The Bible isn't the original source of American law
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
Your perceptual filters are really remarkable.
First, whether or not the majority of colonies had "ties to religion" has nothing to do with whether or not the bible is the original source of American law.
Second, the original colonists -- with the exception of the Puritans -- did not flee here to escape religious persecution. They came here because of the amount of money there was in tobacco.
Third, if it's religion you want, consider that at the time the Spanish pretty much owned the Americas from South America through Central America and Mexico through the entire North American Southwest. If the Spanish Armada had not been decimated in 1588, we might all be saying "Hola!" and enjoying the fruits of the Inquisition.
are lecturing me about staying on point the man who tries to derail almost every thread.
in fact you did it again in your very comment.
I was replying to Stu's unsupported remarks.
adios muchacho.
in fact you did it again in your very comment.
I was replying to Stu's unsupported remarks.
adios muchacho.
The Bible isn't the original source of American law? Actually it is.
Origins of Constitutional Law
Contrary to the popular conception of many, the words "separation of church and state" do not actually appear in the U.S. Constitution. The sole reference to religion in the Constitution is Article VI, Section 3, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
The Bill of Rights was added later to include First Amendment protections, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Critics argue that these words indicate the Founding Fathers wanted to establish an entirely secular form of government, wholly uninfluenced by religion of any stripe.
So it's easy enough to conclude that yes, the Founders were sourcing Biblical influence when writing the constitution, and many were also trying to ensure that religion would not be the sole source of influence so that we may have a reasonable balance between the sensibilities of secularism and the moral ideologies presented by religion, both of which fall short when hi-jacked by zealots. Since it is zealots that rule present day events, it's really easy to see why things are so fucked up. Carry on.
Origins of Constitutional Law
- While the Constitution does not explicitly refer to God, the concepts of law which it contains stem from the cultural assumptions of basic biblical truths widely held by the people of that time regardless of their actual piety towards God. In other words, it is an inarguable fact that not all Americans of that era actually held to the Christian faith, yet they held to the commonly accepted morals, ethics and standards of behavior derived from English Common Law, which drew from biblical law given to the Hebrews by God.
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/info_11384841_did-bible-influence-us-constitution.html
Contrary to the popular conception of many, the words "separation of church and state" do not actually appear in the U.S. Constitution. The sole reference to religion in the Constitution is Article VI, Section 3, "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
The Bill of Rights was added later to include First Amendment protections, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Critics argue that these words indicate the Founding Fathers wanted to establish an entirely secular form of government, wholly uninfluenced by religion of any stripe.
So it's easy enough to conclude that yes, the Founders were sourcing Biblical influence when writing the constitution, and many were also trying to ensure that religion would not be the sole source of influence so that we may have a reasonable balance between the sensibilities of secularism and the moral ideologies presented by religion, both of which fall short when hi-jacked by zealots. Since it is zealots that rule present day events, it's really easy to see why things are so fucked up. Carry on.
Which in turn drew from religious laws that predated biblical law by thousands of years, which is one of the points of the OP.
So, no the bible is not the original source of American law.
Yes, there were undoubtedly "restrictions" on killing and stealing in place in Palestine, long before the beany-cappers decided to return with their God (singular).
in short we once again have a bunch of leftists trying to rewrite history.
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding
An extensive survey of early colonial constitutions and laws reveals many similar provisions. As well, at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches, and all required officeholders to be Christians—or, in some cases, Protestants. Quaker Pennsylvania, for instance, expected officeholders to be “such as possess faith in Jesus Christ.”[12]
http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2011/06/did-america-have-a-christian-founding
An extensive survey of early colonial constitutions and laws reveals many similar provisions. As well, at least nine of the 13 colonies had established churches, and all required officeholders to be Christians—or, in some cases, Protestants. Quaker Pennsylvania, for instance, expected officeholders to be “such as possess faith in Jesus Christ.”[12]
Those 'biblical truths' were around long before the bible ever was. It is simply absurd to suggest English Common Law drew from any Biblical "Law". What Biblical Law? That you should be put to death for not observing the Sabbath, or children should be killed for disobeying their parents? Or maybe thou shalt not kill, which was in any case law over a thousand years before the Bible was even thought of.
Thomas Jefferson describes how those clergy in the form of one organized zealous religion or other have ever sort to insinuate themselves, the Bible God or religion into everything, in whatever form, for no other reason than to seek pious advantage.
[King]Alfred, in the preface to his laws, says they were compiled from those of Ina, Offa, and Aethelbert, into which, or rather preceding them, the clergy have interpolated the 20th , 21st , 22nd , 23rd and 24th chapters of Exodus, so as to place Alfred's preface to what was really his, awkwardly enough in the body of the work. An interpolation the more glaring, as containing laws expressly contradicted by those of Alfred. This pious fraud seems to have been first noted by Howard, in his Contumes Anglo Normandes (188), and the pious judges of England have had no inclination to question it,.... Thomas Jefferson
Last edited: