Despite the best efforts of revisionists, Christian principles still shape the modern world. Here's an example in the field of law. The Good Samaritan example is where Lord Atkin, citing the influence of the Bible determined the direction of a whole area of law in torts - that of negligence...
"The modern law of negligence was established in the famous English case of Donoghue v Stevenson, in which Mrs Donoghue discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in her bottle of ginger beer, most unfortunately after she had consumed the greater part of its contents. Suffering from shock and gastroenteritis, she sued Mr Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer.In what is arguably the 20th century’s most influential judicial decision to affect the lives of ordinary citizens, the biblical precept to love thy neighbour became in law — you must not injure your neighbour. Your neighbour is anyone you can reasonably foresee might be injured by your careless actions."http://www.choice.com.au/viewarticleasonepage.aspx?id=104324&catId=100528&tid=100008&p=1
'On May 26, 1932, Lord Atkin rose at last, amid the splendour of the great chamber of the House of Lords, to deliver his immortal speech in Donoghue v. Stevenson.16
Lord Atkin reminded the House of the words of Lord Esher in Le Lievre v. Gould:17 “If one man is near to another, or near to the property of another, a duty lies on him not to do that which may cause a personal injury to that other, or may injure his property.” Using the thoughts he had expressed the previous autumn at King’s College, Lord Atkin then melded Lord Esher’s dictum with the parable of the good Samaritan.
Neighbourhood was a mental rather than a physical state. It would be enough to impose on David Stevenson a duty of care such that those in the position of May Donoghue ought to have been in his mind when he was bottling the ginger beer. She was his neighbour in spirit."http://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/resources/keycases/dvs/mrs-donoghue-journey.html
"In Donoghue v. Stevenson, Lord Atkin said:
"To seek a complete logical definition of the general principle is probably to go beyond the function of the judge, for the more general the definition, the more likely it is to omit essentials or to introduce non-essentials."
The moral which I draw from these words is that simplism combines fatally with generalization in two ways: it so extends the general as to take insufficient account of the peculiar requirements of the particular; and it takes the particular as in every respect an exemplar of the general. That, in his paraphrase of the parable of the Good Samaritan,
Lord Atkin himself exceeded his function is, in my respectful submission, implicit in the speech of Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Lupton v. F.A. & A.B. Ltd, where he refers to the distinction drawn in Farr v. Butters Bros & Co."http://www.ucc.ie/law/restitution/rdg/9912007.htm
"House of Commons Session 1997-98 Publications on the internet
Standing Committee Debates National Minimum Wage Bill
I must not digress into tales of Lord Chancellors, except to say that I think that Lord Atkin presided in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson. He cited the parable of the good Samaritan in his rationale, by way of explaining what one's duty ought to be from first principle.
" have drawn the well-known distinction between the public and the private in terms of direct equality. I believe this way of drawing the distinction brings out the special qualities of the neighbour principle in tort first formulated by Lord Atkin in 1932 in Donoghue v. Stevenson
. We have duties to others in the sense that we must not omit to treat them as our equal. That there are such circumstances is clearly explained by the intuitive trust we have in the parable of the Good Samaritan
in which passers-by omitted wrongly to assist the sick person in the ditch. The neighbour principle makes use of this distinction because it rests fundamentally on the idea that the test of who is your neighbour is not the person whom you actually thought would be affected by your act. It is, instead, the person whom you ought reasonably have contemplated. So, when the duty is breached, liability is imposed for your omission to act properly."http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctlsfd/papers/freedom.html
It's influence (despite this case being in Britain) extends to the USA. The case is quoted in the USA
"In 1932, Lord Atkin explained negligence in what is now referred to as "the good neighbor principle":http://www.nassp.org/news/pl_idstandardcare_0302.cfm