity undoubtedly influenced the ethical framework within which common law judges operated, but it was not the sole source.
• The U.S. Supreme Court, in various cases, acknowledged the Christian cultural backdrop of the American people, but this does not mean that American law is based solely on Christian doctrine. The founding documents, such as the Constitution, were designed to create a government neutral in matters of religion, ensuring freedom for all, regardless of faith.

The Evolution of Legal Interpretation:​

• American jurisprudence has evolved, reflecting changes in societal values, religious diversity, and a growing commitment to religious freedom. While early cases and state constitutions might reflect a Christian influence, the broader legal trajectory has moved toward inclusivity and secularism.
• The principle of separation of church and state, as enshrined in the First Amendment, has been a guiding factor in ensuring that laws are not based on religious doctrine but on principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law.

The Modern Understanding of Religious Influence:​

• Modern courts and legal scholars recognize that while the historical influence of Christianity on Western legal systems is undeniable, contemporary legal systems must operate independently of religious doctrine. This ensures that laws apply equally to people of all faiths or none.
• The notion of America as a "Christian nation" is more a reflection of cultural heritage than of legal or constitutional reality. The principles of liberty, equality, and justice that form the basis of American law are not exclusive to Christianity and can be found in various philosophical and ethical traditions.

Addressing the "Corruption" of Common Law:​

• The perceived "corruption" of common law, or the movement away from a strictly Christian interpretation, can be seen as an evolution toward a more inclusive and pluralistic legal system. As society has diversified, so too has the understanding of justice and morality within the law.
• The flexibility and adaptability of common law are its strengths, allowing it to respond to changes in societal values and norms. The increasing recognition of religious diversity and the importance of secular governance reflect a commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms of all citizens.

Conclusion:​

The influence of Christianity on the development of American law and society is a historical fact, but it does not imply that American law is, or should be, based solely on Christian principles. The U.S. Constitution's commitment to religious freedom and the separation of church and state ensures that while individual citizens can be guided by their faith, the government remains neutral in matters of religion. This framework protects the rights of all, regardless of religious belief, and reflects the pluralistic nature of modern American society. The historical Supreme Court decisions should be understood in their context, acknowledging their time-specific perspectives without taking them as definitive for all time.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The cases cited by those that claim the Common Law is based on Christianity, such as Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) and U.S. v. MacIntosh (1931), certainly provide insight into how the U.S. Supreme Court has viewed the role of Christianity in American society at certain points in history. However, interpreting these cases as definitive proof that America was founded on Christian principles and that common law is inherently Christian requires a nuanced analysis. Let's explore these points:

Historical Context of the Supreme Court Decisions:​

• The Holy Trinity case is often cited for its statement that "this is a Christian nation," but this phrase must be understood in its broader context. The case itself dealt with interpreting a statute regarding the importation of foreign labor, and the Court referred to the Christian character of the nation to support a narrow reading of the law. The statement reflects the cultural and social context of the time, but it does not establish Christianity as a legal basis for the American government.
• U.S. v. MacIntosh deals with the issue of conscientious objection and religious belief in the context of national allegiance. While it acknowledges the Christian character of the people, the case emphasizes the supremacy of the Constitution and national laws over individual religious beliefs when it comes to matters of national security.

Christianity and Common Law:​

• The statement that "Christian religion is a part of the common law" reflects a historical view that the moral and ethical standards of the time were heavily influenced by Christianity. However, common law, as a system, developed through various influences, including Roman law, local customs, and judicial precedents. Christianity undoubtedly influenced the ethical framework within which common law judges operated, but it was not the sole source.
• The U.S. Supreme Court, in various cases, acknowledged the Christian cultural backdrop of the American people, but this does not mean that American law is based solely on Christian doctrine. The founding documents, such as the Constitution, were designed to create a government neutral in matters of religion, ensuring freedom for all, regardless of faith.

The Evolution of Legal Interpretation:​

• American jurisprudence has evolved, reflecting changes in societal values, religious diversity, and a growing commitment to religious freedom. While early cases and state constitutions might reflect a Christian influence, the broader legal trajectory has moved toward inclusivity and secularism.
• The principle of separation of church and state, as enshrined in the First Amendment, has been a guiding factor in ensuring that laws are not based on religious doctrine but on principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law.

