Printable version.

Chapter 11
Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism

Available for a suggested donation of $7.00. Choose Quantity 1 Copy $7.00 10 Copies $60.00 20 Copies $100.00

Section 1, Clause 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Amendments

Following Article 7 are the Amendments ratified after forty-nine state delegates and the Convention’s secretary signed the original United States Constitution. These Amendments (twenty-seven to date) would have been unnecessary had 18th-century Americans chosen the perfection of Yahweh’s¹ law rather than the imperfections of man’s law. The Bible forbids amending Yahweh’s law (Deuteronomy 4:1-2, Psalm 12:6, Proverbs 30:5-6, Ecclesiastes 3:14, Revelation 22:18-19), which of itself, does not prove that Yahweh’s laws are perfect. However, the U.S. Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, which categorically proves its imperfection.

It is understandable that non-Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus would choose the U.S. Constitution over the Christian Bible. However, for someone who believes the Bible is God-breathed and, therefore, perfect, to swear by the U.S. Constitution in preference to the Bible makes no sense whatsoever. The Constitution has proven itself flawed, in need of amendment, and biblically errant. For Christians² to keep turning to it for inspiration, direction, and protection makes as much sense as a wife who keeps returning to and defending an abusive husband.

That non-Christians of every persuasion idolize the Constitution is evidence that it is not a Christian covenant. Non-Christians venerate it (particularly the “Establishment Clause” found in Amendment 1) for good reason.

The Bill of Rights

The first Ten Amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were essentially a compromise between the Constitutional framers and the anti-federalists who opposed the Constitution as originally framed.

In theory, the Bill of Rights protects, among other things, the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (including personal property) cited by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Does the Bill of Rights protect life, liberty, happiness, and property, or have Americans had less life, liberty, happiness, and property since the ratification of the Bill of Rights?

God-Given Rights vs. God-Given Responsibilities

One often hears (so often that it has almost become a mantra) that the Bill of Rights was based upon God-given rights. In 1954, Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren alleged the following comparison during the annual prayer breakfast at the International Council of Christian Leadership:

I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people….³

This is interesting, to say the least. Except for individual dignity, home sanctity, and equal justice, I would challenge the reader to find anything in the Bible that resembles Warren’s list, let alone something described as a right. How could the Bill of Rights have been based upon God-given rights when much of what is contained in the first Ten Amendments is antithetical to Yahweh’s morality as codified in His law? To dub the Bill of Rights God-given is another futile attempt to christen the U.S. Constitution Christian.

I would challenge the reader to produce from the Scriptures evidence of any God-given (or unalienable) rights. Even life and liberty are not rights but gifts and responsibilities from Yahweh. Rights are much more popular than responsibilities. Everyone demands their rights, including homosexuals⁴ and infant murderers.⁵ On the other hand, few people are interested in fulfilling their responsibilities.

The Puritan idea of liberty was quite different from what the Constitutional framers had in mind:

John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine of civil rights [as in the Bill of Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian [as in the Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the sole source and guarantee of true liberty. This two-fold indictment of the democratic philosophy of government is one of the enduring testimonies to the keen insight which these leaders of Massachusetts Bay had into both the theological and practical aspects of an effective type of government.⁶

For the Puritan, liberty was in no way associated with the doctrine of natural law and natural rights, but found its origin and meaning in that covenant which God had made with his people. Liberty was not a natural right, but a God-given right [responsibility] and privilege to be zealously guarded from despots, to be sure, but also subject to precise biblically-defined limits.⁷

R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom as their basic tenet:

By the twentieth century, in America as in Europe, the ideal order and civil government was believed to be one which was dedicated to liberty, one which made basic to its purpose freedom of religion, speech, and press. But a society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.⁸

Rushdoony was correct, although his dating was off by two centuries. It was in the 18th century – in contrast to 17th-century Puritanism – that “the ideal order and civil government” was first “believed to be one which was dedicated to liberty.” Even anti-federalist Patrick Henry was of the belief that “liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.”⁹

True liberty is found only in Yahweh’s law of liberty:

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. (James 1:25)¹⁰

James was not describing some alleged New Covenant law that freed everyone to do whatever he wished. That kind of freedom is nothing more than humanism, which eventually leads to anarchism, one of the quickest paths to legal slavery. Instead, James described the same perfect law of liberty – Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments – as did King David:

The law of YHWH¹¹ is perfect, converting the soul…. (Psalm 19:7)

So shall I keep thy law continually for ever and ever. And I will walk at liberty…. (Psalm 119:44-45)

Liberty does not mean license, from which the English word licentiousness is derived. Licentiousness is the consequence of antinomianism, which was prevalent in the Apostle Paul’s day and even more so today:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness [licentiousness, NASB], and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. (Jude 1:3-4)

Forgiveness, or liberty from our personal sins, is realized through Yeshua’s¹² (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) blood-atoning sacrifice on the cross and resurrection from the grave.¹³ All other liberty is found in the implementation and enforcement of Yahweh’s perfect laws of liberty – not in the hollow promises of man-made documents. In other words, Yahweh’s grace on the personal level and Yahweh’s law on the community level are our only means to true freedom. When either of these is abused, freedom (including freedom of religion, speech, and the press) is also abused.

Rushdoony continued:

Whenever freedom is made into the absolute, the result is not freedom but anarchism. Freedom must be under law, or it is not freedom. The removal of all law does not produce freedom but rather anarchy and a murderer’s paradise…. Only a law-order which holds to the primacy of God’s law can bring forth true freedom, freedom for justice, truth, and godly life.

Freedom as an absolute is simply an assertion of man’s “right” to be his own god; this means a radical denial of God’s law-order. “Freedom” thus is another name for the claim by man to divinity and autonomy. It means that man becomes his own absolute. The word “freedom” is thus a pretext used by humanists of every variety – Marxist, Fabian, existentialist, pragmatist, and all others [including Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Constitutionalist] – to disguise man’s claim to be his own absolute.¹⁴

There is no such thing as unalienable rights, only god-ordained responsibilities – responsibilities that in many instances were ignored or completely subverted by the constitutional framers, beginning with our responsibility to uphold the First¹⁵ and Second¹⁶ Commandments, both personally and collectively:

I am YHWH thy God…. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I YHWH thy God am a jealous God…. (Exodus 20:2-5)

The first to Commandments were overtly contravened by the establishment clause (an endorsement of polytheism) found in the first amendment of the Constitution. They were also breached throughout the remainder of the Constitution since the First and Second Commandments require observing no other laws but Yahweh’s. As Rushdoony put it: “To have none other gods, means to have no other law than God’s law….,”¹⁷ and because “…His law is the expression of His unchanging nature and righteousness, then to abandon the biblical law for another law-system is to change gods.”¹⁸ It is unfortunate that Rushdoony could not see this as it applies to the U.S. Constitution.

On the other hand, one often hears or reads assertions similar to Archie Jones’, as found in his book The Influence of Historic Christianity on Early America:

…the bill of Rights did not constitute an abandonment of the Christian view of God, men, law, and politics upon which the Constitution was framed…. The fact that the framers and ratifiers were neither pietists, nor intellectual schizophrenics, but, rather, traditional Christians, indicates an intention to have the Constitution conform to traditional American thinking about civil government and law and an intention to make the document consistent with the political and legal implications of the Christianity they professed.¹⁹

How would Jones identify Amendment 1’s provision for First and Second Commandment violations, if not as an abandonment of the Christian view of God? If his statement does not qualify for intellectual or spiritual schizophrenia, what does? The definition of piety is “reverence for God or devout fulfillment of religious obligations.”²⁰ Christian obligations begin with adherence to the First and Second Commandments. Christian responsibility is not found in conforming our beliefs, lives, and government to “traditional American thinking” and to “the political and legal implications of the Christianity [as professed at any given time]….” but rather to conform these areas to Yahweh’s will as found in His perfect law. Once again, it is the difference of a government that is of, by, and for the people (even when adorned with the term “Christianity”) and a government that is of, by, and for Yahweh. The framers and ratifiers should have been less driven by tradition and more authentic in their Christianity – as should we.

Anyone who endorses Amendment 1’s promotion of polytheism also transgresses the Third Commandment²¹:

I [Yahweh] will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon … them that worship and that swear by YHWH, and that swear by Malcham [or any false god]. (Zephaniah 1:4-5)

Taking an oath amounts to an act of worship; therefore, to swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution is to swear by another god.

