(1846), in the case of City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin,<\/i> cites an individual who wilfully broke an Ordinance which stated:<\/p>\n
No person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell \u2026 any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lords\u2019s day.2880<\/p>\n
The prosecuting attorney astutely explained the premise, stating:<\/p>\n
Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized. \u2026 If Christianity is a part of the common law, its disturbance is punishable at common law. The U.S. Constitution allows it as a part of the common law. <\/p>\n
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. \u2026 The observance of Sunday is one of the usages of the common law, recognized by our U.S. and State Governments. \u2026 The Sabbath is still to be supported; <\/p>\n
Christianity is part and parcel of the common law. \u2026 Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong. \u2026 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. \u2026 [Morality] has grown upon the basis of Christianity.2881<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of South Carolina delivered its decision, declaring:<\/p>\n
The Lord\u2019s day, the day of the Resurrection, is to us, who are called Christians, the day of rest after finishing a new creation. It is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the grave! It was the birth day of the believer in Christ, to whom and through whom it opened up the way which, by repentance and faith, leads unto everlasting life and eternal happiness! On that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord\u2014its decent observance, in a Christian community, is that which ought to be expected. \u2026 <\/p>\n
What gave to us this noble safeguard of religious toleration? It was Christianity. \u2026 But this toleration, thus granted, is a religious toleration; it is the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, with two provisos, one of which, that which guards against acts of licentiousness, testifies to the Christian construction, which this section should receive!<\/p>\n
What are acts \u201cof licentiousness\u201d within the meaning of this section? Must they not be such public acts, as are calculated to shock the moral sense of the community where they take place? The orgies of Bacchus, among the ancients, were not offensive! At a later day, the Carnivals of Venice went off without note or observation. Such could not be allowed now! Why? Public opinion, based on Christian morality, would not suffer it!<\/p>\n
What constitutes the standard of good morals? Is it not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot be appealed to, and I don\u2019t know what would be good morals. The day of moral virtue in which we live would, in an instant, if that standard were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of Pagan immorality. <\/p>\n
In the Courts over which we preside, we daily acknowledge Christianity as the most solemn part of our administration. A Christian witness, having no religious scruple about placing his hand upon the book, is sworn upon the holy Evangelists\u2014the books of the New Testament, which testify of our Savior\u2019s birth, life, death, and resurrection; this is so common a matter, that it is little thought of as an evidence of the part which Christianity has in the common law. <\/p>\n
I agree fully to what is beautifully and appropriately said in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth \u2026 <\/i>Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law: \u201cnot Christianity with an established church \u2026 but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.\u201d2882<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
(1846), in the case of City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, cites an individual who wilfully broke an Ordinance which stated: No person or persons whatsoever shall publicly expose to sale, or sell \u2026 any goods, wares or merchandise whatsoever upon the Lords\u2019s day.2880 The prosecuting attorney astutely explained the premise, stating: Christianity is a … Continue reading “SOUTH
\nCAROLINA SUPREME COURT”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16024"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16024\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}