In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.
Amendment 1’s Government–Sanctioned Polytheism
Article 6’s interdiction against Christian tests opened the door to government-sanctioned polytheism. Amendment 1’s provision for the freedom of religion locked the door open:
George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” was one of the principal proponents of the “unalienable right” to religious expression, regardless whether such expression was Christian, non-Christian, or even anti-Christian:
“…all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion….” [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.]1
Do not overlook that Mason was not referring to freedom of conscience (which is impossible for government to legislate or suppress), but was advocating the “free exercise of religion” (which is a violation of the First Commandment).
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. [James Madison, 8 June 1789, The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834) vol. 1, p. 541.]
“…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.” [James Madison, The Federalist #52 (New York, NY : The Colonial Press, 1788) p. 209.]1
According to Madison, all civil rights (including but not limited to everything in the First Amendment) affect everyone equally without regard to religious persuasion. This applies to the right to free speech and assembly, which, in turn, includes the right to openly disseminate one’s religion, including atheism, humanism, and Satanism. This is another violation of the First Commandment and its judgment, as found in Deuteronomy 13.
Christian Constitutionalists claim the word “religion” in the Establishment Clause was exclusive to Christian denominations. At best, this is wishful thinking, the result of exploiting the historical record. The framers, while perhaps not rejecting Christianity (and in some instances even seeming to prefer it), rejected a Christian state in favor of a polytheistic one. In reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom, enacted one year before the federal Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
“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.” [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.]
Jefferson employed the word “denomination,” not for the various Christian denominations, but for any religion or non-religion….
Constitutionalists and Christians alike often quote Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer as one of their favorite witnesses to the allegations that the Constitution was a Christian document, which 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.'” [David J. Brewer, The United States: A Christian Nation (Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Co., 1905) p. 11.]
What immediately follows Brewer’s often quoted opinion is rarely cited:
“But in what sense can America be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion…. 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.” [Ibid., p. 12.]
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 Commandment?1
Unlike early Colonial governments in the 1600s, which included the First Commandment and its judgment as part of their constitutions, the framers of the late 1700s replaced the monotheistic First Commandment with the polytheistic First Amendment.
Most Constitutionalists have never considered that Amendment 1 did exactly what it was allegedly designed to prevent:
Although the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion over another, by eliminating Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice (achieved by Article 6’s interdiction against Christian test oaths), Amendment 1 authorized equality for all non-Christian and even antichristian religions. When the Constitution failed to recognize Christian monotheism, it allowed Amendment 1 to fill the void by authorizing pagan polytheism.
Amendment 1 did exactly what the framers proclaimed it could not do: it prohibited the exercise of monotheistic Christianity (except within the confines of its church buildings) and established polytheism in its place. This explains 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 Themis, the Greek goddess of justice. And yet, on November 18, 2002, this very court ruled that Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments Monument violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Despite many Christians’ protests against this hypocrisy, it was in keeping with the inevitable repercussions of the First Amendment.1
Christians hang their religious hat on Amendment 1 as if some great moral principle is carved therein. They have gotten so caught up in the battle over the misuse of the Establishment Clause—the freedom from religion—that they have overlooked the ungodliness intrinsic in the Free Exercise Clause—the freedom of religion.
Stay tuned for Part 10.
Related posts:
Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land”
Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism”
1. Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
Thank you immensely for this enlightening series! While I have often read the quote by Justice Brewer, i have NEVER (and I am closing in on 60!) heard the rest of the quote, that puts it into context. Truly, America is now (with the Supreme’s DOMA destruction) an utterly pagan state, no better than ancient Rome- and just as rife for God’s destruction. The Last days… have come again. May God’s People persevere as we enter into the next Neronian (Obamanian) persecution, by a new, godless bastard monarch.
You’re welcome. I’m pleased, of course, that it has been enlightening to you.
Hello John.
I was unable to find the post of your reply to my comments on this page, so I’m replying via this comment you posted.
I have little to say except that your concept of what Christ intended His body on earth to be has been molded by the counterfeit ‘church’ that was set up by Constantine and so-called ‘church leaders’ in the 4th century. As with civil governments, anytime authority is centralized under fallible mortals, we can expect satan to take the reigns when men centralize the government of Christ’s people. I take warning from what Paul told us about Judaizers, wolves and false brethren infiltrating the assemblies of Christ established through the apostles. I don’t doubt that there were not a few ‘Pharisees/Judaisers’ forming the council of Nicaea and that these vermin formed the foundation of the counterfeit ‘Catholic church’.
Judging the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ by the standard Jesus Christ has given us, its ‘fruit’ exposes it as always having been a counterfeit of the true ecclesia; a trap by which to lure the followers of Christ away from following Christ Himself, to place their trust in mere mortals, many of whom have proven themselves utterly corrupt and anti-Christ.
Jesus Christ is fully capable of leading His own body and would not entrust our souls to ‘shepherds’ who are as mortal and fallible as all the sheep. Christ is capable of bringing together those mature followers and those less mature followers, without forming ‘state approved’ religious institutions. While I concede that some well-meaning souls have historically been drawn into the Roman Catholic institution, believing the lie that it was ‘the’ way to ‘serve Christ’, nonetheless, history shows that these sincere souls had little to no influence on what the ‘church’ actually taught and did. No tyrant in history has a more vile or enduring history of violence against the followers of Jesus Christ than the Roman Catholic Church has. And it is by its fruit that the true followers of Christ know it.
