[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.As will beseen, this jurisprudential view of higher law complemented the maxim ofChristianity forming part of the common law and buttressed its application byjudges throughout the antebellum period.Christianity Becomes Part of American LawThe Hale-Raymond maxim of Christianity s incorporation into the commonlaw had been part of Anglo-American jurisprudence since the late seventeenthcentury.William Blackstone s restatement of the maxim in his Commentaries,however, popularized the theorem among American lawyers and eventually ledto its judicial application in the U.S.Blackstone included the maxim in hisdiscussion of blasphemy, and his definition of that offense is helpful in under-standing his view.Blackstone listed blasphemy as one of eleven Offensesagainst God and Religion that were punishable in British courts.He defined itas denying God s being or providence, making contumelious reproaches ofour Saviour Christ, or profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures by exposingit [sic] to contempt and ridicule. These offenses were punishable, Blackstonemaintained, because Christianity is part of the laws of England. 35 L EGAL C HRISTIANITY C ONCEIVED 161Blackstone distinguished blasphemy from apostasy, heresy, and other offenses which strike at.the doctrine and discipline of the Church ofEngland in particular. Not that he believed those offenses should not be pun-ished at law; on the contrary, apostasy in particular threatened judicial oaths(which relied on a belief in a future state of punishments and rewards) and wasappropriately made a criminal offense.Rather, unlike those primarily religiousoffenses, blasphemy was punished by our municipal law because the tem-poral courts resent the public affront to religion and morality, on which allgovernment must depend for support. An essential element of blasphemy,therefore, was the deleterious effect the offense had on the public s respect forthe foundations of government.This public affront element, absent in otherreligious offenses, made blasphemy essentially a civil offense as distinguishedfrom those religious offenses punished by civil courts under the ecclesiasticalestablishment.Blackstone s clarification was supported implicitly by the Taylorand Woolston cases, cited as authorities in the Commentaries, the former ofwhich had held that blasphemous words [are] not only an Offense to God andReligion, but a Crime against the Laws, State and Government. Broadly con-ceived, the offense included such intellectual affronts as Thomas Paine s TheAge of Reason as well as the inferior offenses of profane and common swear-ing and cursing. This emphasis on blasphemy as a crime against the statewould ensure that both the offense and the maxim would remain viable legalconcepts following disestablishment.36Blackstone s identification of the maxim with blasphemy thus indicatesthat he understood the maxim to be chiefly a civil one.Although the maximimplied that courts were to protect Christian teachings and practices fromcontempt and ridicule and to enforce Christian standards of behavior eitherof which could be seen as benefiting Christianity itself its chief purpose wasto ensure an orderly society and public respect for a civil government implicitlyendorsed by God.Because the law depended on higher-law principles for itsultimate authority, the maxim additionally meant that Christianity became theultimate standard not for mere notions of right and wrong but for all publicacts.Blackstone thus viewed Christianity s incorporation in two distinct senses.Under the first sense, which benefited religion and society equally, the law pro-tected the true religion from public affront and applied Christian standards fordetermining modes of behavior.At a more significant level, Christianity servedas the ultimate authority and legitimizing agency for both the law and civilgovernment.In both contexts, the maxim indicated an interrelationshipbetween Christianity and the state and meant that Great Britain and, by impli-cation, America were legally Christian nations irrespective of any official reli-gious establishment.37 162 L EGAL DISESTABLISHMENTThe earliest reported case in America to embrace the maxim was the 1796Maryland decision of Runkel v.Winemiller.William Runkel, a German Reformedpastor, was expelled from his pulpit and parsonage following eight years ofministry after allegations arose that he had never been ordained by the control-ling synod.Unable to convince the church elders to rescind their decision,Runkel sought a writ of mandamus from the state court of appeals to restorehim to his former position.Unconcerned that it was interjecting itself into aninternal church dispute, the Maryland court granted Runkel his mandamus onthe basis that Christianity could not be diffused, and its doctrines generallypropagated if the law did not protect the rights of ministers of the gospel.Under our form of government, the Christian religion is the established reli-gion, the court declared, likely referring to the inoperable provision in theMaryland Constitution.But with Maryland lacking an assessment system, thecourt s understanding of an establishment was primarily rights-enhancing,with it declaring that all sects and denominations of Christians are placed onthe same equal footing and are equally entitled to protection in their religiousliberty. Nonetheless, the court found that the state s interest was greater thansimply ensuring ministers their day in court.Runkel s dismissal threatenedthe stability of religious institutions and of civil society itself: Religion is ofgeneral and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, thepeace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. The ultimate application of the maxim in Runkel was relatively benign, how-ever, holding that civil law protected the putative rights of clergy.38The first significant application of the idea that Christianity formed part ofthe law took place in an 1811 New York case, People v.Ruggles, in a decision writ-ten by Chief Justice James Kent.The defendant, a man we know only by thename of Ruggles, had been convicted of wickedly, maliciously, and blasphe-mously uttering false and scandalous words concerning Jesus Christ and theChristian religion, to wit: Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must bea whore. Because the state of New York did not have a statute criminalizingblasphemy, Ruggles claimed his conviction was invalid.39 Kent disagreed, hold-ing that Ruggles could be charged with blasphemy in the absence of an author-izing statute because Christianity was part of the state s common law: Christi-anity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is notunknown to our law [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl matkasanepid.xlx.pl
