Re: Courting Fear

In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the
government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the
Christian religion.

On Jun 4, 10:41 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read the article again.  The distinction is between ecclesiastical courts
> and courts of the common law.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > Denoting how Jefferson's research proves that 'common law' is not based as
> > you claimed .... makes your point?
> > Amazing!
>
> > Your previous couching was also noted.
>
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
>
> > The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of
> > governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now
> > sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture,
> > hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in
> > their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American
> > governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in
> > America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be
> > pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the
> > gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those
> > at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it
> > will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely
> > by the use of reason and the senses....
> >   -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the
> > United States of America" [1787-1788];
>
> > At 11:17 AM 6/4/2012, you wrote:
>
> > MJ,
>
> > You very much made my point.  Thank you.
>
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:50 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > I have never even insinuated that this Nation is somehow based upon a
> > Christian demoniation or that we are all supposed to be beholding to
> > Christian belief.  It is asinine to sit here and think that this Nation was
> > not based upon Christian tenets and principals.  One need only look to our
> > common law;  or most any of our federal buidlings to see that the Deists,
> > as well as those Christians played a very large part in the founding of
> > this Nation.  To ignore this is revisionist history.
>
> > Letter to Thomas Cooper
> >  Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10,
> > 1814.
>
> >  [image: D]  ear Sir, ­ In my letter of January 16, I promised you a
> > sample from my common-place book, of the pious disposition of the English
> > judges, to connive at the frauds of the clergy, a disposition which has
> > even rendered them faithful allies in practice. When I was a student of the
> > law, now half a century ago, after getting through Coke Littleton, whose
> > matter cannot be abridged, I was in the habit of abridging and
> > common-placing what I read meriting it, and of sometimes mixing my own
> > reflections on the subject. I now enclose you the extract from these
> > entries which I promised. They were written at a time of life when I was
> > bold in the pursuit of knowledge, never fearing to follow truth and reason
> > to whatever results they led, and bearding every authority which stood in
> > their way. This must be the apology, if you find the conclusions bolder
> > than historical facts and principles will warrant. Accept with them the
> > assurances of my great esteem and respect.
>
> > Common-place Book
> >      873. In Quare imp. in C. B. 34, H. 6, fo. 38, the def. Br. of Lincoln
> > pleads that the church of the pl. became void by the death of the
> > incumbent, that the pl. and J. S. each pretending a right, presented two
> > several clerks; that the church being thus rendered litigious, he was not
> > obliged, by the Ecclesiastical law to admit either, until an inquisition de
> > jure patronatus, in the ecclesiastical court: that, by the same law, this
> > inquisition was to be at the suit of either claimant, and was not
> > ex-officio to be instituted by the bishop, and at his proper costs; that
> > neither party had desired such an inquisition; that six months passed
> > whereon it belonged to him of right to present as on a lapse, which he had
> > done. The pl. demurred. A question was, How far the Ecclesiastical law was
> > to be respected in this matter by the common law court? and Prisot C. 3, in
> > the course of his argument uses this expression, "A tiels leis que ils de
> > seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence, car
> > ces common ley sur quel touts manners leis sont fondes: et auxy, sin, nous
> > sumus obliges de conustre nostre ley; et, sin, si poit apperer or a nous
> > que lievesque ad fait comme un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons
> > ces adjuger bon autrement nemy," &c. It does not appear that judgment was
> > given. Y. B. ubi supra. S. C. Fitzh. abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. abr. Qu. imp.
> > 12. Finch mistakes this in the following manner: "To such laws of the
> > church as have warrant in Holy Scripture, our law giveth credence," and
> > cites the above case, and the words of Prisot on the margin. Finch's law.
