Article Change

Posted: 22nd August 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
0

I’ve decided to change the order of Article 1 and Article 2 on the blog, placing the executive branch’s article before the legislative branch’s article. I will not be posting the rewrite of Article 1 on Constitution Mythbusters until August 30, Lord willing. This will provide an extra week for anyone interested in submitting a proposal regarding the executive branch before I post my submission.  Lord willing, I’ll post Article 2 regarding the legislative branch on September 6. This will provide an extra two weeks for anyone interested in submitting a proposal regarding the legislative branch before I post my submission.

In the meantime, if you were asked to be a delegate to a constitutional convention for the purpose of establishing a Biblical government, how might you write Article 1, concerning an executive branch for its constitution?

You can either submit your proposal below in response to this post, or email it to me at tweiland@vistabeam.com. I look forward to your submissions.

 

Related posts:

The Preamble: How Would You Write It?

Preamble

Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

Article 1: How Would You Write It?

Posted: 2nd August 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,
7

After “completing” the Preamble, for a future generation of our posterity to perhaps use as a guide for doing it right(eous) the next time, I wasn’t necessarily intending to immediately proceed to articles for a future constitution. However, in addition to encouragement from others, this seems to be where the Lord is leading.

I proceed with some trepidation and feelings of inadequacy. However, the idea here is not perfection, but rather something that might be used to assist our nation (or, more likely, local communities) in looking to Yahweh1 as their God and King, as did our true 17th-century Christian American forbears. For example, McGuffey’s Eclectic Reader, America’s most popular school book in the 1800s, testified to America’s early form of theocratic government:

Their form of government was as strictly theocratical insomuch that it would be difficult to say where there was any civil authority among them distinct from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Whenever a few of them settled a town, they immediately gathered themselves into a church; and their elders were magistrates, and their code of laws was the Pentateuch…. God was their King; and they regarded him as truly and literally so….2

William McGuffey was undoubtedly influenced by the writings of renowned early American preachers such as John Cotton:

The famous John Cotton, the first minister of Boston … earnestly pleaded “that the government might be considered as a theocracy, wherein the Lord was judge, lawgiver and king; that the laws which He gave Israel might be adopted….” At the desire of the court, he compiled a system of laws founded chiefly on the laws of Moses….3

I’m often confronted by others with the impossibility of establishing society upon God’s law. In view of America’s present deplorable state, I will be the first to admit the task is daunting to the say the least. However, let’s not forget that if the task is of Yahweh, it is anything but impossible for Him.

Behold, I am YHWH, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? (Jeremiah 32:27)

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. (Matthew 19:26)

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. (Mark 9:23)

If this task is ordained of God, anyone withstanding it will be judged for his opposition to His will:

…if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

We should also take heart in the fact that a Biblical society was already essentially accomplished (albeit not without mistakes) right here in America in the 1600s. With God’s favor, it will be done again.

Let’s Write a Biblical Article 1

As with the Preamble, I’ll submit my proposal in a week or two. In the meantime, I am requesting Article 1 proposals from our readers: If you were asked to be a delegate to a constitutional convention for the purpose of establishing a Biblical government, how might you write Article 1, concerning legislation for its constitution?

You can either submit your proposal below in response to this post, or email it to me at tweiland@vistabeam.com. I look forward to your submissions.

 

Related posts:

The Preamble: How Would You Write It?

Preamble

Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

 

 

End Notes:

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. William Holmes McGuffey, McGuffey’s Sixth Eclectic Reader (New York, NY: American Book Company, 1879) p. 225.

3. Jeremy Belknap, John Farmer, The History of New-Hampshire (Dover, NH: George Wadleigh, 1862) pp. 42-43.

PREAMBLE

Posted: 26th July 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,
29

We the people of Almighty God—known Biblically by His memorial name Yahweh,1 the one and only Sovereign over all creation2—humbly submit ourselves as individuals, families, churches, and communities to His rule3 as Judge, Lawgiver, and King.4

Because all power and authority resides with Him,5 we acknowledge that liberty, justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare for ourselves and our posterity can only be achieved by His perfect law and righteous judgments.6

We hereby freely covenant together as His humble servants, bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ,7 into a civil body politic for the purpose of implementing His commandments, statutes, and judgments as the only standard for ordering our lives both individually and communally. We furthermore look to Him for wisdom, assistance, and protection in conducting His affairs here on earth as it is in heaven.8