.As will beseen, this jurisprudential view of higher law complemented the maxim ofChristianity forming part of the common law and buttressed its application byjudges throughout the antebellum period.Christianity Becomes Part of American LawThe Hale-Raymond maxim of Christianity s incorporation into the commonlaw had been part of Anglo-American jurisprudence since the late seventeenthcentury.William Blackstone s restatement of the maxim in his Commentaries,however, popularized the theorem among American lawyers and eventually ledto its judicial application in the U.S.Blackstone included the maxim in hisdiscussion of blasphemy, and his definition of that offense is helpful in under-standing his view.Blackstone listed blasphemy as one of eleven Offensesagainst God and Religion that were punishable in British courts.He defined itas denying God s being or providence, making contumelious reproaches ofour Saviour Christ, or profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures by exposingit [sic] to contempt and ridicule. These offenses were punishable, Blackstonemaintained, because Christianity is part of the laws of England. 35 L EGAL C HRISTIANITY C ONCEIVED 161Blackstone distinguished blasphemy from apostasy, heresy, and other offenses which strike at.the doctrine and discipline of the Church ofEngland in particular. Not that he believed those offenses should not be pun-ished at law; on the contrary, apostasy in particular threatened judicial oaths(which relied on a belief in a future state of punishments and rewards) and wasappropriately made a criminal offense.Rather, unlike those primarily religiousoffenses, blasphemy was punished by our municipal law because the tem-poral courts resent the public affront to religion and morality, on which allgovernment must depend for support. An essential element of blasphemy,therefore, was the deleterious effect the offense had on the public s respect forthe foundations of government.This public affront element, absent in otherreligious offenses, made blasphemy essentially a civil offense as distinguishedfrom those religious offenses punished by civil courts under the ecclesiasticalestablishment.Blackstone s clarification was supported implicitly by the Taylorand Woolston cases, cited as authorities in the Commentaries, the former ofwhich had held that blasphemous words [are] not only an Offense to God andReligion, but a Crime against the Laws, State and Government. Broadly con-ceived, the offense included such intellectual affronts as Thomas Paine s TheAge of Reason as well as the inferior offenses of profane and common swear-ing and cursing. This emphasis on blasphemy as a crime against the statewould ensure that both the offense and the maxim would remain viable legalconcepts following disestablishment.36Blackstone s identification of the maxim with blasphemy thus indicatesthat he understood the maxim to be chiefly a civil one.Although the maximimplied that courts were to protect Christian teachings and practices fromcontempt and ridicule and to enforce Christian standards of behavior eitherof which could be seen as benefiting Christianity itself its chief purpose wasto ensure an orderly society and public respect for a civil government implicitlyendorsed by God.Because the law depended on higher-law principles for itsultimate authority, the maxim additionally meant that Christianity became theultimate standard not for mere notions of right and wrong but for all publicacts.Blackstone thus viewed Christianity s incorporation in two distinct senses.Under the first sense, which benefited religion and society equally, the law pro-tected the true religion from public affront and applied Christian standards fordetermining modes of behavior.At a more significant level, Christianity servedas the ultimate authority and legitimizing agency for both the law and civilgovernment.In both contexts, the maxim indicated an interrelationshipbetween Christianity and the state and meant that Great Britain and, by impli-cation, America were legally Christian nations irrespective of any official reli-gious establishment.37 162 L EGAL DISESTABLISHMENTThe earliest reported case in America to embrace the maxim was the 1796Maryland decision of Runkel v.Winemiller.William Runkel, a German Reformedpastor, was expelled from his pulpit and parsonage following eight years ofministry after allegations arose that he had never been ordained by the control-ling synod.Unable to convince the church elders to rescind their decision,Runkel sought a writ of mandamus from the state court of appeals to restorehim to his former position.Unconcerned that it was interjecting itself into aninternal church dispute, the Maryland court granted Runkel his mandamus onthe basis that Christianity could not be diffused, and its doctrines generallypropagated if the law did not protect the rights of ministers of the gospel.Under our form of government, the Christian religion is the established reli-gion, the court declared, likely referring to the inoperable provision in theMaryland Constitution.But with Maryland lacking an assessment system, thecourt s understanding of an establishment was primarily rights-enhancing,with it declaring that all sects and denominations of Christians are placed onthe same equal footing and are equally entitled to protection in their religiousliberty. Nonetheless, the court found that the state s interest was greater thansimply ensuring ministers their day in court.Runkel s dismissal threatenedthe stability of religious institutions and of civil society itself: Religion is ofgeneral and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, thepeace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. The ultimate application of the maxim in Runkel was relatively benign, how-ever, holding that civil law protected the putative rights of clergy.38The first significant application of the idea that Christianity formed part ofthe law took place in an 1811 New York case, People v.Ruggles, in a decision writ-ten by Chief Justice James Kent.The defendant, a man we know only by thename of Ruggles, had been convicted of wickedly, maliciously, and blasphe-mously uttering false and scandalous words concerning Jesus Christ and theChristian religion, to wit: Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must bea whore. Because the state of New York did not have a statute criminalizingblasphemy, Ruggles claimed his conviction was invalid.39 Kent disagreed, hold-ing that Ruggles could be charged with blasphemy in the absence of an author-izing statute because Christianity was part of the state s common law: Christi-anity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is notunknown to our law [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]