The Establishment Clause: The Freedom of Religion

Real Christianity is never tolerated when all religions are tolerated for it is too rigid. True Christians cannot have any other God before them, and they will be judged for endorsing a supposed equality of other gods with the true God. Thus Christians who believe in the freedom of all religions believe in their own termination.²²

The First Amendment’s establishment clause (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”) was a compromise by 18th-century Christians. In order to keep the government out of their churches, they allowed the government to authorize any religion whatsoever:

The bedrock Calvinist (and other) clergy were in the forefront of the battle to avoid explicitly religious language in the Federal Constitution because they didn’t want the Feds messing with their state establishments.²³

As an example of this compromising spirit, consider George Mason, one of Virginia’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, an anti-federalist, and “The Father of the Bill of Rights”:

…all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion….²⁴

Federalist James Madison’s sentiment was the same:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. ²⁵

…the door of this part [the House of Representatives] of the federal government is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth or to any particular profession of religious faith. ²⁶

In Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, David Barton recorded a portion of what is contained in the Annals of Congress, regarding the drafting of the First Amendment:

The Annals of Congress from June 8, 1789, to September 25, 1789, contain the complete official records of those who drafted and approved the First Amendment. Notice some of their discussions on its intent: “AUGUST 15, 1789. …Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that ‘Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.’”²⁷

The following is how George Washington, President of the Constitutional Convention, put it to the Virginia Baptists:

If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.²⁸

While serving as President of the United States, Washington was just as adamant when he declared that the United States “government protects all in their religious rights.”²⁹ This does not sound all that much different from what President Barack Obama wrote in an email to CBN senior national correspondent David Brody after declaring that America is no longer an exclusively Christian nation:

…when we’re formulating policies from state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.³⁰

To gain and sustain political popularity, it is important that Obama recognizes members of other faith communities. As reported by The Jerusalem Post, one exit poll revealed that 78% of voting Jews voted for him.³¹ Another modern president, John F. Kennedy, stated his belief in a pluralistic America, as opposed to Yahweh’s exclusivity:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…. I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish … where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials….³²

It is inescapable that the constitutional framers, while perhaps not rejecting Christianity and in many instances even preferring it, rejected a Christian state or commonwealth for a polytheistic one. That this was their intent is probably best attested to by Thomas Jefferson. In reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, enacted one year before the federal Constitutional Convention, Jefferson wrote the following in his autobiography:

Where the preamble [of the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word [sic] “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.³³

Jefferson employed the word “denomination,” not for the various Christian denominations, but for any religion or non-religion, and thereby promoted equal rights for all.

United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger declared, “our system encourages pluralism, both political and religious.”³⁴ In Zorach v. Clausen (1952), Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote, “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary.”³⁵ This is simply more of WE THE PEOPLE deciding to do whatever they deem proper, instead of what Yahweh commands. This is to be expected from non-Christians, but why have Christians lauded such decisions? Because they are under the spell of the Constitution, and they entertain antinomian preachers.

Although it is true that modern courts have sometimes abused certain aspects of the original intent of the constitutional framers (as documented in Barton’s Original Intent), no one can claim that the statements of Justice Burger and Justice Douglas are not in perfect accord with the framers’ intent.

Constitutionalists and Christians alike often quote Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer as one of their favorite witnesses to the alleged fact that the Constitution was a Christian document that produced a Christian government:

This republic is classified among the Christian nations of the world. It was so formally declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 471, that court … added … “a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.³⁶

Seldom, however, do the same people inform their readers that this statement by Justice Brewer is merely dicta – that is, extraneous editorializing opinion, and carries no weight as law. What immediately follows the previous quotation is never cited:

But in what sense can America be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all.³⁷

How can the United States of America be a Christian nation when “all religions have free scope within our borders,” in violation of the First and Second Commandments?

Many Christians were outraged when, in his Call to Renewal Keynote Address on June 28, 2006 (and in subsequent speeches), then Senator Obama acknowledged that we are no longer an exclusively Christian nation:

Given the increasing diversity of America’s population…. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.³⁸

Many Christians were likewise outraged with President Obama’s endorsement of a mosque proposed to be built mere blocks from where the Twin Towers stood. On August 13, 2010, Obama celebrated the Muslim holiday Ramadan with a White House dinner. To approximately 90 attendees, including Muslim community leaders, ambassadors, and dignitaries, he declared that “Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground. But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan….”³⁹

Christians should not be angry with Obama for telling the truth. Instead, they ought to be angered at the genesis of Obama’s statements – Amendment 1 of the Constitution.

Barton definitively proves that the original intent of the establishment clause has been abused by our modern courts; but, in doing so, he completely ignores the much more consequential abuse that Amendment 1 dealt to the First and Second Commandments. Had 18th-century Americans demanded the laws of Yahweh instead of the surrogate the framers provided, the courts’ abuse would have never occurred. America and America’s courts would have been Christian, governed exclusively by Yahweh’s laws. Constitutional courts put all other religions on equal-footing with, in fact, above Christianity.

Another inconsistency of Constitutionalists like Barton as to their claim that they are only interested in the original intent of the framers is that they insist on reading God and Christianity into the Constitution, when the framers explicitly avoided both in the Constitution itself and the Federalist papers.

Barton argues from a flawed paradigm. His desire to return to the original intent of Amendment 1 is an argument against Yahweh and His Word, not for it. If he is truly interested in restoring the Bible and its morality to our courts, schools, and society, he will demand Yahweh’s perfect laws replace the Constitution. Otherwise, he must resign himself to more of the same immorality we have experienced since the ratification of the Constitution:

The modern concept [since 1787] of total toleration is not a valid legal principle but an advocacy of anarchism. Shall all religions be tolerated? But, as we have seen, every religion is a concept of law-order. Total toleration means total permissiveness for every kind of practice: idolatry, adultery, cannibalism, human sacrifice, perversion, and all things else. Such total toleration is neither possible nor desirable…. To tolerate subversion is itself a subversive activity.⁴⁰

Authorizing Religion

While it is true that the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion or even one Christian denomination over all others, it nonetheless authorized religion. If you believe the establishment clause did not actually authorize religion, please consider that eliminating Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice (achieved by Article 6’s interdiction against Christian test oaths), paved the way for Amendment 1 to provide equal footing for all non-Christian and even antichristian religions. The Constitution failed to recognize Christian monotheism, allowing Amendment 1 to fill the void and thereby authorize pagan polytheism.

Amendment 1 did exactly what the framers proclaimed it could not do – it prohibited the exercise of monotheistic Christianity, establishing polytheism in its place. This helps explain the government’s double standard regarding Christian and non-Christian religions. For example, court participants entering the United States District Court of Appeals for the Middle District of Alabama must walk by a statue of the Greek god of Justice, Thebes. And yet, on November 18, 2002, it was this very Court that ruled that Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandment Monument violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and was thus unconstitutional. This was not the hypocrisy that many Christians claimed it was; it was in keeping with the inevitable repercussions provided by those who framed and ratified the First Amendment.

In response to the US Supreme Court’s verdict in Engle v. Vitale, which barred school-sponsored prayer, Dr. Billy Graham declared, “This is another step towards the secularization of the United States…. The framers of our Constitution meant we were to have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”⁴¹ Tragically, Graham’s latter statement has become all but a Christian mantra.

This is much more serious than is recognized by most Christians, who often hang their religious hat on Amendment 1, as if some great Christian principle is carved therein. Christians have gotten so caught up in the battle over the misuse of the establishment clause – the freedom from religion – that they have missed entirely the ungodliness intrinsic in Amendment 1 as originally written – the freedom of religion.

Nothing probably depicts this oxymoronic tendency of Christians more than what was stated by Pastor Benjamin F. Morris in 1864 in his book The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States:

In her [the State of Virginia’s] organic charter and legislative acts, affirms the truth of the Christian system in terms an [sic] follows – By an act of the Assembly in 1705, it was declared, that if any person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God or the Trinity, or asserts that there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable, on the first offence by incapacity to hold office or employment, ecclesiastical, civil, or military….

…This law, opposed to the spirit of Christianity … was abolished in 1786 by the following –

“Act for Establishing Religious Freedom: …all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.⁴²

Neither Jefferson’s nor Morris’ religious forbearance was the spirit of Christianity; instead, theirs was the spirit of pluralistic polytheism. Morris’ assertion that Virginia’s organic charter’s intolerance toward non-Christians holding ecclesiastical, civil, or military office or employment was “opposed to the spirit of Christianity” is a classic case of calling “evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). Had America held to Virginia’s organic charter, the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood massacre (in which 13 people were killed and 30 others wounded) at the hands of Muslim Major Nidal Malik Hasan would have never occurred. In other words, Amendment 1 is the genesis of what occurred that fateful day.

The spirit of Christianity – as it concerns biblical monotheism – is perhaps best depicted in the following instructions to the delegates of Mecklenburg County. It bears the date September 1, 1775, at which time the first Provincial Congress of North Carolina was in session:

You are instructed to assent and consent to the establishment of the Christian religion, as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be the religion of the state, to the utter exclusion forever of all and every other (falsely so called) religion, whether pagan or papal … and that a confession and profession of the religion so established shall be necessary in qualifying any person for public trust in the state.⁴³

What Amendment 1 is really saying is that the United States government is no respecter of religions or gods. How does this square with Yahweh’s law? Whereas Amendment 1 welcomes all religions and therefore all gods with open arms, Yahweh’s law demands that proponents of such First and Second Commandment violations be put to death:

If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for YHWH your God proveth you, to know whether ye love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after YHWH your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from YHWH your God … to thrust thee out of the way which YHWH thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from YHWH thy God…. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which YHWH thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for YHWH thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the Lord may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; when thou shalt hearken to the voice of YHWH thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of YHWH thy God. (Deuteronomy 13:1-18)

In view of Yahweh’s zeal for Himself as depicted in this and many other passages, what do you suppose He thinks of the framers and their constitutional provision for polytheism? What do you suppose He thinks of anyone today who lauds and supports their actions?

If you are inclined to say this was meant only for Old Covenant times, please consider the following New Covenant directive:

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (Luke 19:27)

Furthermore, the New Covenant is built upon the same moral laws (Commandments, statutes, and judgments) as was the Old Covenant:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel⁴⁴ after those days, saith YHWH; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. (Hebrews 8:10)

With these passages in mind, it becomes obvious that the constitutional framers committed a capital crime and, instead of being eulogized, they should have been put to death. (For more regarding Yahweh’s laws as they apply today, see Chapter 2. For more regarding Yahweh’s righteous judgments, see Chapter 17.)

