Posted on 03/08/2003 9:29:27 AM PST by forest
The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for that he did, on the 2nd day of September, 1810 ... wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter, and with a loud voice publish, in the presence and hearing of divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words following: "Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore," in contempt of the Christian religion. .. . The defendant was tried and found guilty, and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months, and to pay a fine of $500.
The Prosecuting Attorney argued:
While the constitution of the State has saved the rights of conscience, and allowed a free and fair discussion of all points of controversy among religious sects, it has left the principal engrafted on the body of our common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State, untouched and unimpaired.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion of the Court:
Such words uttered with such a disposition were an offense at common law. In Taylor's case the defendant was convicted upon information of speaking similar words, and the Court . . . said that Christianity was parcel of the law, and to cast contumelious reproaches upon it, tended to weaken the foundation of moral obligation, and the efficacy of oaths. And in the case of Rex v. Woolston, on a like conviction, the Court said . . . that whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government. . . . The authorities show that blasphemy against God and . . . profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures (which are equally treated as blasphemy), are offenses punishable at common law, whether uttered by words or writings . . . because it tends to corrupt the morals of the people, and to destroy good order. Such offenses have always been considered independent of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church. They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil society. . . .
We stand equally in need, now as formerly, of all the moral discipline, and of those principles of virtue, which help to bind society together. The people of this State, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only ... impious, but . . . is a gross violation of decency and good order. Nothing could be more offensive to the virtuous part of the community, or more injurious to the tender morals of the young, than to declare such profanity lawful.. ..
The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious' opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, is granted and secured; but to revile ... the religion professed by almost the whole community, is an abuse of that right. . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions].. .. [We are] people whose manners ... and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.
Though the constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against religion and morality which have no reference to any such establishment. . . . This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the law. . . . To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning. . . . Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. . . . The Court are accordingly of opinion that the judgment below must be affirmed: [that blasphemy against God, and contumelious reproaches, and profane ridicule of Christ or the Holy Scriptures, are offenses punishable at the common law, whether uttered by words or writings].
The Supreme Court in the case of Lidenmuller V The People, 33 Barbour, 561 Stated:
Christianity...is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. The fact is everwhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, and well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures and by courts of justice.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1817, in the Case of The Commonwealth V Wolf stated the courts opinion as follows:
Laws cannot be administered in any civilized government unless the people are taught to revere the sanctity of an oath, and look to a future state of rewards and punishments for the deeds of this life, It is of the utmost moment, therefore, that they should be reminded of their religious duties at stated periods.... A wise policy would naturally lead to the formation of laws calculated to subserve those salutary purposes. The invaluable privilege of the rights of conscience secured to us by the constitution of the commonwealth, was never intended to shelter those persons, who, out of mere caprice, would directly oppose those laws for the pleasure of showing their contempt and abhorrence of the religious opinions of the great mass of the citizens.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1824, in the Case of Updegraph V The Commonwealth 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398-399, 402, 507 (1824) recorded the Courts Declaration that:
Abner Updegraph . . . on the 12th day of December [1821] . . .not having the fear of God before his eyes . . . contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the Presence and hearing of several persons ... did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say . . . : "That the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion.
The jury . . . finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information... . That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility ... I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city. .. . It was the out-pouring 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, the highest offence conna bones mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable.
The assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and it is added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state. . . . If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object--all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery ...for all these are founded on Christianity--- for all these are restraints upon civil liberty. ...
We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection--the constitutionality of Christianity--for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law . . . not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church ... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law . . . and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. . . . In this the constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity . . . without which no free government can long exist.
To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain. . . . In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence. The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.
No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws--a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity. Without these restraints no free government could long exist. It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offences, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government. They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism. No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep. .. it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws. . . .
Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments or the genius of the people.
While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.
The Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina in 1846 in the case of City of Charleston V S.A. Benjamin cites an individual who broke the Ordinance that stated: "No Person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell... any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lord's day." The court convicted the man and came to the conclusion: "I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updengraph V The Commonwealth.... Christianity, general Christianity, is an always has been, a part of the common law; "not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
I do, in fact, believe that there is rational basis for laws against cannibalism
What I would like, is for Humanae Vitae to declare his rational basis for them.
As far as I can tell, he thinks that some things should be outlawed for no other reason than personal opinion.
I think laws need to serve an objective purpose - defending the rights of the innocent for example.
IMO, the non-initiation of force and fraud rule is a very good yardstick, but is not enough by itself.
There is something lacking.
Something more is required to make it all work.
I think that the differences between Humanae Vitae, Kevin Curry, and I are about just what that something is.
There seems to be a huge difference in our philosophies at the epistemological level (basis of knowledge- reason, divine revelation,ect.).
That is what I am after now.
I am not as interested in the "should" as I am in the "why".
I'd be more than happy to explain my ethical system, but I'm busy today...I'll try to post it tomorrow. I'm also busy putting together a post that challenges evolution.
Adams' reflection concerned literary prowess -- Rhetoric, not Logic.
Apparently you didn't understand the question.
David Hume, author of Hume's Law, that an "ought" cannot be derived from an "is". This is the law that you keep denying over and over again with circumlocutions and dodges.
Apparently, you don't understand the question here, either.
If a man -- simply out of impulsive desire -- has as his objective attaining the peak of the Nohoch Mul mayan step pyramid (120 steps, from base to top), and to do so in 2 minutes or less, it becomes an absolute behavioral maxim necessary to the accomplishment of his objective that he climb upwards, at least 1 step per second. If he deviates to the left, or the right, if he turns around and climbs down, if he climbs slowly or if he sits down to have tea and crumpets, he will not attain his objective: attaining the peak of the Nohoch Mul mayan step pyramid in 2 minutes or less.
