Sunday, July 31, 2011
"The early courts" (1811) Part II
First from Julie's Keyboard:
These remarks are supportive of the concept of the "Blessedness of Possessing Nothing."
"There is within the human heart a tough, fibrous root of fallen life whose nature is to possess - always to possess. It covets 'things' with a deep and fierce passion."
"The roots of our hearts have grown down into things, and we dare not pull up one rootlet lest we die. Things have become necessary to us - a development never originally intended. God's gifts now take the place of God, and the whole course of nature is upset by the monstrous substitution."
"The blessed ones who possess the Kingdom are they who have repudiated every external thing and have rooted from their hearts all sense of possessing." "These are the 'poor in spirit.'"
"These blessed poor are no longer slaves to the tyranny of things. They have broken the yoke of the oppressor, and this they have done not by fighting but by surrendering. Though free from all sense of possessing, they yet possess all things." "Theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
"Abraham had everything, but he possessed nothing. There is the spiritual secret."
"Everything is safe which we commit to Him, and nothing is really safe which is not so committed."
What about it today? Do our 'things' have us? Cultural habits are so hard to break, but we have the rich grace of God to lead us in our walk through this life. How blessed we are indeed. May we keep His good things in perspective always.
Luke 14:27 "Whoever does not persevere and carry his own cross and come after (follow) Me cannot be My disciple."
Have a blessed week,
Julie
******************************
The People vs. Ruggles
Supreme Court of New York
In this case the defendant ottered the words "Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother must be a whore" He was tried and found guilty and was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for three months and pay a fine of $500.00
His attorney's defense was simply:
"There are no statues concerning religion . . . . The constitution allows a free toleration to all religions and all kinds of worship . . . . Judaism and Mahometanism may be preached here without any legal animadversion . . . . The prisoner may have been a Jew, a Mahometan, or a Socinian: and if so, he had a right by the constitution, to declare his opinions." - - - - Ruggles at 545.
The court's decision was delivered by Chief Justice James Kent. Kent's four volume Commentaries on American Law eventually replaced Blackstone's as the standard for American Law.
The decision read:
{The read notations are my own}
"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] a people whose manners . . . and whose morals have been elevated and inspired . . . by means of the Christian religion.
Though the constitution has discarded religious establishment, 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 [the constitution] as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its meaning." - - - - Ruggles at 545 - 547.
The results of this decision establishes not only the Christian character of our nation and it's laws, but also it's influence upon our people and our institutions. The charade that is occurring in our society today with forbidding pray and Bible reading in our schools, posting of the Ten Commandments in our public places, the removal of crosses in various places in our land, & etc, all under Constitutional mandates, is foolishness.
These early courts operated under the same Constitutions as the courts today, the original intent and understandings are just not acceptable in today's jurisprudence. If we want to change the intent of the Constitution we may do so, but we do dishonor to just re-interpret it because it has become offencive.
I am not a supporter of blasphemy laws for they to can be used to suppress religious expression. One of the charges laid against Jesus was blasphemy. Many of the protestant movement met their deaths on blasphemy charges. This clearly was not the case here, the court rightly pointed out the vile and profane nature of the offence. Clearly the free expression of religious views were not being suppressed, but vile and profane language need not be used in public debate.
I do support lawful restraints to vile and profane language and conduct to protect the innocence of our youth and our own consciences.
Asia Bibi is a lady in prsion right now under blasphmey charges. After being taunted by individuals of another faith she responded, "Our Christ sacrificed his life on the cross for our sins. What has your prophet done for you? Our Christ is alive, your prophet is dead. Our Christ is the true prophet of God, and your is not true."
For saying that she has been in prison for over 2 years and is now carrying a death sentence. Her husband and children are in Constance danger having to continually be on the move to protect themselves from death threats.
That is a long way from the rendering of Peoples vs. Ruggles.
May God bless each of you,
David
No comments:
Post a Comment