After enumerating many of the consequences resulting from men choosing or allowing other gods – all of which beset us today – the Apostle Paul also prescribed the death penalty for those who would substitute other gods for Yahweh:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man [and in some instances, for man himself, as in the Preamble]…. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge [as with the godless Constitution], God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:21-32)

The debauchery described by Paul, which is rife in America today, is not the consequence of American courts’ departure from the original intent of Amendment 1, as some Constitutionalists would have us believe. It is the consequence of adhering to that intent, which provided for the worship of gods other than Yahweh.

This is not to say that individuals do not have the right to believe as they will or not to believe at all. Yahweh’s law does not legislate faith; it does, however, pass judgment on those who would propagate faith in gods other than Yahweh. In other words, suppression of non-Christian religions does not mean suppression of non-Christians themselves. Under Yahweh’s law, strangers are provided special protection along with widows and orphans; nevertheless, they are required to abide by the same laws, with equal protection under those laws (Exodus 12:49; Leviticus 18:26, 24:22; Numbers 15:15-16; Deuteronomy 27:19, 31:12).

Amendment 1 has so conditioned contemporary Christians that the idea of putting someone to death because they promote some other god than Yahweh is completely foreign, even abhorrent to them. Nevertheless, do not forget that in the early American colonies, such as in New Haven, Connecticut, they based their government upon Yahweh’s laws instead of man’s and required this very judgment for blatant idolaters:

Whosever shall worship any other God than the Lord shall be put to death. (New Haven’s Fundamental Agreement)

Instead of promoting this righteous judgment (Psalm 19:9, Revelation 16:7) prescribed by Yahweh and recognized by America’s true 17th-century founders, the 18th-century usurpers, obviously considered their “morality” more righteous than Yahweh’s.

If only the 18th-century Christians had been as jealous for Yahweh as was Elijah (1 Kings 19:10) on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings 18, wherein he slew 850 prophets of Baal who dared challenge Yahweh’s exclusive sovereignty. Elijah was obviously indifferent about the “religious rights” of these Baal priests. And if only today’s 21st-century Christians were as jealous for Yahweh as were the Israelites in Joshua 22, wherein the very appearance of impropriety against Yahweh was enough to stir them to action against Reuben, Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh.

Instead, thanks to the Constitutional framers and other founders like Thomas Jefferson, America has become one of the most pluralistic, polytheistic, multicultural nations on the entire globe. And with the help of men like Barton and other Constitutionalists, it will continue as such.

Ancient Rome Revisited

How can anyone conclude that Amendment 1 comports with Yahweh’s laws? The Constitution’s tolerance for every religion but Christianity does not sound like biblical Christianity but like ancient Rome. Rome’s republican form of government strongly influenced the framers from which they borrowed the framework for the United States Constitutional Republic.

…the Founders relied somewhat on classical (mainly Roman) jurisprudence, even more so than an inherited Puritan ethic, and did not fashion a specifically biblonomic (Bible-based) state….⁴⁵

Christians often point out the parallels between ancient Rome and modern America. Seldom, however, do these same people call attention to the initial and most important parallel – the pluralistic and polytheistic foundations of both nations. When this affinity is acknowledged, Christian Constitutionalists are often found defending it. For example, Pastor Chuck Baldwin (as part of his platform as the Constitution’s Party’s 2008 presidential candidate) passionately defended the freedom of religion:

…even though I am a born again Christian … I would take my responsibility to protect the religious liberty of every American seriously. People have the right to worship God (or not worship God) according to the dictates of their own conscience. [This much is true.] Whether one is Baptist, Catholic, Mormon, or agnostic [someone needs to press Baldwin regarding Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.], people have the right to practice their faith as they see fit. I am absolutely dedicated to preserving religious liberty. Religious tyranny is as evil as political or social tyranny.⁴⁶

Baldwin takes seriously his responsibility to protect polytheism; he even identified Yahweh’s religious, political, and social exclusivity as tyrannous and evil. He, obviously, does not take seriously his responsibility to Yahweh’s inalienable and exclusive right to divinity and sovereignty.

Bishop T.D. Jakes, in his denunciation of theocracies, also depicted Yahweh’s exclusivity as tyranny:

A country that has one national religion as its only compass is much more of a theocracy than a democracy. That kind of tyranny leads to [all kinds of evil]…. I love democracy….⁴⁷

Rick Scarborough (head of Vision America) unashamedly claims the following on his website, under the heading “Religious Freedom”:

We believe that freedom of religion is the foundation of America’s liberty. We oppose any and every attempt to suppress or to marginalize the free expression of religion in America.⁴⁸

Had Scarborough exchanged the word “religion” for “Christianity,” this would have been a true statement. As is, however, the freedom of religion produces precisely the opposite result: the foundation of America’s spiritual slavery and the door to moral decadence. Baldwin’s, Jakes’, and Scarborough’s statements are another fulfillment of Isaiah 5:20 – calling evil good and good evil. Baldwin, Jakes, Scarborough, and anyone else who promotes Amendment 1’s freedom of religion, rather than Christian exclusivity (John 14:6, Acts 4:12, 2 John 1:7-11, etc.), is a propagator of pluralism and polytheism and, therefore, sedition and treason against Yahweh.

The Free Exercise Clause is a way to protect different sources of religious meaning and assure full and equal citizenship for believers – and non-believers – of all stripes. In other words, it helps to foster pluralism and thus allow each person and each group full play of their ideas and faiths.⁴⁹

This propensity for defending polytheism by people claiming to be Christians is not a modern phenomenon. It was prevalent immediately before, during, and soon after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, as evidenced in many early legislative declarations and judicial decisions. Some judges audaciously attempted to attribute the freedom of religion, or pluralistic polytheism, to Christianity:

What gave to us this noble safeguard of religious toleration? It was Christianity.⁵⁰

City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin

Barton cited some of these cases and even appeared to relish and promote this heretical idea:

In view of the Charleston court [City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 1846, Supreme Court of South Carolina], Christian principles had produced America’s toleration for other religions; and while America did legislate according to Christian standards of conduct for social behavior, it did not tell other religions how, where, when, or even whether to worship. The only restraints placed on those religions were that their religious practices not be licentious or subversive of public morality or safety. Aside from these stipulations, America granted broad religious toleration to other religions not in spite of, but because of its Christian beliefs.⁵¹

If Congress were legislating and the judiciary were adjudicating according to Christian standards, they would not tolerate other religions in defiance of the First and Second Commandments.

The court [Lindenmuller v. the People, 1860, Supreme Court of New York] further explained that maintaining an official respect for Christianity did not infringe upon the free exercise of religion for others; instead, it provided an umbrella of protection: “Religious tolerance is entirely consistent with a recognized religion. Christianity may be conceded to be [the] established religion to the qualified extent mentioned, while perfect civil and political equality with freedom of conscience and religious preference is secured to individuals of every other creed and profession….⁵²

In an article entitled “Why Non-Christian Religions are Tolerated in America,” William J. Federer posited three reasons why he believes this is so:

Given that America’s population was predominately Christian at the time of the nation’s founding gives rise to the question: What would motivate a predominantly Christian populace to promote tolerance of non-Christians? Three reasons can be identified: sharing the Gospel, Christian teaching on tolerance, and Jesus’ example.⁵³

None of these reasons stand the biblical test. Sharing the gospel demands that someone repent of their non-Christian religion not that their non-Christian religion be tolerated. Nowhere does the Bible tolerate any religion that does not teach exclusive fealty to Yahweh. Yeshua’s example is no different. As we have already seen, in Luke 19:27, He declared that anyone who would not confess that He should reign over them should be slain, in perfect accord with the judgment for First Commandment violation. The same “logic” could and is used to promote toleration of sodomites.

In his book America, a Christian Nation? Examining the Evidence of the Christian Foundations of America, Stephen McDowell demonstrates how far a person can stray from Yahweh’s law in trying to defend the Constitution as a Christian document:

To define a Christian nation, we must first state what it is not. A Christian nation is not one where Christianity is the established religion…. At Independence, 8 of the 13 colonies had a specific denomination as the established religion, and 4 others had general Protestant Christianity receiving preference. The national government under the United States Constitution had no such establishment. State establishments were gradually ended due to the advancement of Christian ideas of religious liberty….⁵⁴

Ironically, McDowell later provided the correct answer to his own query regarding what it takes to be a Christian nation, which, in turn, proves that from the Constitution’s ratification America ceased being a Christian nation:

A Christian nation is a nation that is founded upon Biblical principles, where Biblical truth and law are the standard [supreme law] for public life, law, and societal institutions.⁵⁵

Where did these justices, Barton, Federer, and McDowell come up with such a sophistic and heretical idea? Not from the Bible, but from Amendment 1 of the Constitution. This demonstrably proves which of the two is their supreme law.