__________________________

 

1. “…YHWH God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” (Exodus 3:15)

YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. Regrettably, it was deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. “…[Yahweh] who is the blessed and only Potentate [Sovereign, NASB], the King of kings, and Lord of lords. (1 Timothy 6:15)

3. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever….” (Isaiah 9:6-7)

4. “For YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king; he will save us.” (Isaiah 33:22)

5. “God hath spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.” (Psalm 62:11)

“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power [authority, NASB] is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” (Matthew 28:18)

“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.” (Jude 1:25)

6. “The law of YHWH is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of YHWH is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of YHWH are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of YHWH is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of YHWH is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.” (Psalm 19:7-11)

7. “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Corinthians 6:20)

“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:23)

8. “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:10)

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33)

The Preamble: How Would You Write It?

Posted: 12th July 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
19

There are, at least, two Biblical reasons why the Constitutional Republic is one day doomed to fail like all previous man-made governments (Daniel 2:44, etc.):

1) The framers failed to expressly establish government and society upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His triune law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments). As a result, the handwriting for the Republic’s demise was written on the wall long ago.

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Matthew 7:26-27)

The floods and the winds have commenced, and America teeters on the precipice of degradation and destruction. In fact, it would seem she’s already fallen over the cliff.

2) The Philadelphia convention was made up of both professing Christians and non-Christians.1 As a result, the Constitutional Republic was destined to fail from its inception:

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…. (2 Corinthians 6:14-17)

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.” (Matthew 12:25)

Let’s Write a Biblical Preamble

Knowing the Constitutional Republic will one day collapse should motivate today’s Christians to do whatever they can to prepare for this inevitability. More importantly, we should begin preparing the ground for our posterity to do it right(eous) the next time.

With this in mind, I am requesting preamble proposals from our readers: If you were asked to be a delegate to a constitutional convention for the purpose of establishing a Biblical government, how might you write the Preamble for its constitution?

I have a preamble already written. However, by no means do I believe it is perfect. I would like to get your ideas before posting the “final” draft here and on our main site. Keep in mind this is only the preamble upon which the remaining constitution would be predicated. (Not counting footnotes, the preamble I’ve written consists of approximately one hundred words. Try to keep yours to a comparable length.)

You can either submit your proposal below in response to this post, or email it to me at tweiland@vistabeam.com. I look forward to your submissions.

What a grand day it will be when a future generation actually holds such a convention.

 

1. For the same reason, the Constitution could not help but to be, at best, a Biblically compromised contract.

 

Related posts:

5 Reasons the Constitution is our Cutting-Edge Issue

Today’s Mt. Carmel Christians

Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

 

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 10

Posted: 5th July 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
9

In this concluding article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Amendment 8’s Denunciation of Cruel and Unusual Punishments

Amendment 8 prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. But what did the framers mean by “cruel and unusual”? No one knows because the framers never defined this term, nor did they make exceptions for any of the Bible’s civil judgments:

Amendment 8’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments implies the Constitutional Republic’s punishments must be kind and usual. The Constitution’s failure to define “cruel and unusual” allows unbiblical and antinomian courts to arbitrarily determine what is allowable.1

Some of the framers believed that capital punishment in any form was cruel and unusual:

“There were some significant voices at the time in favor of abolishing capital punishment. Some argued that the success of the new republic should depend upon the virtue of its citizens and not on their fear of a harsh penal code, which many saw as the hallmark of tyranny. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence [and, reputedly, one of fathers of America’s unbiblical penal system], declared that “capital punishments are the natural offspring of monarchical governments.” Even a conservative like Alexander Hamilton believed that “the idea of cruelty inspires disgust,” and that the death penalty undermined republican values and behavior.” [International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights.]

The virtue of capital punishment was settled by Yahweh2 in His law long ago, but the debate over the death penalty rages on, thanks, in part, to the ambiguity of Amendment 8’s wording….

As of 2012, fifteen states have repealed the death penalty. The Supreme Court’s capriciousness regarding “cruel and unusual punishments” is witnessed by its varied and often contradictory decisions … [which are a demonstration of] a government of, by, and for a fickle people and adjudicated by a mercurial court system….