And yet no Moral Value has been assigned. After all, this is simply the Fact-derived absolute behavioral maxim necessary to the accomplishment of the Objective -- no Moral Value needs be assigned. David Hume isn't even seated at the dinner table, let alone necessary to the discussion.
The fact that you think this has anything whatsoever to do with the "Is-Ought" Fact-Value gap is hilarious. Were David Hume here, he'd be laughing his keister off -- at you, not with you.
Hey OP, did you ever figure out whether or not it was OK to allow voluntarily contracted cannibalism in your perfect libertarian society? You already admitted that you have no problem with simulated child pornography being displayed in your next-door-neighbor's yard.
You mean, I don't think that I should bust down his doors and put a gun to his head for the moral vice of drawing imaginary dirty pictures behind a solid-wall fence?
Of course not. Such violent immorality would be contrary to the Biblical Laws of Property, Charity and Neighborly Love -- fitting only for State-Idolater Moral Relativists such as "HumanaeVitae" who despise the Religion of Christ.
As to "voluntary cannibalism", you have (yet again) failed to answer any of MY questions, so your anti-Christian abhorrence of any ethic of intellectual and argumentative Charity is noted.
However, I'll answer your question this way -- the Christian believes that the State has no business outlawing upon Private Property actions which are not SINS.
Of the Sins which men commit, certainly the Sins which impose Civil Harm (Murder, Adultery, Theft) should be outlawed, whereas those Sins which do not impose Civil Harm (private heresy, private idolatry, private intoxication) should not be outlawed. However, regarding actions which are not SINS at all, (reading a Bible, offering Charity, smelling a flower, petting a kitten, etc.) the State has no business whatsoever outlawing such actions on Private Property.
Well, is it a SIN or isn't it, HumanaeVitae? For it is not morally just for the State to punish actions on Private Property which ARE NOT Moral Sins; in terms of Logical Precedence, an act must be against the Laws of the Church (Murder, Adultery, Theft, Heresy, Idolatry, Intoxication) before it be prosecuted under the Law of the State (Murder, Adultery, Theft).
So what's your answer, "HumanaeVitae"? Is it a SIN for a man to eat real human flesh and drink real human blood within Private Property -- say, for example, a church?? Surely you can answer that, mmm?
Answer that Question, and we'll proceed to my Policy on the matter (we must answer that Question, to know which Policy to enact).
You seem frightfully unable to admit that your positions are preposertous. (sic)
You seem frightfully unable to admit that You cannot provide ANY Biblical justification for ANY of the violent immoralities you advocate.
If you had any Biblical Justification for your aberrant, anti-Christian idolatries, you would immediately point out such Passages of Scripture.
But you don't. In fact, you actually know full well that the Bible expressly CONDEMNS your violent immoralities. You just don't care about the Biblical Law of God -- indeed, as an unrepentant Moral Relativist, you are implacably opposed to the Law of God and opposed to any constraint whatsoever on the Power of your God: the Messiah-State.
For the SIXTH time, I invite you to answer the Questions for which you have had NO response:
Whny not just do the honest thing?
Why not just admit that the Biblical Law of God established NO CIVIL PENALTY whatsoever for various private Vices, and for that reason you hate the Law of God?
407 posted on 03/11/2003 8:36 PM PST by RazedInChaos
Don't you have to rewrite history to do that ... social conservatives were here 1st !
Agreed! Him, Tom Tancredo and Jim Bunning are the only three people I regularly contribute to.
Without either of these two rights you are little more than a animal kept on a leash and not even owning that.
I find it hard to believe that an adult would distill down everything that is human into just taking another breath and calling that living.
The teachings of Christ flew right over your head I suppose,
CATO
Through experience, we have found that where property rights are all in the hands of one person (tyranny), there are gross violations of Right #1. Therefore, it is prudential to extend property rights broadly to secure Right #1. See how this works? However, in your case, if you declare a "right" to property, then either you limit it at some point or you allow absuridities, such as allowing someone to set up an anthrax production facility on their own property without government interference.
Similarly, I believe you have no "right" to own a firearm. However, it is impossible for a government to extend protection to all people in a society at all times; in fact, to try would result in tyranny and gross abuses of Right #1. So my system would more or less demand firarms ownership because--you have a right not to be arbitrarily killed and government cannot secure that right at all places at all times. Thus, prudentially, private firearms ownership would be extended to everyone. In your construction, declaring a "right" to bear arms would mean, at its logical conclusion, that I have a right to own a Huey gunship. Under my construction, Huey gunship ownership would not be prudential and thus that privilege (note: not right) would not be extended.
Free speech: no one has a right to free speech in my system. However, since under my system all people must be equal before the law, if there are no free speech privileges, then no one can speak, which is ridiculous. So, those privileges are extended. Under my construction, speech can be extended to things that enhance public order (criticism of government, business, peaceful demonstrations), but not things that interfere with the public order (pornography, S&M clubs, "freedom of expression" in the form of prostitution, etc.).
You see, the libertarian idea that there are a panopoly of "rights" is ridiculous. There is only one right, that every human being from the beginning of time until the end of time can agree on: the right not to be arbitrarily killed. Every "right" (I call them privileges) except this one can be limited without tyranny being the result. If you start limiting the 'right not to be arbitrarily killed', then ipso facto you have tyranny.
The system is simple; it is not, however, simplistic or 'adolescent'. It is quite adult.
I have never read anything about privileges in OUR CONSTITUTION.
Very telling what you think of inalienable rights given by a Christian God as Our Founders refered to repeatedly.
STATES grant privileges to subjects as do Kings and Dictators.
CATO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.