Ye have wearied YHWH with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of YHWH, and he delighteth in them…. (Malachi 2:17)

While it is true that the First Amendment’s establishment clause was meant to restrict the federal government from regulating state religion and that most of the states initially promoted Christianity, it is also true that the states legislated freedom for all religions – Christian, non-Christian, and even antichristian. Two years prior to the Constitutional Convention, in his Memorial and Remonstrance (written in opposition to a state bill introduced by Patrick Henry entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of Christianity), James Madison (who introduced the First Amendment as part of the Bill of Rights on June 7, 1789) argued for the freedom of all religions, Christian and non-Christian alike:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?⁵⁶

Governor Samuel Johnston made the following observations during North Carolina’s ratifying convention:

I know but two or three States where there is the least chance of establishing any particular religion…. I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will see there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established.⁵⁷

After quoting Governor Johnston, Barton argues that “the records … clearly document that the founders’ purpose for the First Amendment is not compatible with the interpretation given it by contemporary courts. The Founders intended only to prevent the establishment of a single national denomination….” But Barton also argues for pluralistic polytheism when he continues that they had no intention to “restrain public religious expressions.”⁵⁸ He later elaborated:

Numerous religions did exist in America at the time of the Founders; and the Founders understood the potential value of any major religion to a society; but they specifically preferred Christianity.... Yet, even though the Founders openly acknowledged their veneration for [the antichrist religion of] Judaism,⁵⁹ nonetheless believed that the teachings of Christ provided the greatest benefit for civil society…. Does this mean that the Founders opposed pluralism? No [and why didn’t they?] – as long as the beliefs of other religions did not manifest in violent or deviant behavior [such as Judaism’s?] which might threaten the stability of civil society. In fact, the Founders believed that pluralism survived only within the concept of religious liberty espoused by American Christianity. Indeed, both modern and ancient history demonstrate that most, if not all other religious nations (whether Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, monarchial Christian, etc.) rarely allow pluralism. However, independent America was different; it allowed the “free exercise” of other religions. In fact, early courts openly acknowledged that America was pluralistic and tolerant of other religions only because it was a Christian nation.⁶⁰

I think the Apostle Paul would take exception to Barton, who appears to believe the First Commandment is no longer valid under the New Covenant. Amendment 1 is a return to the Tower of Babel and Mars Hill, where Paul found the polytheistic “city [of Athens] wholly given to idolatry.” For this sin, Paul required the idolaters to repent or face Yahweh’s judgment (Acts 17:16-31).

For documentation, Barton cited Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, member of the Continental Congress, and supposedly great Christian man:

Such is my veneration for every religion that reveals the attributes of the Deity, or a future state of rewards and punishments, that I had rather see the opinions of Confucius or Mohamed inculcated upon our youth than see them grow up wholly devoid of a system of religious principles. But the religion I mean to recommend in this place is that of the New Testament….⁶¹

Christianity (as defined by Rush not Yahweh) may have been Rush’s religion of choice, but the fact that he and many other 18th-century Christians were, nonetheless, polytheists made the 1989 decision in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU inevitable:

The history of this Nation, it is perhaps sad to say, contains numerous examples of official acts that endorsed Christianity specifically…. This court, however, squarely has rejected … any favoritism for Christianity that may have existed among the Founders of the Republic.⁶²

In his Living to Win Newsletter, Pastor Ronald L. Dart optimistically maintained that “Freedom of religion can only be maintained where there is no establishment of religion.”⁶³ That Dart is absolutely correct only goes to further prove that Amendment 1 is hostile to Yahweh’s absolute claim to deity and Christianity’s exclusive claim to true and genuine religion.

The First and Second Commandments and their death-penalty judgments reveal that freedom of religion (except within the confines of Christianity) is anathema to Yahweh.

The Republic provided via the Constitution – particularly by Article 6 and Amendment 1 – is essentially ancient Rome revisited. Rome was and America is ruled by humanism or statism, in which WE THE PEOPLE is the principal (albeit far from the most powerful) deity, the mother of a pantheon of gods:

Two centuries before the birth of Christ, the Dea Roma cult in Smyrna had elevated the people of Rome and the city to divine status. The Roman Empire later elevated the “genius of the Emperor” to the status of divinity. In the Emperor was the personification of the divine State.⁶⁴

The conflict of Christianity with Rome was thus political from the Roman perspective, although religious from the Christian perspective. The Christians were never asked to worship Rome’s pagan gods; they were merely asked to recognize the religious primacy of the state…. The issue, then, was this: should the emperor’s law, state law, govern both the state and the church, or were both state and church, emperor and bishop alike, under God’s law? Who represented true and ultimate order, God or Rome, eternity or time? The Roman answer was Rome and time, and hence Christianity constituted a treasonable faith and a menace to political order.⁶⁵

Like Rome, post-1787 America is tolerant of all religions, provided they are subservient to the mother god WE THE PEOPLE, or more particularly, the government representing WE THE PEOPLE. Unlike post-1787 America, 1st-century Christendom stood opposed to Rome and her polytheistic predisposition:

…they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also … and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. (Acts 17:6-7)

For the same reason, genuine Christianity – that is, Christendom – stands opposed to the Constitution. Conversely, Christendumb is spiritually schizophrenic. On one hand, it claims to follow Yahweh, while on the other, it stands behind and promotes a document that is hostile to Yahweh’s exclusive claim to divinity:

Genuine Christianity recognizes the inherent rights and freedoms of all its people to live their lives under the authority of but one king, King Jesus. It believes that all authority is subjected to the authority of God and is, therefore, limited. As a result, real Christians respect the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights [the very documents that nationally undermined and overthrew the authority of Yahweh and kingship of Yeshua].⁶⁶

On October 19, 2009, Gary DeMar interviewed John Otis, author of Unveiling Freemasonry’s Idolatry, on his radio program. Otis referred to a Freemason pamphlet, Freemasonry: An Explanation to the Non-Member, that states, “A man [wanting to become a Mason] … must profess a belief in the Diety (sic) and in the immortality of the soul. In other words, a Mason must be religious; whether he be Jewish, Christian, Mohammedan or whatever is strictly up to him.”⁶⁷ Otis and DeMar were rightfully outraged at the idea that at “the lodge … the Buddhist, the Jew, the Christian, and the Hindu can gather at the same altar and pray to the one God,”⁶⁸ and yet DeMar champions the Constitution that does precisely the same thing – a document that was, at least in part, created by Freemasons.

Additional Consequences

There are compounded consequences that attend the national polytheism enabled by Amendment 1. North elaborates:

Antinomianism therefore leads directly to the concept of political pluralism…. Political pluralism has consequences. It leads directly to polytheism: many moral law-orders; therefore, many gods [or many gods, therefore, many law-orders]. Polytheism (all gods are equal) leads to relativism (all moral codes are equal); relativism leads to humanism (man makes his own laws); and humanism leads to statism (the State best represents mankind as the pinnacle of power).⁶⁹

Government sanction of non-Christian religions eventually led to citizenship for those who worshipped gods other than Yahweh, and citizenship inevitably led to a right to vote, which eventually led to antichrists and non-Christians ruling over Christians in contradiction to Deuteronomy 17:15, 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, etc. In a letter to Joseph Simpson, a prominent Baltimore Jew, John Tyler (tenth President of United States) made it clear that this is precisely what Amendment 1 provided:

The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent – that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of government are open alike to all…. The Mohammedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political institutions.⁷⁰

Antichrist Jews have been in Congress since 1845 when Lewis Charles Levin became the first Jewish member of Congress. (Francis Salvador was the first Jew to serve in public office in state capacity, when he was elected in 1774 as a delegate to the first South Carolina Provincial Congress.) On March 4, 1851, John Milton Bernhisel – the first representative of the Utah Territory – became the first Mormon in Congress. On February 17, 1925, Florence Prag Kahn became the first Jewish Congresswoman. Dalip Singh Saund, elected to the House on September 20, 1956, became the first Indian-born Sikh. Pete Stark, first elected to Congress in 1972, became the first public atheist congressman. On September 23, 2006, Mazie K. Hirono became the first elected Buddhist. And on November 7, 2006, Keith Ellison became the first Muslim to be elected to the United States Congress.

Without a common faith and, therefore, a common law, it is impossible for those of diverse religions (particularly those of Christian and non-Christian religions) to walk in agreement. In fact, Yahweh explicitly forbids His people from even attempting to do so:

Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor with their gods. They shall not dwell in thy land, lest they make thee sin against me: for if thou serve their gods, it will surely be a snare unto thee. (Exodus 23:32-33)

Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee: But ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves: For thou shalt worship no other god: for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. (Exodus 34:12-16)

…thou shalt make no covenant with them…. (Deuteronomy 7:2)

The First Amendment is a covenant of the type expressly forbidden by Yahweh in these passages, and His jealousy in this regard has not changed from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house [including the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate] neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (2 John 1:7-11)

Anyone claiming that the Constitution – which unabashedly promotes pluralistic polytheism – is harmonious, even amicable, with Yahweh and His Word is compelled to answer the Psalmist’s question:

Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee [Yahweh and His people], which frameth mischief by a law? (Psalm 94:20)

Essentially the same question, together with its answer, was put to King Jehoshaphat by Jehu the seer:

Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate YHWH? Therefore is wrath upon thee from before YHWH. (2 Chronicles 19:2)

Simply put: yesterday’s and today’s Constitutionalists have made themselves accomplices in the evil deeds of antichrists.

That men like Madison and Washington had no compunction about including in society (and later placing over society) the purveyors of the religion of Judaism is witnessed in their correspondence with Jews and Jewish Synagogues. Madison wrote the following to Mordecai M. Noah:

I have recd. Your letter of the 6th, with the eloquent discourse delivered at the Consecration of the Jewish Synagogue. Having ever regarded the freedom of religious opinions & worship as equally belonging to every sect … I observe with pleasure the view you give of the spirit in which your Sect partake of the blessings offered by our Govt. and Laws.⁷¹

In other words, Madison admitted he was proud the United States Constitutional Republic provided the freedom of religion, and more particularly the right of the purveyors of the antichrist religion of Judaism⁷² to vote and someday be voted into government office.