“We have nothing to guide us in defining what is cruel and unusual apart from our own consciences. A punishment which is considered fair today may be considered cruel tomorrow. And so we are not dealing with a set of absolutes. Our decision must necessarily spring from the mosaic of our beliefs, our backgrounds and the degree of our faith in the dignity of the human personality.” [Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy, draft of an unpublished dissent (1946), quoted in International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights.]

What we find described above is government ruled by the prevailing humanism of the day.3

Without a definition or specific standard by which to determine what constitutes cruel and unusual, the Constitution is unequivocally a “living document,” left to the capricious interpretation of each and every Supreme Court.4

More importantly, what does Amendment 8’s interdiction against cruel and unusual punishments say about Yahweh’s righteous judgments?

Instead of making His punishments as humane as possible, Yahweh chose cruel and unusual forms of punishments. Stoning [is] His principal means of carrying out public executions….

If we believe Yahweh is unquestionably just, we must embrace His means of punishment and renounce the Eighth Amendment as rebellion against Him. Because He is a loving and merciful God, who desires no one to perish and everyone to come to repentance, His judgments are not only just but also remedial and preventative:

“And thou shalt stone him [a promoter of false gods] 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.” (Deuteronomy 13:10-11)….

“The death penalty [especially stoning] … provides a deterrence effect—deterring the criminal from future crime (he dies), deterring other criminals from committing similar crimes (fear of death), and deterring God from bringing His covenant judgments on the community for its failure to uphold covenant law (fear of God’s wrath).” [Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 324.]5

There are several compelling judicial reasons why Yahweh instituted stoning as His principle means of execution:

In order for the death penalty to be the greatest possible deterrent, Yahweh chose a brutal form of execution. The harsher the punishment, the greater the deterrent. People are less likely to write checks against insufficient funds when they are penalized thirty dollars rather than thirty cents. Likewise, people are less likely to commit felonies when the maximum penalty is mandatory for unrepentant criminals. This is especially true if it is compulsory for the whole community to attend and participate in public executions:

“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 [community] stone him…. 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….” (Leviticus 24:13-16)

Stoning is one of the few methods of capital punishment that allows direct involvement by the witnesses and others. Witnesses must be so certain of their testimony that they, along with the blood avengers, are prepared to initiate judgment. Yahweh did not prescribe lynchings, decapitations, gassings, electrocutions, or lethal injections because they do not allow for the blood avenger, or next of kin, the witnesses, and others in the community to be involved [Deuteronomy 17:6-7, 19:11-12].5

These and other judicial safeguards were forfeited as a result of Amendment 8’s interdiction against Yahweh’s righteous judgments.

Consider another important reason why Amendment 8 must be renounced for its apostasy:

Christians’ aversion to Yahweh’s judgments is one of the prime reasons Christians have lost dominion. Those who define criminal behavior and dispense judgment clearly rule society. Antinomians’ aversion to Yahweh’s judgments can only mean they believe man’s judgments are superior to Yahweh’s and that non-Christians are more competent to dispense judgment than Christians, which in turn means most modern Christians do not believe “…the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether” (Psalm 19:9). They also do not believe “the law of YHWH is perfect” (Psalm 19:7), because any law void of its judgments is an imperfect law, lacking one third of its indispensable components. Abolishing a Commandment’s judgment guts the Commandment the judgment enforces:

“There has been an ancient tradition on the part of Christian commentators of appealing selectively to Old Testament laws whenever convenient in moral arguments, but almost never to the God specified sanctions…. This is wholly illegitimate exegetically, and it has led to the accusation by consistent critics that Christians who uphold “the moral law of God” apart from God’s specified civil sanctions are hypocritical, that they want all the moral benefits of theocracy without any of the embarrassing theocratic sanctions.” [Roy L. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 116 (July 1959), p. 226, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1997) pp. 913-14.]….

People opposed to Yahweh’s judgments prefer crime over judgment, criminals over victims, and man’s law—at least man’s judgments—over Yahweh’s. Put another way, these same people would prefer people be murdered, kidnapped, raped, and plundered rather than claim responsibility for administering Yahweh’s righteous judgments:

“The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.” (Proverbs 21:7)5

As with most of the Constitution, Amendment 8 forces us to choose between the framers’ capricious traditions or Yahweh’s perfect law. In this instance, it’s a choice between Amendment 8’s interdiction against cruel and unusual punishments or Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments. Choose carefully!

