English law is based on the changing values of the populace, rather than the Judeo-Christian principles found in the Bible, Judge Andrew Rutherford declared in a ruling on January 18.

The judge began by describing a court building opened in 1882 to house the highest courts in England.

“There you will find King Alfred, who made such a notable contribution to Saxon England by codifying the laws of his day,” he said. Alfred began his code of laws by listing the Ten Commandments, as well as other laws from the Old and New Testament.

“You will find Moses, to whom was given the Ten Commandments and to whom, by tradition, is ascribed authorship of the first five books of the Bible in which you will find in great detail the laws governing the children of Israel,” continued the judge.

“Also there on the facade is King Solomon, whose wisdom has become a legend and who displayed outstanding qualities as a judge when sitting in the Family Division in the only reported case of which we have details,” he said. “And the fourth statue is that of Jesus Christ, who, I imagine, needs no introduction to those involved in this case.”

You may be starting to notice a pattern—the Victorians derived their law from the Bible.

“Why are those statues there?” asks the judge. “Perhaps there were many reasons for them, but I venture to suggest that one was to emphasize the Judeo-Christian roots from which the common law of England was derived.”

“A great deal has however happened since King Alfred and his Saxon laws, and even more has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this Earth,” he said. “Those Judeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted. Things have radically changed since the days of Queen Victoria or even, for that matter, since the days of her grandson King George v.”

He is right. Popular morality has completely rejected these ancient values, and the government has followed suit. Even English common law, the law that the judge said was based on Judeo-Christian principles, “has been largely superseded” by “the enormous growth of statutory legislation,” he said.

“In our parliamentary democracy it is for parliament to frame laws which reflect these changes in attitude or which give a lead to such changes,” he said. “Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judeo-Christian position.”

The case Judge Rutherford was ruling on revolved around a Peter and Hazel Mary Bull, who used their house as a hotel. The two had a policy, based on their Christian values, where they would only let married couples rent a room with a double bed.

They told a homosexual couple, Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, that because of this policy they could not have a room with a double bed. The homosexuals took the Bulls to court under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, claiming they had been discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

“It is a very clear example of how social attitudes have changed over the years, for it is not so very long ago that these beliefs of the defendants would have been those accepted as normal by society at large,” said Rutherford. “Now it is the other way around.”

Rutherford ruled that the Bulls had discriminated. Hall and Preddy had a civil partnership, and regulation 3(4) of the Equality Act states that a civil partnership must be considered the same as marriage. By not recognizing Hall and Preddy’s civil partnership, the judge found that the Bulls had discriminated.

Moral relativism beats Judeo-Christian values.

The International Business Times points out the danger in letting social conditions dictate law in this way:

According to this logic he would no doubt have been in favor of arresting and prosecuting Rosa Parks on the grounds that by refusing to give up her seat to a white passenger on a segregated bus she was breaking the law which reflected “the social attitudes and morals prevailing at the time they were made.”

The Bible, that Judeo-Christian law that Britain has rejected, contains a great warning about this kind of thinking. “Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12:8). The last few chapters of the book of Judges describe a society where everyone does what is right in his own eyes. The results are ugly.

Those Judeo-Christian laws, which the judge admits Britain has rejected, ensure a happy, stable, fully-functioning society. Rejecting them is already having major consequences for Britain, and it will only get worse.

For more information, see our booklet Character in Crisis.