This overthrow of 17th-century Christian dominion was in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28:15 and 43 and a complete reversal of what we find Acts 17:6-7. To laud Amendment 1 and, therefore, the Constitution, is tantamount to promoting non-Christian and even antichristian supremacy over Christians.

The Pledge of Allegiance contains the words “one nation under God,” so familiar to Americans and so often parroted especially by Christians. It is taken for granted that this phrase is referring to Yahweh, the God of the Christian Bible. However, because He is never identified by His principle name, what is taken for granted by so many people may not necessarily be true. Even if the phrase read “one nation under Yahweh,” would not make it a reality. The fact is, ever since the addition and ratification of the First Amendment, we have instead been one nation under many gods.

A statement from the Texas case Reynolds v. Rayborn (1938) says it all:

Beyond my comprehension are the vagaries of people who claim and accept the protection of their government in order to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, but refuse to salute their country’s flag in recognition of such protection. Yet … their constitutional right must be held sacred; when this ceases, religious freedom ceases.⁷³

In other words, when we finally rid ourselves of the Constitution, the biblically abhorrent practice of polytheism will go with it.

Separation of Church From State

In God, Caesar, and The Constitution, Leo Pfeffer provided interesting perspective on the Free Exercise clause:

…“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But these words added nothing in substance to the Constitution as written four years earlier, nor were they intended to. Instead, they made explicit what was implicit in the original document, namely, that Caesar was to have no traffic with God or, as Madison phrased it, that there should be “a separation between religion and government”….

That this was the intent of the framers of the Constitution is evidenced by the fact that during the four months the members of the constitutional convention met in Philadelphia, not once did they engage in prayer. More important testimony is the text of the Preamble to the Constitution, which, in listing the six purposes of the new government, deliberately and carefully limited itself to secular purposes and did not even include, as the radical Declaration of Independence did, an invocation to God and an acknowledgement of man’s dependence upon Him. Indeed, the Constitution itself does not mention God; it is literally a “Godless” instrument. It does once mention religion, or more accurately “religious,” but only because it was necessary to do so in order to exclude it.⁷⁴

This is an obvious departure from nearly every American government organ that preceded the Constitution and an unequivocal exodus from biblical protocol.

The doctrine of separation of church and state is a modern development. In primitive society, the patriarch was both priest and temporal ruler. And “in most ancient communities, the priest was also king and judge.” Theocracy … was a government of priests…. In the American colonies, church and state were closely related, but the founders of the federal and most of the state governments were careful “to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.”

Formerly it was not considered improper that the three basic functions of government – those of making the law, enforcing the law, and interpreting the law in the settlement of controversies – should be exercised by one supreme authority, and such is still the practice in many parts of the world. Thus it will be seen that Moses not only made or promulgated the law, but also that he was leader or king, and that he sat as judge.⁷⁵

Religion is not absent from daily life in the United States; rather, the Constitution has created a system in which each individual and religious group can enjoy the full freedom to worship, free not only from the reign of government but from pressures by other sects as well…. Religious freedom requires, above all else, the divorce of a nation’s religious life from its political institutions, and this separation of church and state, as it is called, is … of recent vintage.⁷⁶

Americans, non-Christians and Christians alike, have been well-trained to believe this is all well and good when, in fact, it is an affront to Yahweh. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the landmark case regarding prayer in public schools, Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black argued on behalf of separation of church from state:

[Its] most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion.⁷⁷

It is certainly true that government is degraded by any religion other than Yahweh’s. Yahweh’s laws provide just the opposite effect to government. Perfect laws provide for a perfect government.

Christians have been incensed regarding this decision to strike down prayer in public schools. However, because the United States of America was established as a pluralistic society with equal religious expression for all, Christians (who have their children in public school) should be thankful that Black’s court eliminated prayer. Otherwise, as with the Senate and House, their children would be subject to prayers (and possible conversion) by clerics from any religion.

In “Biblical Law in America: Historical Perspectives and Potentials for Reform,” John W. Welch that strict separation of church and state did not exist prior to age of enlightenment:

Modern scholarship, along with secular politics, typically maintains a strict separation of church and state, religion and law. But this is strictly a post-enlightenment phenomenon. Even Thomas Jefferson crossed out the preceding word “eternal” in the draft of his Danbury letter when he coined the phrase “wall of separation.” The current categorical constructs of “church” and “state” did not exist two hundred years ago, let alone in any ancient society.⁷⁸

It is also important to point out that separation of church and state is a mainstay of Freemasonry. In his book Masons Who Helped Shape Our Nation, Sovereign Grand Commander Henry C. Clausen documented that separation of church and state is one of Freemasonry’s principle goals:

The Supreme Council, 33°, Mother Jurisdiction, states its educational goals that have characterized Freemasonry in America and promoted liberty and justice. They are: …The complete separation of church and state, and opposition to any direct or indirect diversions of public funds to church-related schools or institutions. These goals clearly summarize the on-going stand of the Scottish Rite, historically, now and for the future….

The last point – separation of church and state in education, as elsewhere – is a Masonic goal that dates back to the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights…. Freemasons have defended this concept throughout American history….

Prominent among these who have fought successfully for the preservation of the great American principle of separation of church and state is Dr. Glenn L. Archer , [founder and] Executive Director, and Dr. C. Stanley Lowell, Associate Director of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State; both Thirty-third Degree members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.⁷⁹

Conflicting Evidence

There appears to be some conflicting evidence regarding some of the constitutional framers’ thinking and their statements about Amendment 1’s establishment clause:

As President, he [James Madison] demonstrated his commitment to separation of church and state when he vetoed bills incorporating the Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C., and reserving federal land for a Baptist Church. Apparently with some misgivings, however, Madison yielded to the precedent set by Washington and issued three proclamations recommending public humiliation and prayer and one recommending a day of thanksgiving “to Almighty God for His great goodness.”…

In retirement, Madison argued for complete separation between Christianity and government, asserting that the establishment clause prohibited presidential religious proclamations, as well as congressional and military chaplains.⁸⁰

In a letter written in 1822, Madison asserted that “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters” should be maintained because “religion and Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”⁸¹

Jefferson also appears to have held conflicting opinions. Consider his legendary statement to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association in 1802 regarding “a wall of separation between Church & State.”⁸² Despite some of Jefferson’s statements to the contrary, one cannot help but wonder how influenced he was by Scottish Minister James Burgh who, along with polytheist and apostate Puritan minister Roger Williams, was one of the original sources of the separation metaphor.⁸³ Burgh wrote Political Disquisitions, one of four books/writers on politics recommended by Jefferson. “In Burgh’s book Crito, published in London in 1767 and widely read in America, Burgh suggested that it was essential to ‘build an impenetrable wall of separation between things sacred and civil.’ Decades before Jefferson, Burgh had offered the metaphoric alternative to the Christian commonwealth.”⁸⁴

Burg’s position sounds very similar to Everson v. Board of Education (1947):

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.⁸⁵

Joseph Priestly, the founder of Unitarianism and a close friend and correspondent with Jefferson and Franklin, explained separation of church and state in the following terms:

The state, according to Priestley, has no authority to legislate tests of religious correctness. It deals only with “things that relate to this life,” while the church deals only with “those that relate to the life to come.”⁸⁶

This was very similar to Jefferson’s sentiments in a letter to P.H. Wendover, written on March 13, 1815, regarding political sermons:

On one question only I differ from him [Pastor McLeod], and it is … the right of discussing public affairs in the pulpit. …I suppose there is not an instance of a single congregation which has employed their preacher for the mixed purposes of lecturing them from the pulpit in Chemistry, in Medicine, in Law, in the science and principles of Government, or in anything but Religion exclusively. Whenever, therefore, preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put them off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want….

I agree, too, that on all other occasions, the preacher has the right, equally with every other citizen, to express his sentiments, in speaking or writing, on the subjects of Medicine, Law, Politics, &c., his leisure time being his own….⁸⁷

I think Jefferson would have been in favor of today’s 501(c)(3) tax exempt incorporation restrictions upon pastors, which prohibit them from speaking on political issues.

This is not that far removed from the erroneous theology of some of the great religious reformers who, undoubtedly, influenced many of the United States Government’s founding fathers:

…God has ordained the two governments [some translations have it “kingdoms”], the spiritual which fashions true Christians just persons through the Holy Spirit under Christ, and the secular government which holds the Unchristian and wicked in check and forces them to keep the peace outwardly…. Therefore care must be taken to keep these two governments distinct….

Martin Luther⁸⁸

We have established that there are two governments to which mankind is subject. …the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government are things far removed from one another. …[secular] government and the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ are quite distinct.

John Calvin⁸⁹

This is precisely how today’s non-Christians want it, because those who hold earthly authority control life and everything related to it. Ultimately, the secularists could not keep their hands off even the church, as evidenced in, among other things, their tax exempt 501(c)(3) government licensing of most churches and preachers. Do not be fooled, despite what the courts would have us believe, secularism is not religiously neutral. While secularists proclaim separation of church from state, they promote the integration and supremacy of the state over the church. Ultimately, this was the position of even Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer:

In the Old Testament there was a theocracy commanded by God. In the New Testament, with the church being made up of Jews and Gentiles, and spreading all over the known world … the church was its own entity. There is no New Testament basis for a linking of church and state until Christ the King returns.⁹⁰

Schaeffer’s position inevitably leads to the do-nothingness – what North identified as “passive waiting” versus “active service”⁹¹ – so prevalent in contemporary Christianity. Schaeffer’s dismal world view can be traced in part to his misconceptions regarding the Kingdom, the church, the Jews, and the gentiles (evidenced even in his capitalization of the word “gentiles”).⁹² (See Chapter 2 for biblical evidence confirming the extant kingdom.)

