US law/society - based on Christianity?

[Dr Unne]

Is our government and our system of law based upon Christianity, in the US? This is split from another thread.

First I'd like to ask: If our laws are based upon Christianity, which sect? Catholicism? Some form of Protestantism? The values and beliefs of those sects vary greatly. If it's based on the Bible, which translation? And which interpretation of that translation? Interpretations vary greatly.

So you're saying that US Laws were in no way based on the laws of a religion (christianity/catholicism) and that swearing on the bible in court for example is just a gimmick. --Doc Sark

You don't have to swear on the Bible. You can take an alternative oath, and merely swear or affirm to tell the truth.

In fact, Article 6, Section 3 of the US Constitution states:

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

( http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html )

And in the Bible, Matthew 5:

33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.



Its just coincidence that robbery, murder, slander etc are illegal and that they also are in the ten commandments.

Let's take a look at how many of the Ten Commandments are law, or have anything to do with law. There is the question of WHICH Ten Commandments you mean, of course, because the list isn't definite. Some list "Have no graven images" as one of the commandments and combine coveting wives and property into one; some leave out the graven images and split the last commandment into two. Let's go with the first list.

There is also a great deal of question as to what these commandments even MEAN. Taken in their original ancient Hebrew context, they could very well mean things very different than what the modern English versions mean. For example, you might read http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm . But let's just go with the common-sense modern English approach.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not law. In fact one could argue that our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and our government is expressly forbidden from promoting this commandment in any way.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

This would outlaw taking pictures of anything, or painting, or making a statue. This is far from illegal.

The rest of that commandment is rather interesting: "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"? This certainly isn't law; people can't be punished if their great-grandfather committed a crime. Not only is it not law, it's outright IMMORAL by my standards, to punish a child for the crimes of his ancestors. Interestingly, there's a thread in this forum about people seeking reparations from other people whose ancestors were slave owners; those cases have been struck down by the courts, so far as I know.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Not law. Freedom of speech one of the basic human rights in this country. "Jesus sucks"; you can't send me to jail for saying that.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Not law. Businesses operate on Sunday (and Saturday, depending on which Sabbath you like).

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Not law. Closest thing I can think of is parental rights over their children; this isn't unique to Christianity, and it has nothing to do with honoring.

Thou shalt not kill.

This is law. It's also far from unique to Christianity. And it happens to be disregarded when the US goes to war, or when criminals are put to death. Depending on your interpretation of "kill", though.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Not law. Adultery is icky, but legal.

Thou shalt not steal.

Law, but again, far from unique to Christianity. I can find you some Buddhist scriptures which say not to steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Law; no lying in court.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Not law, and rather silly.


Now, we have three commandments which are law, and seven that have nothing to do with law.

Where is the Biblical basis for freedom of press? Freedom of assembly? Right to bear arms? Etc. etc.

You can argue that our society was founded by Christians, and that much of our culture and tradition in modern times is still Christian. I will agree. Our laws and our morals and our values, however, are not Christian, and haven't been for a long time, if they ever were.

[DocFrance]

This is just like the chicken and the egg - were societal laws based on religious morals, or vice versa?

[Yamaneko]

Question: Would the laws, supposedly not based on Christianity, still be around if Christianity didn't exist, or at least had not become as big as it is today? Although some of those laws do not have religious counterparts, many of them were made into law because of the person or persons set of beliefs. Their beliefs had influence over the law.

[Doc Sark]

Hmm...yep. In no part of my post did I say that western (US in this case) law was rigidly based on christianity to the exact letter. I know this would be absurd, so really Unne, you have gone to a lot of trouble to tell me (and countless others I don't doubt) a lot of stuff that was already plain to see. Moving on...

Originally posted by me!!
So you're saying that US Laws were in no way based on the laws of a religion (christianity/catholicism) and that swearing on the bible in court for example is just a gimmick.

The religions stated in the parenthesis were meant as an example,
I did not make this clear enough, and my statement about swearing on the bible was not totally accurate, I accept this, my apologies. Anyway...

Why is it illegal for people to kill and I'm not talking about war as that is a whole other debate?

Why is it illegal to steal?

Why is it illegal to lie under oath?

Because generations of people since the dawn of religion have upheld these values and morals. The lines we see as right and wrong hold their foundations in religion. Yes other values were upheld too but were slowly eroded away over time as people became more enlightened. Notice I did not mention any other commandments in my original post other than Robbery, Murder, Slander (lying whatever) the ones you have accepted are law. You have correctly stated that the first few commandments have nothing to do with US law and are irrelevant to this discussion as they concern worship, something which no democracy can legally impose. I could not agree more and wouldn't even make a stab at countering that.


Consider the morals and values that you hold as an individual, who imparted these morals and values upon you, where did they get theirs etc. Religion in the past has been the law in many cultures. Slowly over time in most countries of the world societies have moved away from having their lives dictated to them by religious doctrine, this is a good thing as religious laws are far too rigid at times, but since there has been no revolution in the western world completely denouncing religion in all its forms how can modern society and modern law not find their roots in religion?

