• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Warning, Don't Believe in Christianity!!

Pah

Uber all member
Common law ,the term, as a description of a system of law, has been applied to most every such sysyem including today's. It, in fact, made the google research rather difficult weeding out those that clearly did not apply to the origin of American law or a basic definition.

Word IQ has a definition of common law that has traces back to Henry II who codified English common law. It also seems to agree with the power of the jury of which you spoke.

see also Civil Law at Word IQ

I have stumbled accross a new reference that speaks of the establishmnet of common law in Connecticut written by Jesse Root, 1798.

The Origin of Government and Laws in Connecticut

Although terms that strike a chord in the religious are used, the tenor of the writing is, in my reading, wholly secular. It goes so far as to say that English common law was derived from the feudal system.

It further says
Their common law was derived from the law of nature and of revelation - those rules and maxims of immutable truth and justice, which arise from the eternal fitness of things, which need only to be understood, to be submitted to, as they are themselves the highest authority; together with certain customs and usages, which had been universally assented to and adopted in practice, as reasonable and beneficial....

The highest authority recognized in common law was common law itself.


There is an overwhelming number of original states that produced Constitutions circa 1776 that fail to mention God. Three mention a creator or Author of creation Only South Carolina placed articles of faith in one of their constitutions (the second one in 1778) making it a Christian state. The Constitution of Massachuestts was unavailable in this library (The Avalon Project at Yale Law School) Almost all mentioned the rights from England (common law).

The documents speak for themselves. There was no inclusion of Biblical law in our founding.

By the way, there were NO witches burned at the stake in the Salem witch trails but I think the number hung was 26.
 

KBC1963

Active Member
You are correct there where no witchs burned by the law in the U.S., they were hanged or pressed however the same law that was used as a basis for it was taken from England which is where all the people came from:

Execution by burning has a long historical tradition as being a legal method of punishment for crimes such as heresy, treason, and the practice of witchcraft.
In 1184, the Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy. This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders up through the 17th century.
Witch trials became increasingly popular through the 14th and 15th century in Scotland, Spain, England, Switzerland, Austria, and Germany. It is estimated that up to four million convicted witches and heretics were burned at the stake during this time.
During the reign of Queen Mary in England (1553-1558), some two hundred and seventy seven people were burnt at the stake for heresy against the Catholic church and conspiracy against the Queen

It is not known when burning was first used in Britain, but there is a recorded burning for heresy in 1222, when a deacon of the church was burnt at Oxford for embracing the Jewish faith so he could marry a Jew.
In 1401 the king authorised a Statute of Heresy which gave the clergy power to arrest and try those suspected of heresy. The first to suffer under the new act was one William Sautre, a priest, who was executed at (Kings) Lynn in 1402. This statute was repealed in 1553, but burning was re-introduced by Henry VIII. His daughter, Mary Tudor ("Bloody Mary") was also very keen on this method and 274 burnings of both sexes for heresy were recorded during her five year reign (reign of terror) in the mid 16th century. In most cases their only "crime" was following the Protestant faith. The normal place of execution in London being at West Smithfield (now called just Smithfield). An engraving of the period shows that these unfortunates were stood in empty tar barrels at the stake and then had faggots heaped round them. It was not the practice to strangle heretics before they were burnt so they died slow and horrible deaths - being literally burned alive.

Burning was in use throughout Europe at this time and was particularly favoured by the Spanish Inquisition as it did not involve shedding of the victim's blood which was disallowed under the prevailing Roman Catholic doctrine and because it ensured that the condemned had no body to take into the next life (which was believed to be a very severe punishment in itself.) It was also though at that time that burning cleansed the soul which was considered important for those convicted of witchcraft and heresy.


The fact that U.S. whitches were judged at the common law and since the essense of common law is basicaly saying the law that would be common to the people was used to convict them then you must see that the law that was common to our founding fathers was in fact the bible and the history of common law follows it back through english times and since much of the law that was common to english people was based on catholocism it was also based on the bible. think about it why would our founding fathers just miraculously come up with a whole new law to live by? the fact is they wouldnt, the law that was common to them was as it was in england based on catholic controlled rulers and for hundreds of years it was this way, there is almost no definable time in the history of common law that it wasnt based on the bible as the belief of the common man. The only dicernable difference was it started under catholicism and ended under christianity, The one truth that is most often missed by those dealing with the basis of laws is that the jews had one of the most comprehensive setups concerning laws and that bled over to many other nations so what is now considered common is still in fact based on the bible even tho some nations didnt even have christian/jewish backgrounds. So to try and use the phrase common law to mean anything other than bible based law would be very difficult, the very meaning of the term common points directly at the people and when you look at the people and their beliefs 9 times out of ten they were based on the bible

The fact that anyone could be tryed as a witch should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "common" law was mostly bible based as there is no other source for the law other than the bible, so I submit that I have prima facia evidence for my case.
 

Pah

Uber all member
"The fact that anyone could be tryed as a witch should prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "common" law was mostly bible based as there is no other source for the law other than the bible, so I submit that I have prima facia evidence for my case."

Of those in Germany, Trier was governeed by an Elector-Archbishop. Church dignitaries were instrumental in the trials. Bamburg was considered an episcopal city. Wurzburg was governed by a Prince-Bishop

Inquisiters were from Rome and were directed by Papal Bull.