“[You have] … changed my judgments into wickedness … for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them. Therefore thus saith the Lord YHWH; Because ye … have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments … behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.” (Ezekiel 5:6-8)

 

Related posts:

Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection”

Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments”

1. Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

2. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

3. Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

4. The Constitution is also demonstrated to be a “living document” in that, unlike the Bible, Article 5 provides for its own amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that cannot be amended or repealed.

5. Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 9

Posted: 28th June 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
10

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.

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 8

Posted: 21st June 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
2

In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Article 6’s Christian Test Ban and Its Polytheistic Repercussions

Most Americans (even most Constitutionalists) are unaware of the Jewish influence and grave repercussions involved in the interdiction of Christian tests in Article 6:

On both the state and federal levels, Jews1 were instrumental in the removal of the Christian test oaths and were the first to reap the rewards of these prohibitions:

“By the end of the Revolution, Jews had been chosen not only to local posts in some cities, but had also been selected for more responsible positions in many parts of the country. There was no inclination to bar these people from public office and generally the question of the offensive oaths had only to be raised to be resolved. Thus the Jews of Philadelphia [led by Jonas Phillips], in 1783-84, protested as a ‘stigma upon their nation and religion’ the requirement that members of the General Assembly take an oath affirming belief in the New Testament. The revised constitution of Pennsylvania, a few years later, explicitly barred the disqualification on account of religious sentiments of any person ‘who acknowledges the being of a God and future state of rewards and punishments.'” [Jonathan D. Sarna, Benny Kraut, Samuel K. Joseph, eds., Jews and the Founding of the Republic (New York, NY: Markus Weiner Publishing, 1985) p. 90.]

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia affirms that “This petition [by the Jews of Philadelphia] later on proved to be instrumental in the revision of the Pennsylvania state constitution in such a manner as to abolish the religious test.”2 On September 7, 1787, Jonas Phillips, a founder of Philadelphia’s Mikveh Israel Synagogue, also petitioned the framers at the federal Constitutional Convention:

“Sires: … It is well known among all the citizens of the 13 United States that the Jews have been true and faithful Whigs, and during the late contest with England they have been foremost in aiding and assisting the states with their lifes [sic] and fortunes. They have supported the cause, have bravely fought and bled for liberty which they can not [sic] enjoy.

“Therefore if the honourable convention shall in their wisdom think fit and alter the said oath [as found in the altered Pennsylvania Constitution] and leave out the words to viz.: “and I do acknowledge the Scripture of the New Testament to be given by divine inspiration,” then the Israelites [Jews] will think themselves happy to live under a government where all religious societys [sic] are on an equal footing….

“Your most devoted obed. Servant, Jonas Phillips Philadelphia, 24th Ellul, 5547, or Sep’r 7th 1787.”3

Phillip’s petition undoubtedly bore weight with the framers, as did the personal relationships many of the framers shared with Jews….4

The gravity of the framers’ concessions to the Jews is explained by the Apostle John:

“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 [personal, State, White, or Senate] house [or house of Representatives], neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:7-11)

This alone should be cause enough for any Christian to renounce the Constitution as not only unbiblical but as antichristian and thereby seditious against Yahweh.

Not only did the framers become partakers in the evil deeds of those who deny Christ, but America lost her soul in the process. Christendom soon became saltless, four-walled Christianity to be trodden under the foot of her enemies, as per Matthew 5:13.

 Michael Alexander summed up Article 6 and Amendment 1’s impact upon equal rights for American Jews:

Although the Constitution of the United States does not specifically mention Jews, its religious liberty provisions in essence granted Jews the honor of citizenship. The United States was thus the first non-Jewish country, ancient or modern, that included Jews as political equals…. The Constitution of the United States prohibited a religious test for government (Article VI), and the First Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing any religion, thus permitting Jews to participate as equal citizens on the federal level…. By 1820, most state constitutions eliminated religious qualifications that had kept Jews from participating in public affairs and government office…. [Michael Alexander, “Jews, 1754-1820s,” Encyclopedia of American History: Revolution and New Nation, 1761 to 1812, Paul A. Gilje and Gary B. Nash, eds. (New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc, 2003).]4

The serious implications of Jewish influence upon the framers and their ban of the Christian test is lost on most Christians. These Christians wrongly believe today’s Jews are descended from the Biblical Israelites and that the religion of today’s Jew is based upon the Old Testament.5 These two assumptions allegedly give the Jews special privileges and immunity, which would never be granted to other non-Christians.