The Southern Baptist Convention is in lockstep with Schaeffer. Under the heading “Religious Liberty,” its members essentially repeated Jefferson’s statement to the Danbury Baptists. They also revealed their polytheistic proclivities:

Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others…. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.⁹³

Everything in this life is a moral issue, if only because Yahweh remains involved in every aspect of this life. Everything is under His sovereign oversight and control. There is, therefore, no such thing as separation of church and state as it is usually thought of and as portrayed by Isaac Kramnick and Laurence Moore:

If the past proves anything, it proves that religious affiliation can affect voter’s attitudes on a broad range of issues that seemingly have nothing to do with religion…. Politics in a secular state [such as in the United States Constitutional Republic] means that there is no Christian position on whether tax cuts are a good or a bad idea, on whether the terms of congressmen ought to be limited, and whether the capital gains tax ought to be lowered.⁹⁴

While most people, even most Christians (particularly antinomians) would agree with Kramnick and Moore, tax cuts, term limits, and capital gain taxes are all moral issues and therefore things that Yahweh’s laws address. (For more regarding some of what Yahweh’s laws have to say about taxation and term limits, see Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, respectively.) This same fatalistic theology is also taught by Edward Gaffney, Jr. – professor of Constitutional law at the Catholic Valparaiso University School of Law and editor of The Journal of Law and Religion:

First, I assume that the Bible is not a detailed historical blueprint for American society, and that it does not contain much concrete guidance for the resolution of specific political conflicts or constitutional difficulties such as slavery and racism, sexism and equal opportunity to participate in society. The biblical traditions are not to be viewed as an arsenal of prooftexts for contemporary disputes.⁹⁵

If the Bible and Yahweh’s perfect laws do not hold the blueprint for modern society, then what does? This is a question seldom asked by Christians and certainly not one the secularists want to bring to our attention. North’s conclusions are inescapable:

If Christians as citizens are not required by God to bring their Bible-based views to bear on politics, and to pass legislation that conforms to God’s revealed case laws [Commandments, statutes, and judgments], then anti-Christians inherit all civil governments by default.⁹⁶

In our day, this means that civil law-making is turned over to humanism. Christians have unwittingly become the philosophical allies of the humanists with respect to civil law.⁹⁷

Because Christians have self-consciously refused to exercise God’s sanctions [judgments] in history – in Church, State, and family – we are now facing an escalating series of crises in Church, State, and family.⁹⁸

Christians have promoted separation of church from state almost as adamantly as non-Christians:

We ask for no union of church and State – that is a thing which we utterly repudiate….⁹⁹

…this movement [to religiously amend the Preamble of the Constitution] contemplates no more union of church and state in the future than there has been in the past….¹⁰⁰

…the union of Church and State. Truly this is a giant evil. It is well worth while to give warning of anything and everything that threatens, however remotely, to bring that about, and we will all join you in doing so. …a union of Church and State would [be viewed with] detestation and dread. We all sincerely and most heartily repudiate any design or desire to effect it. As promptly as any one, we would both resent and resist it.¹⁰¹

Regrettably, even many Christians who hold to a dominion mindset have fallen prey to Amendment 1’s establishment clause, not only in that they have been hoodwinked into believing that it is somehow Christian, but also in that they attempt to adopt it into their Christian worldview:

Church and State are separate covenantal institutions.¹⁰²

Both church and state had their own spheres of action and neither was to transgress the domain of the other.¹⁰³

I would suggest that a more correct view to understanding the Christian role in Christian civil government was articulated by British statesman Edmund Burke (1729-97):

…in a Christian commonwealth the church and state are one and the same thing, being different integral parts of the same whole.”¹⁰⁴

European Christianity unquestionably abused this concept, but their abuse does not negate the veracity of “integral parts of the same whole.” When one understands the full meaning of the Greek word ekklesia (a called-out society), regrettably translated “church” in our New Testament, the veracity of Burke’s explanation becomes apparent. Ekklesia does not differentiate but is comprised of both the Christian church (as it is generally thought of) and the Christian state.

This is also demonstrated in that the priests and Levites often served as judges (Deuteronomy 17:9-12, 21:5; 1 Chronicles 26:20, 29; 2 Chronicles 19:5-8; Ezekiel 44:24) and Moses and Samuel held positions of priest, judge, and prophet simultaneously. Although it is true that under the Old Covenant, kings were not allowed to function as priests (1 Samuel 13:5-14 and 2 Chronicles 26:16-21), priests could be judges:

The presence of the priests and Levites did not mean a confusion [nor separation] of church and state: it meant the total permeation of church and state, as well as every other institution, by the authority of God’s word.¹⁰⁵

It is unfortunate that many dominion-oriented Christians are teaching the non-biblical two-kingdom concept. In God & Caesar: Christian Faith & Political Action, John Eidsmoe explains:

God has established two kingdoms on this earth, the church and the state. He has given certain authority to each, and he has also placed certain limitations upon each.¹⁰⁶

…the First Amendment is an excellent expression of the “two Kingdoms” concept and an excellent means of preserving the religious liberty god has given us.¹⁰⁷

The First Amendment “excellent expression” of the two-kingdom concept only goes to further prove it is not biblical.

As a consequence of this same biblically errant doctrine and in defense of the Constitution, Christian attorney Herb Titus believes the Bible should not even be applied to civil government:

While it would be appropriate to apply the Bible as a church covenant, it would not be so in the formation of a civil government.¹⁰⁸

At the same time, Titus inadvertently condemned the Constitution as tyrannous:

The very nature of legislative power presupposes that it is vesting only that power that conforms to God’s law. If Congress enacts a bill into law that is in violation of God’s law, it is not, by definition, exercising legislative power, but has become a tyranny.¹⁰⁹

Eidsmoe revealed the inevitable conclusion of the two-kingdom concept:

…according to the two-kingdoms concept … Caesar has jurisdiction over certain things, but others are left to God.¹¹⁰

It was this same concept that eventuated in the chief priests’ proclamation to Pilate that they had “no king but Caesar” (John 19:15), in fulfillment of Matthew 6:24:

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24)

The two-kingdom concept is in reality a fictitious impossibility – one realm inevitably rules over the other realm:

It may appear strange that the church, which after all is an institution of God, should itself be an arena of conflict between Him and Caesar. Yet it very much is, and has been ever since they parted company and set up separate establishments.

There are several reasons for this. In the first place both claim sovereignty and do not take kindly to rivals, particularly when both claim jurisdiction over the same domain. During the middle ages popes exerted and exercised the right to enthrone and dethrone princes. By the time our republic was established, the tables had turned, and European governments exercised the power in respect to the princes of the church.¹¹¹

Because of the Constitution, Amendment 1 in particular, Christians have adopted the two kingdom concept, ultimately relegating civil authority – the most powerful realm as it concerns earthly dominion – to the non-Christians. Either non-Christians will be ruled by Christians or Christians will be ruled by non-Christians. The more powerful body’s judiciary determines conflicts between the two. It is no wonder that under today’s Constitutional Republic that the tide has turned against Christianity.

There is only one kingdom taught in the Bible, which provides that only Christians rule, judge, preach, and teach.

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story hit the proverbial nail on the head:

The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion; the being and attributes and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions; founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; – these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as Divine revelation, to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects.

It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in assignable shape.¹¹²

A government based upon Yahweh’s laws, not only promotes the exclusive worship of Yahweh, but stands ready to punish any overt acts of idolatry or polytheism.

Four Generation Impact

…other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 470, 471)

The great number of “organic utterances” testifying that the United States is a Christian nation (many of which are cited in Barton’s Original Intent), do not offset the First and Second Commandment violations committed by those who framed, ratified, held to, and promoted the establishment clause within Amendment 1. Organic utterances do not make an individual, a nation, or a constitution Christian (Matthew 7:21-23, etc.). True salvation comes only by means of Yeshua’s blood-atoning sacrifice and the biblical plan of salvation. This makes a person a Christian in fact,¹¹³ while doing the will of the Father (keeping, promoting, and enacting His commandments, statutes, and judgments) makes one a Christian in act.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I YHWH thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:3-6)

Right now, in 2009, we are five and a half generations (one and half generations into the second four-generation cycle) beyond the ratification of the atheistic, pluralistic, polytheistic, antichristian Constitution, and as each generation passes, we witness more and more of the Deuteronomy 28 curses and judgments upon this nation. Is it not time that we break this worsening cycle on behalf of our progeny? This will only occur by returning to Yahweh and His perfect laws, as described in Psalm 78. Note the four generations mentioned herein:

Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth…. Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. We will not hide them [as the Constitutional framers did] from their children, shewing to the generation to come…. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers [generation #1], that they should make them known to their children [generation #2]: That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born [generation #3]; who should arise and declare them to their children [generation #4]: That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments: And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God. (Psalm 78:1-8)

Had the constitutional framers heeded this admonition, America would not be where she finds herself today.

When Christians finally accept their dominion mandate (2 Corinthians 10:4-6, etc.), they will realize that the concept of the separation of church and state, as usually understood today, is completely foreign to the Bible, if for no other reason than Yahweh intends His government to function under biblically qualified Christian men. (See Chapter 5 for the biblical qualification of such leaders.)