> > B. 1, ch. 3, published 1613. Here we find "ancien scripture" converted into
> > "Holy Scripture," whereas it can only mean the ancient written laws of the
> > church. It cannot mean the Scriptures, 1, because the "ancien scripture"
> > must then be understood to mean the "Old Testament" or Bible, in opposition
> > to the "New Testament," and to the exclusion of that, which would be absurd
> > and contrary to the wish of those |P1323|p1 who cite this passage to prove
> > that the Scriptures, or Christianity, is a part of the common law. 2.
> > Because Prisot says, "Ceo [est] common ley, sur quel touts manners leis
> > sont fondes." Now, it is true that the ecclesiastical law, so far as
> > admitted in England, derives its authority from the common law. But it
> > would not be true that the Scriptures so derive their authority. 3. The
> > whole case and arguments show that the question was how far the
> > Ecclesiastical law in general should be respected in a common law court.
> > And in Bro. abr. of this case, Littleton says, "Les juges del common ley
> > prendra conusans quid est lax ecclesiae, vel admiralitatis, et trujus
> > modi." 4. Because the particular part of the Ecclesiastical law then in
> > question, to wit, the right of the patron to present to his advowson, was
> > not founded on the law of God, but subject to the modification of the
> > lawgiver, and so could not introduce any such general position as Finch
> > pretends. Yet Wingate [in 1658] thinks proper to erect this false quotation
> > into a maxim of the common law, expressing it in the very words of Finch,
> > but citing Prisot, wing. max. 3. Next comes Sheppard, [in 1675,] who states
> > it in the same words of Finch, and quotes the Year-Book, Finch and Wingate.
> > 3. Shepp. abr. tit. Religion. In the case of the King v. Taylor, Sir
> > Matthew Hale lays it down in these words, "Christianity is parcel of the
> > laws of England." 1 Ventr. 293, 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority,
> > resting it on his own, which was good in all cases in which his mind
> > received no bias from his bigotry, his superstitions, his visions above
> > sorceries, demons, &c. The power of these over him is exemplified in his
> > hanging of the witches. So strong was this doctrine become in 1728, by
> > additions and repetitions from one another, that in the case of the King v.
> > Woolston, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write
> > against Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law,
> > saying it had been so settled in Taylor's case, ante 2, stra. 834;
> > therefore, Wood, in his Institute, lays it down that all blasphemy and
> > profaneness are offences by the common law, and cites Strange ubi supra.
> > Wood 409. And Blackstone [about 1763] repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew
> > Hale, that "Christianity is part of the laws of England," citing Ventris
> > and Strange ubi supra. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a little
> > by saying that "The essential |P1324|p1 principles of revealed religion are
> > part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans,
> > 1767. But he cities no authority, and leaves us at our peril to find out
> > what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the measure of his foot
> > or his faith, are those essential principles of revealed religion
> > obligatory on us as a part of the common law.
>
> >      Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the
> > beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of
> > Prisot's, or on one another, or nobody. Thus Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate
> > also; Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate; Hale cites nobody; the
> > court in Woolston's case cite Hale; Wood cites Woolston's case; Blackstone
> > that and Hale; and Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own
> > authority. In the earlier ages of the law, as in the year-books, for
> > instance, we do not expect much recurrence to authorities by the judges,
> > because in those days there were few or none such made public. But in
> > latter times we take no judge's word for what the law is, further than he
> > is warranted by the authorities he appeals to. His decision may bind the
> > unfortunate individual who happens to be the particular subject of it; but
> > it cannot alter the law. Though the common law may be termed "Lex non
> > Scripta," yet the same Hale tells us "when I call those parts of our laws
> > Leges non Scriptae, I do not mean as if those laws were only oral, or
> > communicated from the former ages to the latter merely by word. For all
> > those laws have their several monuments in writing, whereby they are
> > transferred from one age to another, and without which they would soon lose
> > all kind of certainty. They are for the most part extant in records of
> > pleas, proceedings, and judgments, in books of reports and judicial
> > decisions, in tractates of learned men's arguments and opinions, preserved
> > from ancient times and still extant in writing." Hale's H. c. d. 22.
> > Authorities for what is common law may therefore be as
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.