Saturday, December 29, 2007

Exposing the Falsehoods of Ed Brayton, part one.

Notice, all the bloggers who believe his deceit.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/more_huckabee_absurdity.php

Let it be known, the Founding Fathers rejected all other ancient republics institutions for law and liberty.

"Sparta, Rome, and Carthage...These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius, of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other."
James Madison, Federalist #63
http://www.llpoh.org/federalist/63.html

The First Amendment only prohibits the first and second commandments; its idea is only to protect freedom of conscience. All other aspects of religion and morality are left to the states.

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government.
Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address, 1805

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Unconstitutional on both freedom of religion and free speech grounds.>

This civil prohibition against blasphemy and profanity drawn from the Decalogue continued well beyond the Founding Era. It subsequently appeared in the 1784 laws in Connecticut, the 1791 laws of New Hampshire, the 1791 laws of Vermont, the 1792 laws of Virginia, the 1794 laws of Pennsylvania, the 1821 laws of Maine, the 1834 laws of Tennessee, the 1835 laws of Massachusetts, the 1836 laws of New York, etc.

Judge Zephaniah Swift, author in 1796 of the first legal text published in America, explained why civil authorities enforced the Decalogue prohibition against blasphemy and profane swearing: Crimes of this description are not punishable by the civil arm merely because they are against religion. Bold and presumptuous must he be who would attempt to wrest the thunder of heaven from the hand of God and direct the bolts of vengeance where to fall. The Supreme Deity is capable of maintaining the dignity of His moral government and avenging the violations of His holy laws. His omniscient mind estimates every act by the standard of perfect truth and His impartial justice inflicts punishments that are accurately proportioned to the crimes. But short-sighted mortals cannot search the heart and punish according to the intent. They can only judge by overt acts and punish them as they respect the peace and happiness of civil society. This is the rule to estimate all crimes against civil law and is the standard of all human punishments. It is on this ground only that civil tribunals are authorized to punish offences against religion.

In 1824, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (in a decision subsequently invoked authoritatively and endorsed by the U. S. Supreme Court ) reaffirmed that the civil laws against blasphemy were derived from divine law. The court then noted that its State's laws against blasphemy had been drawn up by James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and original Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court: The late Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, Professor of Law in the College in Philadelphia, was appointed in 1791, unanimously by the House of Representatives of this State to "revise and digest the laws of this commonwealth. . . . " He had just risen from his seat in the Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and of this State; and it is well known that for our present form of government we are greatly indebted to his exertions and influence. With his fresh recollection of both constitutions, in his course of Lectures (3d vol. of his works, 112), he states that profaneness and blasphemy are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that Christianity is part of the common law. It is vain to object that the law is obsolete; this is not so; it has seldom been called into operation because this, like some other offences, has been rare. It has been retained in our recollection of laws now in force, made by the direction of the legislature, and it has not been a dead letter.

4.Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Again,unconstitutional on free exercise grounds.>

First is the inclusion in the U. S. Constitution of the recognition of the Sabbath in Art. I, Sec. 7, ¶ 2, stipulating that the President has 10 days to sign a law, "Sundays excepted." The "Sundays excepted" clause had previously appeared in the individual State constitutions of that day, and therefore, when incorporated into the U. S. Constitution, carried the same meaning that had been established by traditional usage in the States. That meaning was then imparted into the constitutions of the various States admitted into the Union subsequent to the adoption of the federal Constitution.

The historical understanding of this clause was summarized in 1912 by the Supreme Court of Missouri which, expounding on the meaning of this provision in its own State constitution and in the U. S. Constitution, declared:It is provided that if the Governor does not return a bill within 10 days (Sundays excepted), it shall become a law without his signature. Although it may be said that this provision leaves it optional with the Governor whether he will consider bills or not on Sunday, yet, regard being had to the circumstances under which it was inserted, can any impartial mind deny that it contains a recognition of the Lord's Day as a day exempted by law from all worldly pursuits? The framers of the Constitution, then, recognized Sunday as a day to be observed, acting themselves under a law which exacted a compulsive observance of it. If a compulsive observance of the Lord's Day as a day of rest had been deemed inconsistent with the principles contained in the Constitution, can anything be clearer than, as the matter was so plainly and palpably before the Convention, a specific condemnation of the Sunday law would have been engrafted upon it? So far from it, Sunday was recognized as a day of rest.