The Modern Understanding of Religious Influence:​

• Modern courts and legal scholars recognize that while the historical influence of Christianity on Western legal systems is undeniable, contemporary legal systems must operate independently of religious doctrine. This ensures that laws apply equally to people of all faiths or none.
• The notion of America as a "Christian nation" is more a reflection of cultural heritage than of legal or constitutional reality. The principles of liberty, equality, and justice that form the basis of American law are not exclusive to Christianity and can be found in various philosophical and ethical traditions.

Addressing the "Corruption" of Common Law:​

• The perceived "corruption" of common law, or the movement away from a strictly Christian interpretation, can be seen as an evolution toward a more inclusive and pluralistic legal system. As society has diversified, so too has the understanding of justice and morality within the law.
• The flexibility and adaptability of common law are its strengths, allowing it to respond to changes in societal values and norms. The increasing recognition of religious diversity and the importance of secular governance reflect a commitment to upholding the rights and freedoms of all citizens.

Conclusion:​

The influence of Christianity on the development of American law and society is a historical fact, but it does not imply that American law is, or should be, based solely on Christian principles. The U.S. Constitution's commitment to religious freedom and the separation of church and state ensures that while individual citizens can be guided by their faith, the government remains neutral in matters of religion. This framework protects the rights of all, regardless of religious belief, and reflects the pluralistic nature of modern American society. The historical Supreme Court decisions should be understood in their context, acknowledging their time-specific perspectives without taking them as definitive for all time.

OK ,so what is the conclusion? Are you a yes or no?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

OK ,so what is the conclusion? Are you a yes or no?

The historical development of common law was undeniably influenced by the prevailing Christian moral and ethical frameworks of its time, particularly in medieval England. Judges and lawmakers often drew upon Christian principles when interpreting laws and making judicial decisions. However, common law itself is a complex amalgamation of various sources, including local customs, Roman law, and earlier Anglo-Saxon traditions, which evolved to meet the needs of a changing society. Thus, while Christian values have played a role in shaping the ethical backdrop against which common law developed, they are not its sole or definitive foundation.

In the American context, while early legal thought and many state constitutions acknowledged a Christian cultural influence, the U.S. Constitution enshrined principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. This legal framework ensures that American law is based on secular, universally applicable principles of justice and equality, rather than on any particular religious doctrine. As a result, while Christianity has influenced the moral and cultural heritage of both English common law and American law, the legal systems have evolved to uphold the rights and freedoms of all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs.

So NO, Christianity is not part of the Common Law itself.

 

[TheFiend]

Christianity predates what you would refer to as "england" in the modern sense.

I thought you were a Sergeant... not a... captain fuckin' obvious.

The true primordial Spirit seemingly hijacked by the christianity cultists, existed long before these corrupt corporeal cults.

Ahh mean, ya probably ain't gonna pick up what I'm puttin' down here, butt for fuck sakes I dunno how to put it any simpler aye.

christianity is merely a parasite leeching off of the true holy Spirit, and they do this by imposing ignorance upon us all.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

christianity is merely a parasite leeching off of the true holy Spirit, and they do this by imposing ignorance upon us all.

In some ways you are right.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

The historical development of common law was undeniably influenced by the prevailing Christian moral and ethical frameworks of its time, particularly in medieval England. Judges and lawmakers often drew upon Christian principles when interpreting laws and making judicial decisions. However, common law itself is a complex amalgamation of various sources, including local customs, Roman law, and earlier Anglo-Saxon traditions, which evolved to meet the needs of a changing society. Thus, while Christian values have played a role in shaping the ethical backdrop against which common law developed, they are not its sole or definitive foundation.

In the American context, while early legal thought and many state constitutions acknowledged a Christian cultural influence, the U.S. Constitution enshrined principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. This legal framework ensures that American law is based on secular, universally applicable principles of justice and equality, rather than on any particular religious doctrine. As a result, while Christianity has influenced the moral and cultural heritage of both English common law and American law, the legal systems have evolved to uphold the rights and freedoms of all individuals, regardless of their religious beliefs.

So NO, Christianity is not part of the Common Law itself.

I agree. I find no evidence that Christianity is at the foundation of english common law and moreover, American law.

