After the Norman Conquest in William the Conquerer imposed Canon Law Roman Law officially and this was used by the Church alongside what had become common law which continued to develop as I have described over the centuries. Post-Modernist versions of History are not to be trusted, Post-Modernists would like to airbrush Christianity from history but as they cannot the next best thing is to mock, deride and reduce it to a transitory bad influence, this will not hold water when faced with the facts.
The evidence shows that our laws developed over the centuries out of the ecclesiastical Church courts, the Royal courts and local courts, ie the influence of Classical Humanism and Christianity were equally important. Roman Law only began to make a significant contribution to English Law from the late Middle Ages onwards. Edit and delete options on comments would be useful. Common law is a Roman concept introduced by the Normans. The fundamental doctrines of common law are based on Roman principles. Canon law is ecclesiastical, not civic law.
It was born of Roman law. The Normans in Normandy before the conquest operated on their local version code, not common law of Roman law and decided to reconfigure that for ruling England. The Normans increased the weight of using precedents something that already existed in Roman law to handle exceptional situations not adequately covered by statutory written law.
The Normans decided that codification of laws would have brought more problems than solutions in the long run. They also decided to alter the legal nomenclature in Roman jurisprudence to avoid confusion. Most of the significant fundamental doctrines of Common Law were developed between and the reign of Richard I —99 — and all those doctrines were based to a greater or lesser extent on Roman legal principles. Before the s, English law i. For — years, all English universities taught only Roman law despite the country operating in Common Law. That gave rise to the split legal profession of solicitors non-trial lawyers and barristers trial advocates.
VTLS Chameleon iPortal نتائج البحث
English law before the Normans was based on North Sea pagan Germanic law inherited from the Anglo-Saxon ancestors who crossed the waters between the 5th and 7th centuries. Obviously pre-AS British law was thoroughly pagan too. AS law got Roman pagan influences through the Church. For example, one finds a division of social ranks reminiscent of the threefold gradation of nearby peoples cf. Frankish law becomes a powerful modifying element in English legal history after the Conquest, when it was introduced wholesale in royal and in feudal courts….
The direct influence of Roman law was not great during the Saxon period: there is neither the transmission of important legal doctrines, chiefly through the medium of Visigothic codes, nor the continuous stream of Roman tradition in local usage. But indirectly Roman law did exert a by no means insignificant influence through the medium of the Church, which, for all its apparent insular character, was still permeated with Roman ideas and forms of culture. Yet in this respect also the Norman Conquest increased the store of Roman conceptions by breaking the national isolation of the English Church and opening the way for closer intercourse with France and Italy.
Claire, the NT is not a legal document and it is devoid of legal principles. The closest is the exhortation to kill gays Romans 1. The OT contains an ancient tribal religious law that is defunct in NT, it was anyway concerned with eccentricities like the eating of shell fish and pork, designed to distinguish Je ws from others and completely useless out of a Bronze Age Middle Eastern context.
Locke and the Legislative Point of View
Not trying to be rude but that about sums it up. It influenced legal practice first in Wessex and then gradually across England until William the C imposed Canon law in The very fact that Canon Law was under the jurisdiction of the Church is influence. I concede, your knowledge about Roman Law is greater than mine but it does not alter the fact of the influence of Christianity on our legal system which continued more or less up until the present day. A particularly interesting and apposite example, Sir John Fortescue c.
This was based on St. Needless to say Dominum Politicum et Regale won the day ie, that the king should only rule with the assent of the people. You constantly cite these statistics about British irreligiosity as if they are something positive. You and many others may view them as such but, personally, I see it as a sign of decadence in society when people turn their back on a religion that has been around for 2, years. While native Europeans may be becoming less religious, the number of Muslims keeps increasing across Western Europe.
Do you? People can have whatever religion they want or none. I do not favour Christianity over Islam. If ppl in Britain choose not to be Christian then that is up to them. Ever fewer do. You may need to get over that.
