Except in this case Jefferson is factually incorrect.
Common law is based upon prior customs - and the customs Jefferson was referring to were based upon English common law - which were based upon Christianity as well as other tribal customs from further back. In fact, early common law courts were presided over by bishops. Can't get much more Christian than that can you?
Oh look, yet another example of our "teacher" being unable to learn. The full context of this out-of-context quote has been pointed out to him before:
Geez, another atheist out-of-context quote posted by a guy who claims to be a Christian. And just like the last one, it turns out that Jefferson was not saying what it sounds like when the context is examined: [link is currently broken]
This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
What he was discussing was the history of English common law not American law. Nor was he saying this is how things should be.
In fact, notice this statement from later in the letter:
We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians…
Other things Jefferson said suggest that the original quote is not how he thought things should be:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a confiction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: — from Notes on the State of Virginia [updated link]
3 comments:
Except in this case Jefferson is factually incorrect.
Common law is based upon prior customs - and the customs Jefferson was referring to were based upon English common law - which were based upon Christianity as well as other tribal customs from further back. In fact, early common law courts were presided over by bishops. Can't get much more Christian than that can you?
Really? Why is it that the common law never embraced polygamy?
Oh look, yet another example of our "teacher" being unable to learn. The full context of this out-of-context quote has been pointed out to him before:
Geez, another atheist out-of-context quote posted by a guy who claims to be a Christian. And just like the last one, it turns out that Jefferson was not saying what it sounds like when the context is examined: [link is currently broken]
This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it. If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Charta. But of the laws of this period we have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins, probably not perfect, but neither very defective; and if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814
(Transcript of the letter here)
What he was discussing was the history of English common law not American law. Nor was he saying this is how things should be.
In fact, notice this statement from later in the letter:
We might as well say that the Newtonian system of philosophy is a part of the common law, as that the Christian religion is. The truth is that Christianity and Newtonianism being reason and verity itself, in the opinion of all but infidels and Cartesians…
Other things Jefferson said suggest that the original quote is not how he thought things should be:
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a confiction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever:
— from Notes on the State of Virginia [updated link]
Post a Comment