Sunday, June 26, 2011 "The early Courts"

Sunday, June 26, 2011

"The early Courts"

First From Julie's Keyboard:

Through the course of this week and my observations of the "goings on" in this world, my thoughts were going toward the approach and the impact Christians must be desiring to have in the hour in which we live on this earth.  In my studies, I was reminded of this statement made by John Wesley.

 "The world is tired of Christians making such extraordinary claims while living such ordinary lives!" 

 Ouch!  This was about the only response I could make to such a statement.  He's right isn't He, fellow believers?  Are there many of us who have heard and spake the truth for a life time, yet in the department of living from day to day, seem to conform to the modes of everyone else?

We want others to know His truth and have the life He so freely gave, but are we willing to spend our days in such a noble work?  It seems Mr. Wesley is telling us here that our lives are an open epistle and it's quite clear what's important to us from the way we conduct them.

These are things I must ponder this week as I go about each day, making plans for my family and conducting the day's tasks.  Do I live the Gospel that I claim to believe?  It has to be more than knowledge that's been added to my head.

A certain Rabbi once said,

 "If you speak to the heart the head will come.  If you speak to the head the heart may never arrive.!"

We must know Him beyond the head level.  The work of a regenerated man must be done within.  We must seek Him with all the heart, soul, mind and strength.  In His presence, and His presence only, will we find the power to live an extraordinary life through Him.

Blessings to you as you walk with Him each day.  Listen for the still, small voice.

Julie

Scripture Reference:

Psalm 139:23,24 "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting."

******************************

"The early Courts"

Yes, Julie and I are a week or so late on posting! Lets see; work, Grand kids, Church, Special Guest speakers, need I say more?

So, lets see if we can make a run at it here for a few minutes this evening.

In 1892 the United States Supreme Court heard a case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, at issue was an 1885 federal immigration law which stated:

It shall be unlawful for any person, company partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to . . . in any way assist or encourage the importation . . . of any alien or . . . foreigners into the United States . . . under contract or agreement . . . to perform labor or service of any kind.

The Church of the Holy Trinity in New York employed a clergyman from England as its pastor.  After which the United States Attorney's office brought suit against the church. 

After discovering the purpose of the law, being to halt the influx of almost slave like labor to construct western railroads, the Court determined even though the Church violated the wording of the law, it clearly had fallen far outside the spirit and intent of the law.

After vindicating the Church, the Court spent the remainder of the case explaining that it would be completely dishonest to the spirit of the Constitution to in any way hinder, whether directly or indirectly, the spread or propagation of Christianity by legislative act which brings me to my point of interest.

The United States Supreme Court noted:

No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people . . . . This is a Christian nation.

The Court then went on the sight the Commission to Christopher Columbus, The First colonial grant, First charter of Virginia, the Mayflower compact, the fundamental orders of Connecticut, and many other references to establish our Christian heritage.

Then coming nearer to the present time, they sighted the Declaration of Independence containing our appeal to the Creator for not only our rights but our actions.

Finally after all of that and many additional historical examples, the Court then reviewed several legal precedents which further supported its declaration.

One being Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11S. & R. 394, 400, where it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law . . . not Christianity with an established church . . . but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." 

He again we can see the understanding to the early Courts, both Federal and State, the 1st Amendment referencing the establishing of a State religion.

Then in The People v. Ruggles, 8 John. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said: "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 . . . . We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon the Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors."

Then also in Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, this Court . . . observed: "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law."

Then after several pages of like discourse the Court concluded:



Now back to the Supreme Court and the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States case, as far as the Court was concerned, the issue was closed; it would never support any action which might have the effect of suppressing religion or limiting religious expression. 

As you can see, it is not as we are being told in today's Courts.  We would be made to believe that today's view on these religious issues were the view and intent of our Founders and early Courts, which is simply no so.

It may be true that we are no longer a Christian nation or a religious people,  we certainly are not spiritually were we were for the first 150 years.  But that does not erase our history or the original intent of our Constitution and our laws.  

I have no problem with people lobbying to change our laws and to amend our Constitutions to be conducive with our society, but I do have a problem with just being told this was the original idea and our Founders always intended it to be this way. 

I do have a problem with a Court ignoring the original intent of a statue and just declaring a new meaning without legislative oversight or involvement.

We are truly in a war of world views, so the battle must be fought, but for our nation to survive with our unity and spirit intact it must be fought justly.  To abuse the system and just declare things to be just because you see them a certain way, will divide us and weaken us as a nation.

If we decide as a nation to move away from our religious heritage I believe it will be to our dismay, but be it ever so, let us honor our Foundation and acknowledge at least who we were in the beginning and what we aspired to be.

For 150 years following the ratification of the Constitution, States were considered the highest authority on any dispute involving the issues within the Bill of Rights for obvious reasons.  This being the case, next week I will try and address the States view on religious issues.

May God bless each of you,

David