1) Barnes v. First Parish in Falmouth, 6 Mass. 400 (1810) - This case took place in Maine prior to its independent statehood in the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Massachusetts had the Protestant religion established in its state constitution. Massachusetts law held that only Protestant teachers could receive funds from taxpayers. The Universalist preacher Thomas Barnes sued against this whole system to recover taxes from the members of the First Parish in Falmouth, Massachusetts. The district court held that Barnes could receive such money since he was not a Protestant teacher. Barnes appealed, but Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons ruled against him and agreed with the opinion of the district court.
2) Runkel v. Winemiller, 4 H. & McH 429 (1799) - Rev. William Runkel wanted to regain his position as a minister at a Reformed church in Maryland. Delivering the majority opinion of the court, Justice Samuel Chase wrote “Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty. The principles of the Christian religion cannot be diffused, and its doctrines generally propagated, without places of public worship, and teachers and ministers to explain the scriptures to the people, and to enforce an observance of the precepts of religion by their preaching and living. And the pastors, teachers and ministers, of every denomination of Christians, are equally entitled to the protection of the law, and to the employment of their religious and temporal rights. And the court are of opinion, that every endowed minister, of any sect or denomination of Christians, who has been wrongfully dispossessed of his pulpit, is entitled to the writ of mandamus to be restored to his function, and the temporal rights with which it is endowed.” (Runkel v. Winemiller, 4 H. & McH, 450)
3) Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & Rawle 394 (PA., 1824) - In this case, a man was fined money as a penalty for publicly saying that the Bible was full of fables and lies. Justice Thomas Duncan agreed with this decision of the courts, saying “No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country. So far from Christianity, as the counsel contends, being part of the machinery necessary to despotism, the reverse is the fact. Christianity is part of the common law of this state. It is not proclaimed by the commanding voice of any human superior, but expressed in the calm and mild accents of customary law. Its foundations are broad, and strong, and deep: they are laid in the authority, the interest, the affections of the people.”
4) State v. Chandler, 2 Del. 553 (1837) - In this case, the counsel for the defendant argued that his conviction for blasphemy violated religious liberty and enforced Christianity in a preferential way. The court rejected the appeal and said “It appears to have been long perfectly settled by the common law, that blasphemy against the Deity in general, or a malicious and wanton attack against the Christian religion individually, for the purpose of exposing its doctrines to contempt and ridicule, is indictable and punishable as a temporal offense.” (id. 555).
5) City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508 (1846) - A Jewish merchant was fined $40 for selling gloves on Sunday. Acting as the defendant, the merchant claimed that this statute violated Article VIII of the state constitution of South Carolina. The court rejected his argument and stated that Christianity was part of the common law of the state: “Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized. . . . If Christianity is a pan of the common law, its disturbance is punishable at common law. The U.S. Constitution allows it as a part of the common law. The President is allowed ten days [to sign a bill], with the exception of Sunday. The Legislature does not sit, public offices are closed, and the Government recognizes the day in all things. . . . The observance of Sunday is one of the usages of the common law, recognized by our U.S. and State Governments. . . . The Sabbath is still to be supported; Christianity is part and parcel of the common law. . . . Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong .. . it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall.. .. [Morality] has grown upon the basis of Christianity.”
6) State v. Ambs, 2 Mo. 214 (1854) - The court ruled in favor of enforcing Sabbath laws against a man who kept an ale house open on Sunday. Its argument in defense of the opinion shows how the state of Missouri thought about church-state relations at the time in terms of law: “Those who question the constitutionality of our Sunday laws, seem to imagine that the constitution is to be regarded as an instrument framed for a state composed of strangers collected from all quarters of the globe, each with a religion of his own, bound by no previous social ties, nor sympathizing in any common reminiscences of the past. It is apprehended, that such is not the mode by which our organic law is to be interpreted. We must regard the people for whom is was ordained. It appears to have been made by Christian men. The constitution, on its face, shows that the Christian religion was the religion of of its framers. At the conclusion of that instrument, it is solemnly affirmed by its authors, under their hands, that it was done in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty--a form adopted by all Christian nations, in solemn public acts, to manifest the religion to which they adhere.”
7) Mohney v. Cook, 26 Pa. 342 (1855) - “The declaration that Christianity is part of the law of the land, is a summary description of an existing and very obvious condition of our institutions. We are a Christian people, in so far as we have entered into the spirit of Christian institutions, and become imbued with the sentiments and principles of Christianity; and we cannot be imbued with them, and yet prevent them from entering into and influencing, more or less, all our social institutions, customs, and relations, as well as all our individual modes of thinking and acting. It is involved in our social nature, that even those among us who reject Christianity, cannot possibly get clear of its influence, or reject those sentiments, customs, and principles which it has spread among the people, so that, like the air we breathe, they have become the common stock of the whole country, and essential elements of its life. It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a Christian people should have laws to protect their day of rest from desecration. Regarding it as a day necessarily and divinely set apart for rest from worldly employments, and for the enjoyment of spiritual privileges, it is simply absurd to suppose that they would leave it without any legislative protection from the disorderly and immoral. The sentiment that sustains it must find expression through those who are elected to represent the will of their constituents.” (id. 347-348)
8) Gibson v. American Mutual Life Insurance, 37 N.Y. 580 (1868) - “That we live in a Christian country is certainly true. It is acknowledged by the law of the land, which prohibit blasphemy and profanity, and enjoin the observance of Sunday. To say, however, that every man is presumed to be a personal Christian, upon whose mind and upon whose actions the precepts of the Gospel exercise an influence, is so much against our common experience, that it cannot be assumed as a legal principle.” (id. 583).
9) Zeisweiss v. James, 63 Pa. 465, (1870) - The court invalidated a testator’s charitable trust on the grounds that it was donating money to the Infidel Society. Judge Sherwood, writing for the majority, said “It [Christianity] is the popular religion of the country, an insult to which would be indictable as directly tending to disturb the public peace. The laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. To this extent, at least, it must certainly be considered as well settled that the religion revealed in the Bible is not to be openly reviled, ridiculed, or blasphemed, to the annoyance of sincere believers who compose the great mass of the good people of the Commonwealth.”
10) Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 435 (1884) - “When the great body of the people are Christians ... our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise .... [Ojur civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian.”
No comments:
Post a Comment