[Jebus]

Why is it illegal for people to kill and I'm not talking about war as that is a whole other debate?

Why is it illegal to steal?

Because they are detrimental to society.

Why is it illegal to lie under oath?

Because it can lead to serious problems including: Wrongful imprisonment, defamation of character, etc.

Back on the issue of the laws of the Ten Commandments and such. The secular laws on them have been in existence far longer than that. For instance, murder and theft are listed as severly punishable crimes in Hammurabi's Code. They may have been based on the Commandments, but I doubt it, since nearly every one of the founding fathers was a Deist.

[Doc Sark]

Now I could be wrong...but didn't Hammurabi pass the code of laws becasue the babylonian gods told him too? Was he not the Priest King? Thus did he not base the laws of his land upon what his gods told him? Therefore basing his laws and the morals and values he would impart upon his society, on religion.

[Skogs]

Four words: In God We Trust.

[The Captain]

What I always found so interesting about the US political system and the laws we've passed, is that there always appears to be an underlying belief in a higher power who has given us our rights to be free. If you look at the Declaration of Independence, when it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.." where did self-evident come from? I've seen it as meaning that a higher power has said that it is true. So, even at the very beginning of the creation of America, religion, or a belief in God at the very least, has been intertwined with our law.

Of course, America, the land of the free, has also passed more laws segregating people than any other country I've ever seen, so it would seem that if our society is based partially on religion, we might have gotten the messages wrong.

Take care all.

[Jebus]

I was just stating that those laws had been in existence before the Ten Commandments. They most likely were "divinly inspired". Anyway, I seriously doubt that the laws were based on the commandements, because, as I said, most of the founding fathers, most notably Washington, Jefferson and Madison, were Deists, not Christians.

[Doc Sark]

Maybe not, but Deists believe in God. Their religious beliefs would still have come in to play when passing laws etc.

Captain, as usual, couldn't agree more.

[Jebus]

Religious beliefs maybe, but they weren't Christian. We are NOT a Christian nation, the founders were Deists and so did not believe a god played any role in anything except creating the universe. Which to me makes more sense than some of the more popular religions. I'm perfectly fine with people using "God" in the pledge/money what not, but they really shouldn't try to pass "Christian" laws. Not that I'm singling out Christians, I'd still be angry if they passed Buddhist laws (I'm a Buddhist myself, so that says a bit, I guess) that aren't secular like most of the Christian ones they've been pushing.

[Black Mage]

Washington wasn't a Christain? Please state your source, my friend.


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g011.html

This site seems to have a contrary stance.

[Doc Sark]

Furthermore, most Deists believed in God, affirmed the existence of a life after death, and respected Jesus as a great teacher and the Bible as a source of moral teachings. But Deists either rejected or doubted the deity of Jesus and refused to acknowledge the Bible as authoritative for believers.

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=2240 (for the rest of this article)

Washington would most definitely have respected the bible as a source of moral teachings and would have wanted to, and did in fact, impart some of these morals onto early american society. We know this because he swore on the bible when he was made President.

Originally poated by jebusabsolute
We are NOT a Christian nation

Most certainly not, the U.S and many other western societies are hives of culture and religion, incorporating people from all religions, beliefs and cultural backgrounds. You are right.

[Jebus]

Probably shouldn't have included Washington. :/

Anyhow, Madison and Jefferson were quite well known to be Deist at least (and as soon as I can either find another source of can swipe my AP Gov book from school I can proof it) and those two were major driving forces behind two of our countries most important documents. Jefferson being the one that wrote the Declaration of Independance, and Madison being important in the final draft of the constitution, and is called the "Father" of the constitution.

Anyway, if they wanted this to be a Christian nation they would've made the Bible the final authority on the law, and not the way they did it.

[Dr Unne]

Doc Sark: So all you're saying is that morals must come from religion? Well that's not true. There are many, many systems of morality which have nothing to do with religion. See utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Randian objectivism for examples. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...-atheism.shtml is a good place to read about morality with respect to atheism.

Utilitarianism bases morality upon happiness and pleasure/pain. Kantianism bases morality upon duty and logical universalizability and rationality. Objecivism bases morality upon rational self-interest. Just examples.

I would argue strongly that people's morality generally does NOT come from religion, but rather that religion reflects the morality people already have. If morality came from religion, why does morality change over time? The Bible doesn't change, for example, but people's notion of what the Bible "means" does change. The Bible once was thought to condone slavery, the inferiority of women to men, the inferiority of non-Christians to Christians, and in fact many of those things USED to be laws and used to be thought moral; but those notions have since been discarded. Why?

If you look at the Declaration of Independence, when it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.." where did self-evident come from? --The Captain

Self-evident means that it didn't come from anywhere. It's self-evident; it proves itself. It's self-evident that I exist, for example, because I can't question my own existence unless I do exist.

So far as the question some people have posed, of whether the founding fathers were Christian, who cares? Most of our politicians today are Christian too, but that doesn't mean they go check the Bible every time they do anything.