Even if modern-day Jews were the lineal descendants of the Biblical Israelites and their religion were based upon the Old Testament (rather than the antichrist Talmud), the Christian test ban made it possible for Christians and Jews (and all other non-Christians) to be unequally yoked in official capacity:

Article 6 opened the door for Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians to serve in official government capacities. It was not only an open defiance of the First Commandment, but an unequivocal contravention of the Apostle Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians:

“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)

As important as Paul’s directive is for personal relationships, how much more crucial that it be applied to those who govern others? The ramifications are much greater.6

One only has to consider the deterioration of public policy since the test oaths were abolished to witness the desolating effect upon America’s moral disposition.

Article 6 not only eliminated Christian qualifications for office holders, it also paved the way for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists to rule over Christians as presidents, congressmen, and judges. It was the initial means by which America was transformed from a predominantly monotheistic Christian nation to a thoroughly polytheistic one.

Stay tuned for Part 9.

 

Related posts:

Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land”

The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Today?

God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever

 

1. The majority of today’s Jewish people are known as Jews not because of physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but because their Khazarian predecessors adopted the religion of Judaism (Talmudism) between the seventh and ninth centuries AD. For a more thorough explanation regarding the identity of today’s Jews, see The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Today?

2. “Salomon, Haym,” The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 10 vols. (New York, NY: The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Inc., 1941) vol. 9, p. 324.

3. Jonas Phillips, quoted in Jacob Rader Marcus, ed., The Jew in the American World: A Source Book (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1996) pp. 99-100.

4. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

5. For more regarding the misidentification of today’s Jews as Israelites, see The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Today?

For more regarding the Talmudic religion of today’s Jews, see God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever.

6. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 7

Posted: 13th June 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
30

In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Article 6’s Seditious Supreme Law of the Land

Article VI of the Constitution requires all state and federal officials to support that Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land.” The America people ask no more and deserve no less. (Judge Roy S. Moore, “A Higher Authority,” Wall Street Journal, 30 June 2005)

The framers proclaimed the Constitution, and all laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof, the supreme law of the land. This was done without so much as a nod in the Constitution to any kind of subordination to the law of Yahweh.1 Along with their failure to acknowledge Almighty God as anything more than the document’s timekeeper, this glaring omission is damning testimony that they could not have been the ardent Christians it is so often claimed they were2:

The framers were fully cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.

“Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:6-9)

The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme.3

Sedition is defined as a rebellious act against authority. To enact a law superior or contrary to an authority’s law is, therefore, treason against that authority. Since all authority resides in Yahweh and because the Constitution is replete with edicts contrary to His sovereignty and morality, the Constitution is seditious against Him and His kingdom.

A supreme law can only come from a supreme being. The claim that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land is another witness to the clandestine assertion in the Preamble that WE THE PEOPLE is the god of the United States government. Accordingly, it becomes the god of anyone today who looks to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. (See Chapter 3 concerning the serious implications of WE THE PEOPLE as a deity.) How can Constitutionalists claim to believe the following passage?

“Thine, O YHWH, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O YHWH, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might….” (1 Chronicles 29:11-12)

This and numerous other passages declare Yahweh and His law supreme.3

Christians can’t have it both ways. They can’t advocate the Constitution as Biblical while at the same time claiming Yahweh’s law is supreme. The Constitution demands otherwise.

[T]he Constitution as “supreme law” is a self-contained legal system:

“Our Constitution is a closed legal … system that declares itself and the laws made pursuant to it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that is the only law it allows.” (Thomas James Norton, The Constitution of the United States, Its Sources and Its Application, published by the Committee for Constitutional Government, circa 1922.)

What does this say about the numerous Biblical laws in disagreement with the Constitution?…:

“…a law repugnant to the Constitution is void….” (Marbury v. Madison, 1803)

If we believe the law of WE THE PEOPLE is supreme, then all law that contravenes the Constitution, including Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments, is null and void.3

If, instead, we believe the law of Yahweh is supreme, then we must also believe that the numerous componetns of the Constitution that contravene His law are null and void.