We are at the same crossroads as were the Israelites of old on Mt. Carmel, when Elijah charged them to “choose ye this day whom you will serve.” This time, the choice is not between Yahweh and Baal, but between Yahweh and WE THE PEOPLE. Because you cannot serve two masters, you will either hate the one and love the other or you will hold to one and despise the other, as proven by Barton, Baldwin, Scarborough, Jakes, and other Constitutionalists who promote constitutional polytheism. You cannot serve both Yahweh and the U.S. Constitution. The two are incompatible with each other.

Christian Constitutionalists give Yahweh nothing more than lip service. By holding to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, their man-made traditions render the laws of Yahweh of none effect, as evidenced by the fact that America today is not governed by His laws.

After scrutinizing Article 6 and Amendment 1, it should be apparent that the Constitution is unmistakably non-Christian, which exposes it for what it truly is: against Christ. In Matthew 12:30, Yeshua declared “He that is not with me is against me….” Simply put, you cannot promote a covenant that is for Christ while at the same time serving a covenant that is against Him.

The Freedom of Speech and of the Press

Amendment 1 goes on to condemn the prohibition of free speech and a controlled press. But are the oft-lauded constitutional provisions for freedom of speech and freedom of the press biblical? Does the Bible provide for free speech or does it limit speech?

Ask the average American about these two bedrocks of American constitutionalism, and they will enthusiastically declare they are the best of things. Might this not be another instance of Isaiah 5:20 – calling evil good?

If you believe in unqualified freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I suspect you have never had your good name sullied by individuals with whom, under today’s constitutional government and unbiblical juridical system, you have little to no recourse. Neither have you ever been libeled by the press, whose editors often care more about titillating headlines than they do a person’s reputation.¹¹⁴

Someone will surely argue that freedom of speech and the press was not initially meant to allow these violations. This appears to be true. But what this freedom has devolved into today is nonetheless a consequence of choosing the laws of WE THE PEOPLE over the laws of Yahweh. Because the Constitution provided no parameters, it allows the freedoms enumerated in Amendment 1 to be interpreted by the prevailing morality or immorality of the people at any given time.

How about freedom of speech and freedom of the press as it concerns what is said or printed about Yahweh? Does Yahweh allow for cursing Him, profaning His name, or blaspheming?

And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel: and this son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp; and the Israelitish woman’s son blasphemed the name of YHWH, and cursed. And they brought him unto Moses…. And they put him in ward, that the mind of YHWH might be shewed them. And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. And he that blasphemeth the name of YHWH, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of YHWH, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:10-16)

The Bible is full of admonitions limiting speech, even as it concerns what cannot be said about a ruler and, by extension, the government he represents. Keep in mind that only leaders ruling in the fear of Yahweh qualify as legitimate rulers under Yahweh:

You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people. (Exodus 22:28, NASB)

The Amplified Bible expands upon the King James’ translation:

You shall not revile God [the judges as His agents] or esteem lightly or curse a ruler of your people. (Exodus 22:28, AMP)

This is in contrast to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964):

We consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.¹¹⁵

To curse, defame, or caustically attack a biblical, God-ordained ruler or one of Yahweh’s judges is to attack Yahweh Himself. It is the same principle found in Yahweh’s condemnation of a child who curses a parent. Such a child is to be put to death for his attack upon God’s appointed authority and, therefore by extension, God Himself (Exodus 21:17).

Early Courts

Some early United States courts¹¹⁶ are to be commended for at least recognizing and adjudicating against blasphemers and other abusers,¹¹⁷ although the punishment they meted out was not biblical. But was the genesis of such decisions the Constitution, or was it a carryover from 17th-century Puritanism and the Bible? Nothing in the Constitution requires such decisions. Consequently, they must have come from the biblical roots or underpinnings of a pre-constitutional morality more closely in accord with Yahweh’s law.

Barton extensively quotes the founding fathers and judges who unquestionably gave a biblical emphasis to some of the things they said and did. However, those quotations prove nothing regarding the biblical basis of the Constitution or the Constitutional Republic. They only prove that some of the people involved in the early government had a biblical history:

The morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity. …[We are a] people whose manners are refined and whose morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged benevolence by means of the Christian religion. (People v. Ruggles, 1811)¹¹⁸

Christianity has reference to the principles of right and wrong … it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society [not government] is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall…. It [society’s morality] has grown upon the basis of Christianity. (Charleston v. Benjamin, 1846)¹¹⁹

Over time, as the government became more constitutional, it and the people serving therein inevitably become less biblical.

Later Courts

In developing a truly free press, newspapers found they had a powerful ally in the supreme court, which turned a single phrase, “or of the press,” (contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) into a potent shield for press freedom.¹²⁰

This is true to the point that the average citizen has virtually no recourse against the media’s calumny. Ironically, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32) is inscribed across the masthead of many American newspapers.

Without biblical parameters – particularly those provided in the First¹²¹, Second¹²², Third¹²³, and Ninth¹²⁴ Commandments – I am not interested in freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Instead, I look forward to the day when, under Yahweh’s laws, the full force of His judgments will be borne by the press and the antichristian organizations that so often influence it.

The Right to Peaceably Assemble

The provision in Amendment 1 for United States citizens to assemble peaceably appears to be innocuous. However, is it harmless to give sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to assemble peaceably? If you are a proponent of the United States Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must also defend the rights of sodomites,¹²⁵ infant killers,¹²⁶ and Satanists to assemble peaceably and promote their wicked, vile, and abominable agendas. Yahweh’s judgments demand that such criminals be put to death.

Freedom of speech and the right to assemble is now being used by homosexuals and infant assassins to combat Christians who speak out or assemble against these heinous people. By labeling what Christians do as hate, Amendment 1 is now being employed in reverse against the rights of Christians to freely speak and assemble. According to the Bill of Rights, it is the religious right of these sodomites, baby killers, and Satanists to use Amendment 1 against Christians.

Because Amendment 1 provides for the freedom of “all” religious and non-religious expression (including humanism, which was declared a religion in 1961, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n.11), any exclusive religion such as Christianity is not afforded the same protection other religions enjoy. Only non-Christian religions, which are inclusive or tolerant of other religions, are afforded the freedom of speech and assembly.

Conclusion

What gold is to money, the law of God is to liberty.¹²⁷

Without Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty, the personal responsibilities that must accompany it, and His judgments executed upon the irresponsible, Amendment 1’s guarantee of liberties is anything but guaranteed. As history has proven, genuine freedom (available only by means of Yeshua’s blood-propitiating sacrifice and Yahweh’s law of liberty) has been progressively eroded since the inclusion of the Bill of Rights.

…they have forsaken the covenant of YHWH God of their fathers…. For they went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods whom they knew not, and whom he had not given unto them: And the anger of YHWH was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book. (Deuteronomy 29:25-27)

---

Click Here to Read Chapter 12

---

Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:

• The e-book (on CD) A Christian Perspective on the U.S. Constitution
• The audio CD The Bible vs. The U.S. Constitution (Pts. 1 & 2)

End Notes

1. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

2. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

3. Earl Warren, quoted in Jim Nelson Black, When Nations Die: Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1994) p. 253.

4. For more regarding Yahweh’s condemnation of homosexuality, “The Seventh Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not commit adultery may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 63936 for suggested $6 donation.*

5. For more regarding Yahweh’s condemnation of infanticide, “The Sixth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 63936 for suggested $4 donation.*

6. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19.

7. Ibid., p. 17.

8. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581.

9. Patrick Henry, Ralph Ketcham, ed., “Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788),” The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, 2nd ed. (New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2003) p. 200.

10. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.

11. Where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363 for a suggested $4 donation.*

12. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the of Savior’s Hebrew name Yeshua. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

13. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

14. Rushdoony, p. 583.

15. For a more thorough explanation concerning the First Commandment, “The First Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt have no other gods before me may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

16. For a more thorough explanation concerning the Second Commandment, “The Second Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

17. Rushdoony, p. 47.

18. Ibid., p. 20.

19. Archie P. Jones, The Influence of Historic Christianity on Early America, Archie P. Jones (Vallecito, CA: 1998) pp. 65-66.

20. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “piety” (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2000) p. 1002.

21. For a more thorough explanation concerning the Third Commandment, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

22. Dr. H. Rondel Rumburg, Foreword (21 February 1998) to Dr. Robert L. Dabney, Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights, which first appeared in the Presbyterian Quarterly, July 1888, (Hueytown, AL: Society for Biblical and Southern Studies, 1998) p. 6.

23. Andrew Sandlin, “Editor’s Introduction,” The Influence of Historic Christianity on Early America, Archie P. Jones (Vallecito, CA: 1998) p.1.

24. George Mason, quoted in Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1892) vol. 1, p. 244.

25. James Madison, June 8, 1789, The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834) vol. 1, p. 541.

26. James Madison, The Federalist #51 (New York, NY : The Colonial Press) p. 209.

27. James Madison, Debates and Proceedings, 15 August 1789, vol. 1 (1834), pp. 757-59, quoted in David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: WallBuilder Press, 4th ed., 2005) p. 23.

28. George Washington, Jared Sparks, ed. The Writings of George Washington, 10 May 1789, 37 vols. (Boston, MA: Ferdinand Andrews, 1838) vol. 30, p. 321.

29. Ibid., “Letter to the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America,” October 1789, vol. 12, p. 167.

30. Barack Obama, quoted in Aaron Klein, “Obama: America ‘no longer Christian’: Democrat says nation also for Muslims, nonbelievers,” WorldNetDaily, 24 June 2008, <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index/php?pageId=67735>.

31. Hilary Leila Kreiger, “Exit poll: 78% of Jews voted for Obama,” Jerusalem Post, 5 November 2008, <http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1225715346628>.

