Sunday, July 17, 2011
"The Early Courts" (1824)
First From Julie's Keyboard:
In spite of the fact that as human beings, it would really be a plus in our favor if we as a nation, local group, or an individual, would determine that we did not need everything our beady eyes told us we should have just because of the status of "who we think we are." Now that was quite straight and a terrible "run on" sentence structure, but I think you get the picture.
We know that spending must be controlled and modest guidelines must be set in place and adhered to. However, there's another concept that I wish to mention in my post today. What about being a "Giver"?
A good steward is not only a wise planner, budgeted, and spender. He must also be a "cheerful giver" as we'll note from instructions in the Bible. Someone might say, "That just doesn't make sense to have financial difficulties and start giving away from a much-needed supply." However, the Scriptures tend to disagree with this tight-fisted concept.
Aside from proving this true in my own family budget, I've watched people that I know are givers, consistently giving from whatever blessing they have been endowed. These "givers" seem to always have what they need and are able to be a help in someone else's situation in some measure. Isn't this the way God intended for His people to live?
It's so easy to get swept away in our cultural ways of doing things. Often we forget that when the figures may not come out on paper, there's a higher system for provision. I want to leave you with some Scripture passages that deserve some serious meditation and action. If you are a person struggling to stay ahead these days, why not find out what the Word of God has to say. If He's your God, He's set things in place for you to live in His care even when the world may seem to completely fail. Check it out. Prove Him true in your life!
I Corinthians 9:6-8 "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: FOR GOD LOVETH A CHEERFUL GIVER. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:"
Luke 6:37-38 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
Acts 20;35 "I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive."
Have a blessed week of "giving" in Him,
Matthew 10:8b "...freely ye have received, freely give."
Julie
******************************
"The Early Courts" (1824)
Updegraph v. The Commonwealth (1824)In this early court case, the issue of blasphemously is brought to light. In establishing the legal definition of blasphemously the court turned to William Blackstone. Blackstone's commentaries on the Laws became the law book of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson once quipped that American lawyers used Blackstone's with the same dedication and reverence that Muslims used the Koran.
After a conviction of blasphemously the verdict was appealed. The defense attorney argued that the conviction should be overturned for two reasons (1) it had been uttered in the course of an argument on a religious question and (2) that both the State and Federal Constitutional protected freedom of speech, and that if any State law against blasphemy did still exist, the Federal Constitution had done away with it, and that Christianity was no longer part of the law.
I would suppose that would be a similar approach that would be made today. The difference today is the court would not only agree, but empathetical re-enforce it with the 1st Amendment's establishment clause supporting the Separation of Church and State view that is accredited to Jefferson and our Founders.
But what we find in 1824 is a different America, different culture, a different understanding of our law and the role of the courts.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1824 concluded by refuting this contention that the constitution disregarded Christianity stating:
"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. . . .
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 tenets; not Christianity with an established church . . . but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men. [ Which is the real and original understanding of the 1st Amendment]
Thus this wise legislature [ and I would agree ] 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.
No free government now exists [ 1824 ] 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." - - - - Updegraph at 399, 402 - 403, 406 - 407.
This illustrates how much we have changed as a people. That is why there is so much confusion in our country today concerning the understanding of the United States Constitution and State laws. The early courts were still occupied with judges with the original understanding and concepts of the Constitution. They had studied law in universities that were still under the great influence of Christianity.
As the court stated, the laws were framed for a Christian country and a Christian people, and Christianity was and always had been a part of the common law. The court also understood that the United States Constitution had made no alteration in any of this great body of laws which was an incorporation of the common law doctrine of Christianity.
They saw this common law doctrine of Christianity as the firmest auxiliary and most stable support of our system of jurisprudence.
With today's institution's teaching, court rendering, and media supporting the current view of the Separation of Church and State as the original intent of our Founding Fathers, is it any wonder there is such confusion and debate? You have a government that is no longer supportive of the Christian faith, and a nation that has drifted from its religious roots and is trying to govern itself with laws and ideals that were fashioned under an entirely different understanding and culture.
When you take a system of government and laws that were framed upon the foundation of the Christian faith and then try to govern with that system a people who no longer take that faith seriously, the law and the people will conflict.
The 1st Amendment is still the 1st Amendment, its meaning still intact. The problem is "we the people" allow the courts to no longer ascribe to and embrace that meaning, therefore, we must either amend the Amendment, which is most difficult or by judicial interpretation and revision change the meaning to a more suitable interpretation. Thus the term "A living Constitution"
I am not suggesting that we force everyone to conform to a society that is based upon Christian principles, far from it. I am simply pointing out where our conflict arises. The Constitutions and laws of our land find their foundation upon Christian principles, not because it was forced upon anyone, it was just who we were and that reflection was seen in us as a nation.
But as our President not so long ago reminded us, whatever we once were, we are no longer. I do support contending for the original interpretation of our Constitution and laws, it is the only honorable thing to do to honor those who set them in place in my humble opinion. I support contending for them until they are either changed and amended by legislation or overcome by public opinion
I encourage everyone who is serious about their Christian faith to pray earnestly for a spiritual revival across our land. The atheist stumbles and is often offended by rhetoric such as this, but if he becomes aware and is convinced of the Christian faith of his own accord then all offense is removed.
You cannot blame the atheist for his offense to something he does not believe, nor can you as a Christian force him to accept it and expect him to love you for it. But we can ask and expect God to move upon our land and stir the hearts of our people once again. It has always been His work, when we attempt to make it so in our strength we find ourselves defeated time and time again.
May God bless each of you,
David
No comments:
Post a Comment