 

[TheFiend]

In some ways you are right.

Nah man, I'm not right in any ways at all.
Am merely pointing out the obvious.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister said:

Those writing in opposition to the birth of the common law are, for the most part, stupid and dishonest. They genuinely feel they can make others believe an argument that has been refuted at every level. Even the most ardent liberal will admit that the courts in America ruled consistently in favor of a Christian based common law until more recent times. The courts, even the United States Supreme Court, ruled that the common law has its foundations in Christianity (as Professor X cited). EVERY time, without fail, when we have this discussion, the Cultural Deniers deflect back to the arguments that are made accusing on this position of wanting to claim America was founded as a theocracy. From there, their entire argument is a strawman argument about a non-existent debate about America being a theocracy.

The United States was never intended to be a theocracy; There was no common law before King Henry II. The United States used the English Common Law until we developed a body of law of our own based upon our Constitution and the laws thereof. The English used procedural and organizational aspects of pre - Christian ideas while they developed their own laws about government and, in particular what should be fair, unfair, legal, illegal, moral and immoral. The procedural and organizational aspects of law have nothing to do with the moral basis of the law which determines things like fairness, right / wrong, moral / immoral, etc., etc. Our FORM of government is a constitutional Republic... or more accurately, that is what the Constitution guarantees.

A form of government doesn't tell you anything about the moral tone of the nation. Where we get our ideas about right and wrong is what determined that we are a Christian nation. Court rulings determined that the English Common Law had Christianity at its roots. Early America used the precedents of the English Common Law which, by law, was determined to be Christian until we formed our own laws and the FIRST laws passed in the New World determined that OUR version of the common law was based on Christian principles... NOT a FORM OF GOVERNMENT, but the principles that say right or wrong - the moral tone of the Posterity.

Add to that the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that secular humanism had the effect of a religion AND secular humanists are given the same tax considerations as churches. The only way to marginalize Christians is to make false accusations about them wanting a theocracy while the secularists build an unofficial state religion inside our Republic. They are wrong on every level. And, they may have the power to turn us into a socialist cesspool with their disinformation campaign, but we will always have the truth to fall back on.

The Resister's oblivious claims can be addressed by examining the historical and legal context of common law, the influence of Christianity on American legal principles, and the role of the judiciary. Here's a rebuttal to his selective, stupid and dishonest interpretations:

Common Law and Christianity:​

• Claim: The Resister argues that American common law was consistently ruled by courts to have its foundations in Christianity, implying that America’s legal system was intended to have a Christian moral basis.
• Rebuttal: While it is true that early American legal principles were influenced by the predominantly Christian culture of the time, the claim that common law is fundamentally based on Christianity is an oversimplification. Common law, which evolved in England before spreading to the United States, was primarily based on judicial decisions, customs, and reason rather than religious doctrines. The influence of Christian morality on law does not equate to a legal system based on religious law. For instance, American common law also absorbed elements from Roman law, which was pre-Christian and secular. Additionally, the American legal system, from its inception, included principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. This clearly indicates that the legal framework was designed to be secular, ensuring that laws applied to all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs.

Court Rulings and Christianity:​

• Claim: The Resister claims that U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, consistently ruled in favor of a Christian-based common law until recent times.
• Rebuttal: It is not accurate to say that courts consistently ruled that American common law was Christian-based. While there have been references to the moral and ethical values that are commonly shared by Christianity, these references were typically cultural observations rather than legal conclusions. For instance, in the 1892 case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the Supreme Court made an observation that the United States is a "Christian nation," but this was in the context of interpreting legislative intent, not as a judicial endorsement of Christianity as the basis of law. More importantly, this statement did not establish a legal precedent that American law is based on Christianity. The primary basis for legal rulings is the Constitution, which explicitly separates church and state.

Strawman Argument on Theocracy:​

• Claim: The Resister argues that critics create a strawman argument by suggesting that advocating for a Christian-based legal system equates to advocating for a theocracy.
• Rebuttal: The concern about theocracy is not a strawman argument. When arguments are made that laws should be based on specific religious principles, it naturally raises concerns about the separation of church and state, a foundational principle of the U.S. Constitution. Theocracy implies rule by religious authorities, whereas the U.S. system, as a constitutional republic, is based on rule by law, with clear provisions that prevent religious laws from governing citizens' lives. Discussions about moral foundations are valid, but suggesting that American law inherently supports one religion over others contradicts the principle of religious freedom and equality under the law.