32. John F. Kennedy, quoted in Michael O’Brien, John F. Kennedy: A Biography (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 2005) p. 476.

33. Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 19 vols. (Washington, DC: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907) vol. 1, p. 67.

34. Warren E. Burger, Foreword, Arlin M. Adams, Charles J. Emmerich A Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty: The Constitutional Heritage of the Religion Clauses (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990) p. xiv.

35. William O. Douglas, Zorach v. Clausen, 343 U.S. 306 (1952).

36. David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Co., 1905) p. 11.

37. Ibid., p. 12.

38. Barack Obama, Call to Renewal Keynote Address, <http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaonFaith.pdf>.

39. Barack Obama, quoted in Abby Phillip, “Obama defends Ground Zero mosque,” 14 August 2010, Politico, <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060.html>.

40. Rushdoony, p. 89.

41. Dr. Billy Graham, quoted in Leo Pfeffer, God, Caesar, and The Constitution: The Court as Referee of Church-State Confrontation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1975) p. 40.

42. Benjamin F. Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, Inc., 2009, originally published 1864) pp. 274-75.

43. Ibid., 127.

44. God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever. provides a documented dissertation contrasting today’s Jews with today’s genetic Israelites, the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic, and kindred peoples. God’s Covenant People may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

45. Sandlin, quoted in Jones, p. 1.

46. Chuck Baldwin, “Thank You, Dr. Ron Paul,” <http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080923_2.html>, 23 September 2008.

47. T.D. Jakes, “Is God Going Out of Style?,” Bishop’s Blog, <http://www.tdjenterpreses.com/blog/?p=85>.

48. Rick Scarborough, “We Believe in Religious Freedom,”<http://www.visionamerica.us/about-us/who-we-are/>.

49. International Information Programs, USINFO.STATE.GOV, “The Roots of Religious Liberty,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/roots.html>.

50. South Carolina Supreme Court. City of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 521-524 (1846).

51. Barton, p. 70.

52. Ibid., p. 71, Barton quoting Lindenmuller v. the People at 562, 564, 567.

53. William J. Federer, “Why Non-Christian Religions are Tolerated in America,” Biblical Worldview (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, August 2005) vol. 21, num. 8, p. 7.

54. Kevin McDowell, America, a Christian Nation? Examining the Evidence of the Christian Foundation of America (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Foundation, 2004/2009) pp. 1-2.

55. Ibid., pp. 3-4.

56. James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols. (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1091) vol. 2, p. 186.

57. Governor Samuel Johnston, 30 July 1788, quoted in The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., 5 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Jonathan Elliot, 1836) vol. 4, p. 199.

58. Barton, p. 24.

59. For additional documentation regarding the antichrist nature of the Babylonian Talmud, Judaism’s book of faith and law, God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

60. Barton, pp. 32-33.

61. Benjamin Rush, “Of the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic,” Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia, PA: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798) p. 8.

62. Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).

63. Ronald L. Dart, Living to Win, 15 August 2008, vol. 13, num. 8, p. 3.

64. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 77.

65. Rousas John Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy, p. 94, quoted in Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 77.

66. Chuck Baldwin, “The Worst Tragedy of the Bush Presidency,” <http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin378.htm>, 29 June 2007.

67. Fred Lamar Pearson, Jr., Freemasonry: An Explanation to the Non-Member, quoted in John M. Otis, Unveiling Freemasonry’s Idolatry (Triumphant Publications, 2009) p. 594.

68. John M. Otis, “The Gary DeMar Show,” 19 October 2009, <http://www.americanvision.org/media/download/freemasonrys-incompatibility-with-christianity/>.

69. North, p. 158.

70. John Tyler, “Correspondence of President Tyler, Religious Freedom, to Joseph Simpson, Washington, July 10, 1843,” William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine (Richmond, VA: Whittet and Shepperson, General Printers) vol. xiii, July 1904, no. 1, p. 2.

71. James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, ed., “To Mordecai M. Noah,” The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols. (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1908) vol. 8, p. 412.

72. For additional documentation regarding the antichrist nature of the Babylonian Talmud, the Jew’s religious book of faith and law, God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

73. Reynolds v. Rayborn (1938), 116 SW2d (Tex.Civ.App.) 836, 838.

74. Leo Pfeffer, God, Caesar, and The Constitution: The Court as Referee of Church-State Confrontation (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1975) pp. 28-29.

75. H.B. Clark, Clark’s Biblical Law (Portland, OR: Binfords & Mort, 1943) pp. 57-58.

76. International Information Programs, USINFO.STATE.GOV, “The Roots of Religious Liberty,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/roots.html>.

77. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, (1962).

78. John W. Welch, “Biblical Law in America: Historical Perspectives and Potentials for Reform,” 30 September 2002, <http://www.contra-mundum.org/essays/theonomy/WEL1.pdf>.

79. Henry C. Clausen, Masons Who Helped Shape Our Nation (San Diego, CA: Neyenesch Printers, 1976) pp. 67-71.

80. Arlin M. Adams and Charles J. Emmerich, A Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty: The Constitutional Heritage of the Religion Clauses (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990) p. 25.

81. Adams, p. 26.

82. Thomas Jefferson, H. Washington, ed., “Reply to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802),” The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (1853) p. 113-14.

83. Adams, p. 5.

84. Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1966) pp. 83-84.

85. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S 1, 18 (1947).

86. Kramnick, p. 81.

87. Thomas Jefferson, H.A. Washington, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 19 vols. (New York, NY: Riker, Thorne, and Co., 1855) vol. 6, pp. 445-47.

88. Martin Luther, On Secular Authority: how far does the Obedience owed to it extend?, quoted in Harro Hopfl, trans., Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 1993) pp. 10-12.

89. John Calvin, Calvin On Civil Government, Book IV, Chapter 20, quoted in Harro Hopfl, trans., Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 1993) pp. 47-49.

90. Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1981) p. 121.

91. North, p. 611.

92. For a more thorough explanation concerning who the Jews and gentiles are in both the Bible and the world today, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.*

93. “1963 Baptist Faith and Message,” adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention 9 May 1963, <http://www.baptiststart.com/print/1963_baptist_faith_message.html>.

94. Kramnick, pp. 127-28.

95. Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr., “Of Covenants Ancient and New: The Influence of Secular Law on Biblical Religion,” Journal of Law and Religion (St. Paul, MN: Hamline University School of Law, 1984) vol. 2, pp. 117-18.

96. North, p. 181.

97. Ibid., p. 591.

98. Ibid., p. 603.

99. A delegation of the National Association to Secure the Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to President Abraham Lincoln, “Address to the President,” Proceedings of the National convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States (New York, NY: John Polhemus, 1873) p. vii.

100. Dr. George P. Hays, President of Washington and Jefferson College, “Address of President Hays on the Influence and Education of Public Sentiment,” Proceedings of the National convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States (New York, NY: John Polhemus, 1873) p. 35.

101. Dr. Jonathan Edwards, “Address of Dr. Edwards,” Proceedings of the National convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States (New York, NY: John Polhemus, 1873) p. 59.

102. North, p. 181.

103. C. Greg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964/1981) p. 15.

104. Edmund Burke, The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, 12 vols. (London, UK: John C. Nimmo, 1887) vol. 7, p. 43.

105. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) pp. 617-18.

106. John Eidsmoe, God & Caesar: Christian Faith & Political Action (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1984) p. 9.

107. Ibid, p. 24.

108. Herb Titus, Interview by Dennis Woods, <http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/herb-titus-responds-to-constitutional-challenges.html>.

109. Ibid.

110. Ibid., p. 148.

111. Pfeffer, p. 40.

112. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3 vols. (Boston, MA: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833) vol. 3, pp. 722-23, 727.

113. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

114. For information concerning the Ninth Commandment stipulations that all but eradicate calumny, “The Ninth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not bear false witness may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

115. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

116. The People v. Ruggles, 1811, Supreme Court of New York; Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; and Commonwealth v. Abner Kneeland, 1838, Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

117. Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 37 Mass. 206, 207 (183). See also Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3 vols. (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833) vol. 3, pp. 731-32, § 1874.

118. People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 295-296 (1811).

119. City Council of Charleston v. S.A. Benjamin, 2 Strob. 508, 520 (S.C. 1846).

120. International Information Programs, USINFO.STATE.GOV, “Freedom of the Press,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/press.html>.

121. For a more thorough explanation concerning the First Commandment, “The First Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt have no other gods before me may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

122. For a more thorough explanation concerning the Second Commandment, “The Second Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

123. For a more thorough explanation concerning the Third Commandment, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

124. For a more thorough explanation concerning the Ninth Commandment, “The Ninth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not bear false witness may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

125. For more regarding Yahweh’s condemnation of homosexuality, “The Seventh Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not commit adultery may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 63936 for suggested $6 donation.*

126. For more regarding Yahweh’s condemnation of infanticide, “The Sixth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 63936 for suggested $4 donation.*

127. Frederick Nymeyer, Progressive Calvinism (South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press, 1957) vol. 3, p. 209.

*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.

---

Click Here to Read Chapter 12

Important Links

About Ted R. Weiland and Mission to Israel
--------
What's New
--------
Tea Party Project
--------
Hot Topics
--------
“Is the U.S. Constitution a Christian Document?” Survey
--------
“Defense of True Israel” Survey
--------
Salvation Survey
--------
Free Information Packet
--------
Introductory Packet
--------
Marriage & Pre-Marriage Counseling
--------
The Great Identity Debate
--------