DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
So I was dead one as usual.
Same-sex couples begin marrying
- Thread starter USFREEDOM911
- Start date
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
to be fair, the first few have never made the cut......
It does not say that. It's merely your opinion. Considering your sources (that crazy Australian guy) your opinion doesn't mean shit to me.
No, they don't.
Our legal traditions preceded our cultures exposure to the bible or the ten commandments. They were not part of any cut.
I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you, to shew when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us. In a case of quare impedi in the Year-book 34. H. 6. folio 38. (anno 1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court? And Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words, `A tiel leis qu' ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence; car ceo common ley sur quels touts manners leis sont fondes. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obleges de conustre lour ley de saint eglise: et semblablement ils sont obliges de conustre nostre ley. Et, Sir, si poit apperer or a nous que l'evesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ceo adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,' &c. See S. C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch in his first book, c. 3. is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and mistakes it thus. `To such laws of the church as have warrant in holy scripture, our law giveth credence.' And cites Prisot; mistranslating `ancientancien scripture,'_ into _`holy scripture.'_ Whereas Prisot palpably says, `to such laws as those of holy church have in antient writing, it is proper for us to give credence;' to wit, to their antient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing. Max. 3. And Sheppard, title, `Religion,' in 1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Y. B. Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words; `Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.' 1 Ventr. 293. 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and re-echoings from one to another, it had become so established in 1728, that in the case of the King vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal court at common law? Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and say, that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law; and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that `Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange. And finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, in Evans' case, in 1767, says, that `the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.' Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament and all into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a mistranslation of the words `ancien scripture, used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston's case, cite Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to shew, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl278.php
I was glad to find in your book a formal contradition, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you, to shew when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us. In a case of quare impedi in the Year-book 34. H. 6. folio 38. (anno 1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court? And Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words, `A tiel leis qu' ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient a nous a donner credence; car ceo common ley sur quels touts manners leis sont fondes. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus obleges de conustre lour ley de saint eglise: et semblablement ils sont obliges de conustre nostre ley. Et, Sir, si poit apperer or a nous que l'evesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ceo adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,' &c. See S. C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch in his first book, c. 3. is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and mistakes it thus. `To such laws of the church as have warrant in holy scripture, our law giveth credence.' And cites Prisot; mistranslating `ancientancien scripture,'_ into _`holy scripture.'_ Whereas Prisot palpably says, `to such laws as those of holy church have in antient writing, it is proper for us to give credence;' to wit, to their antient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing. Max. 3. And Sheppard, title, `Religion,' in 1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Y. B. Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words; `Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.' 1 Ventr. 293. 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and re-echoings from one to another, it had become so established in 1728, that in the case of the King vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal court at common law? Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and say, that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law; and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that `Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange. And finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, in Evans' case, in 1767, says, that `the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.' Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament and all into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a mistranslation of the words `ancien scripture, used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston's case, cite Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to shew, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred's laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all!
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-jefferson/jefl278.php
Last edited:
I have, both were pretty good to me!
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I figured you were a fag, now I know for sure.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Not sure. Did you suck dick before or after it was in your lower bowel?
Thats why my post read, "and even law follows the Ten Commandants of Christianity almost to the letter..."
I see no contradictions in your lengthy post to refute what I claim...
What is your point ? Christian values and customs are certainly an extension
of values and customs from all mankind that came before it, pagans included....
just as every gene of todays human is an accumulation and extension of every
human that we are decended from....
"Our legal traditions preceded our cultures exposure to the bible or the ten commandments."
Thats certainly true and logic would conclude that the Bible and Ten Commandments evolved
from and are decendant from those earlier legal and moral traditions.......
and all this has little to do with spiritual religious doctrine...its the
evolution of todays western human values, morals and ethics....forget about
Christ and Christianity and religion...
The same can be said about other cultures values, morals and ethics and how they have
evolved from their past that have absolutely nothing to do with Christ and Christianity.
The American Indian certainly knew nothing of Chirst and Christianity, yet they held laws and customs
against murder, theivery, respect for elders, mothers and fathers, etc.
as do many other cultures....as declared by the Commandments.....common law?
Last edited:
Have you ever had sex outside of marriage? Are you as much of a sinner as a gay person?
Have you ever jacked off? BABY KILLER!
Didn't you ever have even a remedial course in biology....?......lmao....totally ignorant would be an improvement for you....
You wouldn't know sarcasm if it slapped you in the face with Yurt's crusty sock.
The point is quite clear. Our laws are not based on the ten commandments. Not any of them.
Then we'll agree to disagree....I think your view is narrow-minded....and ALL our law is based on Christian values, because of the very nature of the men that wrote them.
If American Indians looked at our laws, they would think they were written to reflect a great deal of the laws and morals they themselves live by...Indian Law
Those living by what you call 'common law' would think the same thing.....Common Law
And Christians the same thing.......Christian Law.
Even those that practice the Muslim faith could find something in common with our law.....maybe not quite as much as other, but some.
There is little difference no matter who is reading them.....I don't mean to imply that there is absolutely no difference, just that all would
find some common ground in the Ten Commandments.....because they are just common rules we live by as humans that are practically universal....
Almost every culture that exists had some kind of 'god' or 'gods' they looked to...worshiped and sacrificed to....respected and prayed to, etc....thats the first 4 commandments.
Honoring parents, law against murder and robbery, honoring your neighbors claim to his wives, lying.....that covers the last 6.....
Laws and social rules about all of this is common to almost every culture that exists.
Our founding fathers came from those that were exposed to Christian faith for generations....it was in their very nature and thats just the truth of it...and whether they
believed in the Christian god or Christ is irrelevant....the exposure to the morals and values throughout the continent was enough to mold their characters and thinking for life.
No matter what law, regulation, or moral judgement they agreed upon, it would be Christian in nature whether they or you want to recognize it...thats who they were no matter
what they choose to call themselves....you can pick your name, but you can't pick the family and people you descended from nor deny that heritage......
Canceled.2014.1
New member
The Ten Commandments?? Really?
Lets see, you said "Yet our nations value system, social mores, and even law follows the Ten Commandants of Christianity almost to the letter....".
1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make idols.
3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5.Honor your father and your mother.
6.You shall not murder.
7.You shall not commit adultery.
8.You shall not steal.
9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10.You shall not covet.
Take another look at that list. The 200 years we have endured were obviously not due to our values, social mores and laws following the 10 Commandments. In fact, until you get to #6 you have nothing that our laws follow at all.
Yes, murder and stealing are illegal. But there have been laws against murder and stealing longer than there have been a 10 Commandments. Adultery and false witness (lying) have been against the law in some places over the 200 years, but it is certainly not universal in this country. In fact, lying is so commonplace in Washington DC that we don't even pay attention to it anymore. Know anyone who has been busted for "coveting" lately? Or in say....the last 200 years?
And the first 4 are specific to one religion.