I recognize that all of the Protestant denominations are nothing more than ‘daughters of the harlot’, as I recognize the Roman Catholic church as the ‘mother of harlots’.
I will keep my trust in Christ. “Let God be true and every man a liar.”
Mary & John, I removed John’s promotion of the Catholic Church as such is not allowed as stated in our Commenting Policy: See http://www.constitutionmythbusters.org/comment-policy/.
I feel a bit “fat-headed” by my previous assumptions regarding the First Amendment. I never realized prior to this series that the heathenism I witnessed all around contemporary America was built in and vouchsafed by the original U.S. Constitution. No wonder Patrick Henry refused to sign it, saying, “I smelled a rat.” Thanks
John, I think we can all relate to being “fatheads” at some point regarding the Constitution and its seditious implications. In His wrath, may Yahweh remember mercy! (Habakkuk 3:2)
I find your remarkable documentation of the historical evidence of a pagan foundation from which the American ‘Constitution’ was drafted, comes as one confirmation after another of what YHWH has been convicting my spirit to be the Truth, not only concerning these founding documents of the centralized ‘coup’ in America, but also in Canada, where I ‘occupy’ in the Name of Christ our King. So many treacheries have been pulled over our eyes by the ‘tares’ while we, as harmless doves and unsuspecting lambs have been set up for slaughter.
We find this same infiltration and subversion already present in the ecclesia during the times of the apostles. Paul warned of it in the Book of Acts. Constantine and the false leaders of the ‘church’ formalized the pagan take-over of ‘organized Christianity’, from which many true believers fled, and were hunted and eventually martyred by their so-called ‘leaders’. Then Cornwallis taunted George Washington, upon his surrender, that the ‘churches’ would be infiltrated and used to bring the Jews’ religion to the whole world.
If we see ourselves for who we truly are, members of the body of Christ, rather than ‘citizens’ of one false nation or another, we will see that the satanic conspiracy has been ruling every nation under the sun since the tower of Babel incident, and even that one nation, Israel, called by YHWH to be His own, fell to the foul corrupters. Our ‘patriotism’ belongs to the Kingdom of Christ. If we let that be our reality, we will see the satanic finger prints on every national ‘Constitution’.
Thank you for such a full and informative lesson on the American ‘Constitution’. I pray more and more Americans, especially Christians, have their eyes opened by this study, and their trust and loyalty truly and fully turned to YHWH the Only Law Giver, and His Christ, our Only Judge.
Linda, thanks for joining us and for letting me know you’re in Canada. I’ve been hoping that the work here would have an effect upon Christians in other nations. Although, our Constitutions are different in specifics, their sedition against Yahweh is the same, regardless what country they represent.
Yes. I’ve done some research on how this fiction called ‘Canada’ came about and learned it is a shameful deception pulled on the Colonists who were not allowed any input or a vote on the ‘federation scheme’. I’ve read the March 1867 debate in the General Assembly of Nova Scotia in which Stewart Campbell, standing in for Joseph Howe, did a tremendous job of confronting Tupper about the true intent of confederation. Campbell told Tupper that if the Colonies were going to join a nation, they’d choose a real one; one that already had land, resources, population, currency and standing military. He said the Colonies would be better off joining the United States, because they already had these things. ‘Canada’, on the other hand, Campbell pointed out, was a figment of imagination, having neither land, nor resources, nor population, nor currency nor military, and the Colonist would gain nothing by ‘confederation’ but would be exploited by a cabal of politicians ever after. Campbell has been proven astute and correct ever since.
I’m certain that any ‘constitution’ devised by men is for men, not for YHWH, Who already issued His ‘Constitution’ to us. YHWH’s ‘Constitution’ is quite clear. Men’s ‘constitutions’ are deliberately worded to dupe and rob the ‘governed’.
Thanks again for a ‘microscopic’ view of the ‘camels’.
Linda- While I can understand where you are coming from, you are incorrect. If God has vouchsafed that ‘I will never leave you, nor forsake you’ (which He has!) to presume that the historic Church catholic disappeared after AD70- or AD 325, or AD 1517, etc. ad nauseum, only to “BOBO” (Blink on, blink off) when some protestant sectarian SAYS he did, is the height of folly. What St. Paul was talking about in his epistles were the ancestors of the Talmudics (Jews) of today, who had infiltrated Judea about 100 years prior to Christ’s Coming, and tried (as they do today) to rule and reign over God’s Elect- of which they are forever excluded! The Church- yes, the Church CATHOLIC – IS the new Body of Christ, the New Israel, and encompasses both the ‘spiritual’ as well as the ‘temporal’ realms- which means the first 1000 years of Christendom are OUR heritage as Israelites. That Rome departed from that gospel purity, around the year 1054A.D., is also true- but it doesn’t give illumination to Evangelicals, sadly. For in that THEY still operate with the exact same philsophical baggage as Rome does (what is known as the Filioque), means 99% of most Evangelical Protestants are no different than the most rabid Romanist! So, when Mr. Weiland (or any author) analyzes the apostate nature of the West, don’t start blaming Catholic Europe’s first millennium, as though that absolves you of error – for, as a Westerner, ALL Europids still think in Romanist terms! And, until we ALL abandon our filioquist philosophy, we all partake of the sins of the Synagogue of Satan. Mr. W will probably not agree with me, but Rushdoony understood that fact, as he (and his) came from the Orthodox side of the Bosporus, and wrote with that insight, even using calvinist/Western models.