Pennsylvania Supreme Court (1824) in the case of Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & R. 393-394, 398- 399, 402-407 (1824), recorded the court's declaration that:
<Abner Updegraph...on the 12th day of December [1821]...not having the fear of God before his eyes...contriving and intending to scandalize, and bring into disrepute, and vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures of truth, in the presence and hearing of several persons...did unlawfully, wickedly and premeditatively, despitefully and blasphemously say..."The Holy Scriptures were a mere fable: that they were a contradiction, and that although they contained a number of good things, yet they contained a great many lies." To the great dishonor of Almighty God, to the great scandal of the profession of the Christian religion....
The jury...finds a malicious intention in the speaker to vilify the Christian religion and the scriptures, and this court cannot look beyond the record, nor take any notice of the allegation, that the words were uttered by the defendant, a member of a debating association, which convened weekly for discussion and mutual information....
That there is an association in which so serious a subject is treated with so much levity, indecency and scurrility...I am sorry to hear, for it would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows, and young women for the brothel, and there is not a skeptic of decent manners and good morals, who would not consider such debating clubs as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city....
It was the out-pouring of an invective, so vulgarly shocking and insulting, that the lowest grade of civil authority ought not to be subject to it, but when spoken in a Christian land, and to a Christian audience, the highest offence contra bonos mores; and even if Christianity was not part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult on which would be indictable....
Assertion is once more made, that Christianity never was received as part of the common law of this Christian land; and...added, that if it was, it was virtually repealed by the constitution of the United States, and of this state....If the argument be worth anything, all the laws which have Christianity for their object-all would be carried away at one fell swoop-the act against cursing and swearing, and breach of the Lord's day; the act forbidding incestuous marriages, perjury by taking a false oath upon the book, fornication and adultery...for all these are founded on Christianity-for all these are restraints upon civil liberty....
We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection-the constitutionality of Christianity-for, in effect, that is the question. Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law...not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church...but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men....
I would have it taken notice of, that we do not meddle with the difference of opinion, and that we interfere only where the root of Christianity is struck as....
The true principles of natural religion are part of the common law; the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law; so that a person vilifying, subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law; but temporal punishments ought not to be inflicted for mere opinions;
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people. This is the Christianity of the common law...and thus, it is irrefragably proved, that the laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity....
In this the Constitution of the United States has made no alteration, nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity...without which no free government can long exist.
To prohibit the open, public and explicit denial of the popular religion of a country is a necessary measure to preserve the tranquillity of a government. Of this, no person in a Christian country can complain....
In the Supreme Court of New York it was solemnly determined, that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and that to revile the Holy Scriptures was an indictable offence.
The case assumes, says Chief Justice Kent, that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted on Christianity. The People v. Ruggles.
No society can tolerate a wilful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down its laws-a general, malicious and deliberate intent to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity.
Religion and morality...are the foundations of all governments.
Without these restraints no free government could long exist.
It is liberty run mad to declaim against the punishment of these offenses, or to assert that the punishment is hostile to the spirit and genius of our government.
They are far from being true friends to liberty who support this doctrine, and the promulgation of such opinions, and general receipt of them among the people, would be the sure forerunners of anarchy, and finally, of despotism.
No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country....Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep....it is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and only stable support of all human laws....
Christianity is part of the common law; the act against blasphemy is neither obsolete nor virtually repealed; nor is Christianity inconsistent with our free governments of the genius of the people.
While our own free constitution secures liberty of conscience and freedom of religious worship to all, it is not necessary to maintain that any man should have the right publicly to vilify the religion of his neighbors and of the country; these two privileges are directly opposed.> 1824PA001
--
American Quotations by William J. Federer, 2024, All Rights Reserved, Permission granted to use with acknowledgement.
Endnotes:
1824PA001. William J. Federer, American Quotations (2014). Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824, Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg. & Rawle, 393-394, 398-399, 400-401, 402-407 (1824); 5 Binn. R. 555; of New York, 8 Johns. R. 291; of Connecticut, 2 Swift's System. 321; of Massachusetts, Dane's Ab. vol. 7, c. 219, a. 2, 19. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 US 457, 458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226, Justice David Josiah Brewer. Vide Cooper on the Law of Libel, 59 and 114, et seq.; and generally, 1 Russ. on Cr. 217; 1 Hawk, c. 5; 1 Vent. 293; 3 Keb. 607; 1 Barn. & Cress. 26. S. C. 8 Eng. Com. Law R. 14; Barnard. 162; Fitsgib. 66; Roscoe, Cr. Ev. 524; 2 Str. 834; 3 Barn. & Ald. 161; S. C. 5 Eng Com. Law R. 249 Jeff. Rep. Appx. See 1 Cro. Jac. 421 Vent. 293; 3 Keb. 607; Cooke on Def. 74; 2 How. S. C. 11-ep. 127, 197 to 201. "Our Christian Heritage," Letter from Plymouth Rock (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation), p. 6.