The second point establishing the impact of the fourth commandment of the Decalogue on American law is seen in the civil process clauses of the early State legal codes which forbade legal action on the Sabbath. For example, an 1830 New York law declared: Civil process cannot, by statute, be executed on Sunday, and a service of such process on Sunday is utterly void and subjects the officer to damages. Similar laws may be found in Pennsylvania in 1682 and 1705, Vermont in 1787, Connecticut in 1796, New Jersey in 1798, etc. In the Federal Era and well beyond, states continued to enact and reenact Sabbath laws. In fact, the States went to impressive lengths to uphold the Sabbath.

For example, in 1787, Vermont enacted a ten-part law to preserve the Sabbath; in 1791, Massachusetts enacted an eleven-part law; in 1786, Virginia enacted a law written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison; in 1798, New Jersey enacted a twenty-one-part law; in 1799, New Hampshire enacted a fourteen-part law; in 1821, Maine enacted a thirteen-part law; etc.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother
A good idea, in most cases, but a law requiring it would be unconstitutional and outside the purview of government. You can't legally enforce an individual's feelings toward their parents.>

In 1934 Louisiana appeals court:" ˜Honor thy father and thy mother,' is as much a command of the municipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue, regarded as holy by every Christian people. ˜A child," says the code, ˜whatever be his age, owes honor and respect to his father and mother.'"

Other courts have made similar declarations, all confirming that the fifth commandment of the Decalogue was an historical part of American civil law and jurisprudence.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=87

Biblical Law is the Foundation of our Republican Government.

3 comments:

Hercules Mulligan said...

Hi OFT. Once again, these two posts of yours are good and make excellent points. I was impressed by the evidence that you showed from American law (which I doubt is enforced today) to expose the falsehood of this lie.

If I may point out, as I did in my comment to you when you put these posts on The Foundation Forum, I don't think that the First Amendment PROHIBITS the First and Second Commandments, but rather FULFILLS them:

"The Founding Fathers did not write our Founding documents to enforce the Decalogue, but rather to provide the framework for which a society, which relied upon the 10 Commandments should operate. The first 4 commandments delineate man's spiritual duties -- man's obligations to God. Therefore, the Constitution gives man the freedom to follow his conscience (the Founders never said "his whim" or "his LACK of conscience") in deciding HOW to worship God. They knew that religious beliefs were not in the realm of government dictation, and so Brayton's point about the first 2 commandments being broken by our 1st amendment is wrong. In fact, the 1st Amendment FULFILLS the 1st and 2nd commandments by removing government from interfering with man's worship of God. Since God is the only true God, only HE can dictate how man is to worship him, and government is essentially claiming to be God if it tells people how they are to worship."

The First Amendment prevents the American government from doing what most other countries had done: essentially assume the role of God by dictating the worship of people. When government steps back from dictating people's religious worship, it acknowledges that government is not God; that God is the only true God. I don't think even Ed Brayton will dispute that the Founders believed that a man's form of worship was a matter of conscience -- between a man and God alone.

Our Founding Truth said...

Herc,

I understand what your saying, but Brayton, could never understand that. He only thinks that the first amendment grants freedom of conscience for every religion, and every belief, and so it grants him freedom to be an atheist, or muslim, or whatever.

But, this post definitely proves he's wrong, unless he is going to say the same guy's who made the first amendment, forgot what they were doing when they made their prohibitions on blasphemy, profanity, laws on the sabbath, etc.

Hercules Mulligan said...

Hello OFT. I hope you and your family are well.

Today is the honorable Alexander Hamilton's 251st(?) birthday.

I wrote a short post on my Hamilton blog to commemorate the occasion. I love the quote from Calvin Coolidge. Come on over and see here!