Secular Humanism as a Religion:​

• Claim: The Resister states that secular humanism is treated like a religion by courts and given the same tax considerations as churches, suggesting that secularism is becoming an unofficial state religion.
• Rebuttal: The Supreme Court has recognized secular humanism as a worldview, but this does not mean it is established as a religion by law. The concept of secularism in the legal context refers to the separation of religious influence from government actions and laws, ensuring that no single religion is favored. The tax considerations given to secular humanist organizations are comparable to those given to other non-profit organizations, including religious ones, under the principle of neutrality. This treatment is not evidence of establishing secular humanism as a state religion, but rather of maintaining a level playing field where religious and non-religious organizations are treated equally.

Historical Misinterpretation and the Evolution of Law:​

• Claim: The Resister insists that early American laws were based on Christian principles, and any deviation from this is a result of judicial overreach or misinformation campaigns.
• Rebuttal: The evolution of law reflects changes in society and interpretations of justice, fairness, and rights. The U.S. Constitution, designed to be a living document, allows for amendments and reinterpretations. The idea that early laws were based solely on Christian principles ignores the Enlightenment influence on the Founding Fathers, many of whom emphasized reason, individual rights, and secular governance. Judicial interpretations that have evolved over time, including those concerning rights and liberties, are part of the judicial role in responding to contemporary issues and ensuring that laws remain relevant and just.

Conclusion:​

The argument presented by the Resister conflates cultural observations with legal principles and misrepresents the historical and legal foundations of American common law. While Christianity has influenced American culture, the U.S. legal system was deliberately founded on secular principles, ensuring that laws are based on reason and the Constitution, not religious doctrine. The judiciary's role in interpreting laws is crucial for adapting to societal changes and upholding constitutional rights, not an indication of judicial overreach or a move towards secularism as a state religion. The protection of religious freedom and the separation of church and state remain key to maintaining a just and pluralistic society.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

The Resister claims "there was no common law before King Henry II".

The claim that "there was no common law before King Henry II" is not entirely accurate. While King Henry II (reigned 1154-1189) is often credited with significant developments and the formalization of the common law system in England, the concept and elements of common law existed before his reign. Here is a more nuanced rebuttal:

Early Legal Traditions Before Henry II:​

• Rebuttal: The origins of common law can be traced back to earlier Anglo-Saxon England, before the Norman Conquest of 1066. During this time, there were local customs and traditions that varied by region but served as a form of customary law. These customs dealt with issues like land disputes, contracts, and crimes, and were enforced by local courts such as shire courts and hundred courts. While these early legal practices were not unified or systematically organized, they laid the groundwork for what would later become common law.

King Henry II's Role in Common Law:​

• Rebuttal: King Henry II did play a pivotal role in developing and centralizing the common law system. His reign marked the establishment of the King's Court (Curia Regis) as a central legal authority. He introduced reforms that standardized legal procedures, created itinerant judges (justices in eyre) who traveled to hear cases across the country, and formalized the use of royal writs. These reforms helped unify the various local customs into a more consistent body of law that could be applied throughout England, significantly advancing the common law tradition.

The Evolution of Common Law:​

• Rebuttal: Common law evolved over centuries and was influenced by various factors, including Roman law, the decisions of judges, and the needs of society. It did not suddenly emerge during Henry II's reign but rather developed gradually. Henry II’s contribution was crucial in consolidating and formalizing the system, leading to a more organized and coherent body of law. However, the roots of common law, with its reliance on precedents and local customs, were already present before his time.

Conclusion:​

While King Henry II is rightly credited with key developments in the common law system, saying that there was no common law before his reign oversimplifies the history of English legal traditions. The common law evolved from earlier Anglo-Saxon customs and legal practices, and Henry II's reforms were part of a broader historical process of legal development. His contributions were significant in shaping the common law into a more structured and unified system, but they built on a foundation that was already in place.

 

[weaponoffreedom]

So what does that prove? What is the point you are trying to make?