mvscal wrote:Mike the Lab Rat wrote: English common law, upon which I presume our laws originally originated, pre-dated the introduction of Christianity to Great Britain.
Wrong. Christianity was firmly entrenched in Britain long before the advent of Common Law. Certainly no less than 400 years and possibly a little over a 1,000 years. English Common Law was, more or less, standardized by William the Conqueror, himself a Christian Lord.
Wrong. What became British Common Law predated the introduction of Christianity by several years. Lots of websites even make a point of posting Jefferson kicking Blackstone's ass on the latter's claim that British Common Law derived from Christianity:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
Letter to Thomas Cooper
Jefferson's letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, from Monticello, February 10, 1814
. . .
For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But 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. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. Another cogent proof of this truth is drawn from the silence of certain writers on the common law. Bracton gives us a very complete and scientific treatise of the whole body of the common law. He wrote this about the close of the reign of Henry III., a very few years after the date of the Magna Charta. We consider this book as the more valuable, as it was written about fore gives us the former in its ultimate state. Bracton, too, was an ecclesiastic, and would certainly not have failed to inform us of the adoption of Christianity as a part of the common law, had any such adoption ever taken place. But no word of his, which intimates anything like it, has ever been cited. Fleta and Britton, who wrote in the succeeding reign (of Edward I.), are equally silent. So also is Glanvil, an earlier writer than any of them, (viz.: temp. H. 2,) but his subject perhaps might not have led him to mention it. Justice Fortescue Aland, who possessed more Saxon learning than all the judges and writers before mentioned put together, places this subject on more limited ground. Speaking of the laws of the Saxon kings, he says, "the ten commandments were made part of their laws, and consequently were once part of the law of England; so that to break any of the ten commandments was then esteemed a breach of the common law, of England; and why it is not so now, perhaps it may be difficult to give a good reason." Preface to Fortescue Aland's reports, xvii. Had he proposed to state with more minuteness how much of the scriptures had been made a part of the common law, he might have added that in the laws of Alfred, where he found the ten commandments, two or three other chapters of Exodus are copied almost verbatim. But the adoption of a part proves rather a rejection of the rest, as municipal law. We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians, they are protected under the wings of the common law from the dominion of other sects, but not erected into dominion over them. An eminent Spanish physician affirmed that the lancet had slain more men than the sword. Doctor Sangrado, on the contrary, affirmed that with plentiful bleedings, and draughts of warm water, every disease was to be cured. The common law protects both opinions, but enacts neither into law.
Once again, there is nothing uniquely Judeo-Christian about laws that keep neighbors from slaying each other, stealing their spouses or property, etc.
That they are not unique to Christianity is irrelevant. They
are part of the Judeo-Christian system of ethics.
They are also part of the ethical code of every civilized society, before Christianity was introduced. To claim that generic rules for civic behavior that were/are pretty much accepted across cultures, civilizations, etc. (including the pagan Romans and Greeks) should be attributed to Judeo-Christian culture stretches credibility. The rules would be "inescapable" even if Christianity were never introduced into the culture.
Bring me fundamental laws intrinsic to American law that could
ONLY have come from Judeo-Christian culture. Hell, we ignore most of the 10 freaking Commandments in our laws...
mvscal wrote:The ultimate source? What would that be? The Magna Carta? Ever read it? I didn't think so.
Nice straw man you set up there. I never claimed that the Magna Carta was the ultimate source. Nor will I. Pulling a c&p job with it right now pretty much does nothing other than waste bandwidth.
mvscal wrote:The underpinning of our morality is religious. Your inability to recognize this simple fact does not change the veracity of the statement. There is nothing inherently secular about "let it be" nor is there anything inherently religious about "meddling."
Why? Because
YOU say so? Thus far, you have done absolutely nothing to support your contention that a libertarian basis for law rests on religious morality, let alone a Judeo-Christian one. The Judeo-Christian ethic most certainly does NOT have "let your neighbor do whatever the hell they want in the privacy of their own home" as something they'd accept. Hell, that faith tradition DEMANDS that it stick its nose in people's bedrooms, tell people what they can drink and when, what they can read, etc. Both the OT and Jesus make a point of admonishing people for THINKING in "bad ways." For you, or anyone, to claim that libertarian thought derives, in any way, from THAT tradition, shows that either you are bored and trolling (my suspicion...) or that you are genuinely ignorant of both Judeo-Christian culture and libertarianism.
Like I said...from the gist of your argument, I just think you're bored and egging this on...
mvscal wrote:You are both factually and conceptually mistaken on that point. As a point of fact, the only inalienable rights you have are the ones you can defend.
Your opinions and your beliefs are not rights inalienable or otherwise. That is what YOU fail to comprehend. People can, have and will continue to "meddle" in the "rights" of others quite legally.
Obviously this is where you and I part ways politically. I side with Jefferson et al. on the notion of inalienable rights. You side with the "I have the guns, so I make the rules" notion of rights. That also happens to be the side that tyrants take. Nice company you keep.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
