roscann said:
Is that the whole Quote or is that just an part of it. Im not questioning your truthflness. Its just that a word or phase can appear to change meaning with out its counter parts(did i say that right??????).
The Jefferson quote was taken from a letter he wrote about what constitutes (or did constitute) common law. Admittedly, I am no English historian so I can't tell you the exact circumstances of the letter, except to say that common law was a system used in England whereby laws were based on court decisions (a crude prelude to our current system of judicial interpretation of the law, perhaps).
Here Jefferson was arguing that Christianity did not constitute a basis for common law when the Saxons first introduced it. This is a larger quote (although by no means complete):
Authorities for what is common law may therefore be as well cited, as for any part of the Lex Scripta, and there is no better instance of the necessity of holding the judges and writers to a declaration of their authorities than the present; where we detect them endeavoring to make law where they found none, and to submit us at one stroke to a whole system, no particle of which has its foundation in the common law. 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.
While the quote does not directly address the situation of early American law (albeit clearly derived from English law), it is addressing Jefferson's general dislike of including select parts of the Bible as the authority behind national law. I invoked it because it supported my claim that one particular religion (Christianity in this case) is protected, but, as Jefferson, says "should not hold dominion over the others."
I agree that nonbelievers dont come to prove superiority but to instead prove that believers are confused or just flat out stupid. However, I understand that believers(or those who believe in any organised faith) are just as often big headed about their own faith. This is why I started this thread. All to often inocent discussions turn into a compitition of who can prove who wrong why not keep quiet until spoken to???
Well, if you think all nonbelievers come to prove that believers are stupid, that isn't a far cry from saying they want to prove superiority. Certainly a number of people are here to mock the other side, while some are here to truly challenge themselves, and for most, probably a little of both. I agree that many conversations tend to morph into The O-Reilly Factor, probably because being a smartass is... well... kinda fun. My point was that religion is not some independent entity that only affects the personal lives of believers; it is an ideology, like any other, and it exerts a mighty force upon world affairs. Take a good whiff of the Middle East and you might understand why nonbelievers feel behooved to rip into a few sacred cows.
Josh
It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