And pls do not try to stir up anti-Muslim feeling in some lame attempt to revive your own religion. Amelia Cantor being a classic example! If anyone wants me to show tolerance to their sex, race, creed or political views, they will have to show EQUAL tolerance to mine. If they want me to respect them, they must respect me.
It is not uncommon for philosophers to look at a matter from both sides. This sounds like a tendentious essay to look at it from a certain conclusion, to clarify what the arguments are for that point of view. Aquinas did that in the Summa and then gave his responses. It looks like Locke chose to public what he chose to publish. Likely Locke made his arguments against intolerant RCC, said what he could at that time, and trusted the reader to extrapolate from the principles to the particular question of Anglicanism and state religion.
Who knows? This online work is like draw straight-arrow and earn money. Do not go to office. I do not claim to be others,I just work. Toleration is not a virtue. Toleration is not the same as respect.
It is liberalism bastardised into relativism — all views equally valid — that is the problem. PC tolerance preaches that, but it turns out to be little more than intolerance. I agree that there is an awful lot to unpack, likely a can of worms. Dogmatic virtue posturing is fine but there are serious issues to be gone through with a comb. It is when people are expected to tolerate extreme behaviour eg, schoolchildren being taught they can choose their gender, children being given hormone blockers by the state, lewd behaviour on the high street while police smile and dance; that level of tolerance is no longer virtuous it is on the verge of insanity.
A certain level of tolerance is practical, sensible, maybe even wise, in a society such as ours. As James Knight says though, that level of tolerance may be pushed in a particular direction, beyond common sense, on behalf of moral relativism and then imposed in an authoritarian way.
A little higher than GCSE. Have you thought about presenting cogent counter-arguments rather than spouting ad hominem invective? Yeah, 17th century, when Britain was hideously white. Anti-Catholicism is still alive and well across Europe nowadays. Sad but true. The ironic thing is that those who are most anti-Christian are often the same ones who support mass immigration by Muslims.
We really are living in strange times. Not sure whether the intention of your post is to mock me or not but I make no apologies for my disgust at the fact that, at the same time as native Europeans are turning away from Christianity, the number of Muslims — who tend to be far more religious than Christians — in Europe continues to increase rapidly. I agree with you Gerard and sympathise. However, on the ground, as it were, amongst young people and old I do get a sense that faith is not as diminished as it seems.
Sadly I think there is no escaping the consequences of the sex abuse scandals involved with the Church. That has led to much understandable anger and cynicism.
Not surprisingly many people conflate the Church with the Christian faith itself and spurn both, forgetting that it was actually weak human beings who committed the crimes or sought to hide or ignore them. Strange times indeed. I sounded optimistic the other day but I am also a realist, our present circumstances do worry me but I think and hope it will come out alright in the end, the good side of humanity will ultimately prevail.
Interesting that Locke may now be regarded as a true liberal in many ways. Unlike modern phony pseudo-liberals who think Catholics, evangelicals, social conservatives and anyone who disagrees with them should be silenced, excluded and suppressed. The only people who should be silenced are those peddling hate or those who defend those peddling hate. You are obviously filled with hate at the people you claim are peddling hate. The issuing of Bulls to modify behaviour in other lands, superseding government and majesty?
Indeed, some have said that the EU is the attempt by Catholic Europe to re-establish the Holy Roman Empire, centred not in Constantinople, but the far more exotic Brussels. Pro-abortion, anti-life, increasingly restrictive of religious freedom, the EU and much of the European liberal elite can be considered increasingly hostile to Catholicism and Christianity in general.
With Hate Crime legislation on the statute books, Identity Politics popular even amongst politicians from all parties and the country deeply divided, an appeal for tolerance is like whistling in the wind. The trouble is the politicians have created a particularly difficult and stressful environment for people to live in peacefully, they knew the risks they were taking but thought they could control the situation by putting legislation in place.
Perhaps people have to learn the hard way all over again. I hope not. Only Anglicans, the state religion, were allowed under the Clarendon Code to hold any local or national public office when Locke wrote that letter and thousands of non-conformists were imprisoned.