These were eccesiastical courts and not civil courts under common law. Common law at that time predominently dealt with property.
 

KBC1963

Active Member
These were eccesiastical courts and not civil courts under common law. Common law at that time predominently dealt with property.

Then under what law were the salem witch trials done?

you have only succeeded in working yourself into a corner because the old ruling bodies were a mix civil and eccesiastical which was considered the COMMON LAW. the only hope you have now to prove your side is to show that the laws were separate and handled by 2 different court systems totally independant of each other, and no matter what you theorize the salem witch trials were held under common law as understood by the people of the time so if it was common law for them here then it was common law in england as well
 

Pah

Uber all member
KBC1963 said:
These were eccesiastical courts and not civil courts under common law. Common law at that time predominently dealt with property.

Then under what law were the salem witch trials done?

you have only succeeded in working yourself into a corner because the old ruling bodies were a mix civil and eccesiastical which was considered the COMMON LAW. the only hope you have now to prove your side is to show that the laws were separate and handled by 2 different court systems totally independant of each other, and no matter what you theorize the salem witch trials were held under common law as understood by the people of the time so if it was common law for them here then it was common law in england as well

[http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/hale/common]The History of the Common Law of England[/url]

Read it, refresh you mind.
From the cite:
But I have for the following Reason rang'd these Laws among
the Unwritten Laws of England, viz. because it is most plain,
That neither the Canon Law nor the Civil Law have any Obligation
as Laws within this Kingdom, upon any Account that the Popes or
Emperors made those Laws, Canons, Rescripts or Determinations, or
because Justinian compiled their Corpus Juris Civilis, and by his
Edicts confirm'd and publish'd the same as authentical, or
because this or that Council or Pope made those or these Canons
or Degrees, or because Gratian, or Gregory, or Boniface, or
Clement, did, as much as in them lie, authenticate this or that
Body of Canons or Constitutions; for the King of England does not
recognize any Foreign Authority as superior or equal to him in
this Kingdom, neither do any Laws of the Pope or Emperor, as they
are such, bind here: But all the Strength that either the Papal
or Imperial Laws have obtained in this Kingdom, is only because
they have been received and admitted either by the Consent of
Parliament, and so are Part of the Statute Laws of the Kingdom,
or else by immemorial Usage and Custom in some particular Cases
and Courts, and no otherwise; and therefore so far as such Laws
are received and allowed of here, so far they obtain and no
farther; and the Authority and Force they have here is not
founded on, or derived from themselves; for so they bind no more
with us than our Laws bind in Rome or Italy. But their Authority
is founded merely on their being admitted and received by us,
which alone gives 'em their Authoritative Essence, and qualifies
their Obligation.

There are Three Courts of Note, wherein the Civil, and in one
of them the Canon or Ecclesiastical Law, has been with certain
Restrictions allow'd in this Kingdom, viz. 1st. The Courts
Ecclesiastical, of the Bishops and their derivative Officers.
2dly. The Admiralty Court. 3dly. The Curia Militaris, or Court of
the Constable and Marshal, or Persons commission'd to exercise
that Jurisdiction. I shall touch a little upon each of these.
First, The Ecclesiastical Courts, they are of two Kinds, viz.
1st. Such as are derived immediately by the King's Commission;
such was formerly the Court of High Commission; which tho',
without the help of an Act of Parliament, it could not in Matters
of Ecclesiastical Cognizance use any Temporal Punishment or
Censure, as Fine, Imprisoment, &c. Yet even by the Common Law,
the Kings of England, being delivered from Papal Usurpation,
might grant a Commission to hear and determine Ecclesiastical
Causes and Offences, according to the King's Ecclesiastical Laws,
as Cawdry's Case, Cook's 5th Report. 2dly. Such as are not
derived by any immediate Commission from the King; but the Laws
of England have annexed to certain Offices, Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction, as incident to such Offices: Thus every Bishop by
his Election and Confirmation, even before Consecration, had
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction annex'd to his Office, as Judex
Ordinarius within his Diocese; and diverse Abbots anciently, and
most Archdeacons at this Day, by Usage, have had the like
Jurisdiction within certain Limits and Precincts.

Separate and distinct. in England

How did the Salem Wirch trials come to be? From a puritanical group who meshed thier religion with governance of the Massachuesetts Bay Colony in a constant fight against the Devil and in no way are an example of the other colonies. They were an aberation in American history but the political control they exercised is currently being sought by other Christian groups. Theocracy in America should not be permitted again.

It would be wrong to typify the Bay Colony as existing under the English common law. And just as wrong to suppose that secular law was the attribute of American law.
 

Pah

Uber all member
Gerani1248 said:
eek. the salam witch trials were just scary and stupid.

Way off topic!!!!!

One of my great great great uncles was convicted of being a witch, Captain John Alden.

"Appearing before the Salem magistrates on May 31, 1692, Capt. John Alden was accused on a charge of witchcraft during the Salem witch hysteria. Served fifteen weeks in a Boston jail until escaping. In April 1693, when passions had cooled, John presented himself to the Superior Court in Boston. He was not prosecuted further"

I guess that's where I got my atheism :smile: :smile:
 

Ardhanariswar

I'm back!
well. the salem witch trials had nothing to do with christianity. it rather had to do with bible fundamentalists who take everything literally.
 
Top