Some people contend that the government’s funding and promotion of infanticide4 and sodomy are outside constitutional parameters. Many constitutional scholars would argue otherwise. Even if we were to concede they are unconstitutional, it is incontestable that both are openly practiced today under the auspices of today’s Constitutional Republic because the framers failed to expressly establish government upon Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His supreme law. Regardless how you view it, infanticide, sodomy, and many other Biblically abhorrent practices are rampant today in America thanks to the secular Constitution having been made the supreme law of the land.

Judge Moore’s statement at the beginning of this article is tragically true. Americans could have Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-11). Instead, most (even most Christians) are asking for the seditious Constitution. They’ve gotten what they deserve.

Stay tuned for Part 8.

 

Related posts:

Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH”

Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land”

 

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. For more regarding some of the key founders’ religious beliefs, see Dr. Albert Mohler’s Radio Interview With Dr. Gregg Frazer, in which Dr. Frazer reveals by some of the key founders’ own writings that they were neither Deists in the purest sense of the word, nor were they Christians in the Biblical sense of the word. Dr. Mohler is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Dr. Frazer is Professor of History at the Master’s College in California.

3. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

4. I refuse to use the word “abortion” to describe the murder of infants in their mother’s womb. The battle against this atrocity begins with identifying it correctly. By calling it “abortion,” we’ve already acquiesced to the opposition’s terminology. Look up “abortion” and “miscarriage” in any dictionary. A miscarriage is an abortion. What doctors (and parents) do to infants in the womb is infanticide. Had Roe v. Wade been waged over infanticide rather than abortion, it would have never made it to the courtroom. In fact, by employing the word “abortion,” Roe v. Wade was won before it ever got to court. Christians need to stop using watered-down, politically correct terms such as “abortion” and “gay” instead of “infanticide” and “sodomy.” The former terms hold no power over evil.

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 6

Posted: 7th June 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
8

In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Article 3’s Judicial Usurpation

On June 27, 2005, in Van Orden v. Perry, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declared, “All told, this Court’s jurisprudence leaves courts, governments, and believers and nonbelievers alike confused—an observation that is hardly new.” If only it were a matter of confusion:

  • 1962, Engel v. Vitale; Supreme Court finds prayer in schools unconstitutional.
  • 1963, Abington v. Schempp; Supreme Court rules that Bible reading in public schools is unconstitutional.
  • 1973, Roe v. Wade; Supreme court finds that the right to personal privacy includes infanticide.
  • 1980, Stone v. Graham; Supreme court strikes down a Kentucky statute requiring display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
  • 2002, Newdow v. U.S.; 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that reciting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
  • 2003, Lawrence v. Texas; Supreme Court strikes down a Texas law prohibiting sodomy.
  • 2003, Glassroth v. Moore; 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rules that a monument to the Ten Commandments placed in Alabama’s judiciary building must be removed.
  • 2003, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health; Massachusetts Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples can marry under the laws of that state.
  • 2004, Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctions same-sex marriage; it declares that the state legislature may not offer “civil union” as an alternative to same-sex marriage, paving the way for the first state-recognized homosexual marriages in U.S. history….

These [and countless other] court decisions are not the consequence of the courts’ departure from the Constitution, but instead the consequence of the constitutional framers establishing a judiciary without specifying that it was to be governed by Yahweh’s1 law.2

French statesman and historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, “There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.”3

The Supreme Court, composed of one chief justice and eight associate justices, with its power to not only judge the facts of any case but also to interpret, judge, and overrule any “law” passed by Congress (what Gary North described as “retroactive legitimacy to legislation”4), makes the Supreme Court the powerhouse or “big god” of this polytheistic system….

The power of the people of the United States of America and their representatives is subject to the Judicial Branch, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which is essentially immune from any kind of censure. The real power or sovereignty of the United States Constitutional Republic resides in a Biblically unqualified and nearly always Biblically adverse five to four majority. The United States government is ultimately under the control and direction of five lawyers. And why not? In 1787, it was predominately lawyers (thirty-four of the fifty-five delegates were lawyers) who framed the Constitution and gave ultimate power into the hands of their own trade….

Although Article 6 declares the Constitution the supreme law of the land, whoever has the power to interpret that law is the supreme legislator. Chief Justice Warren Burger commented on the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established judicial review under Article 3 of the Constitution:

“The cornerstone of our constitutional history and system remains the firm adherence of the Supreme Court to the Marbury principle of judicial review that “someone must decide” what the Constitution means.” (Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Introduction, William Swindler, The Constitution and Chief Justice Marshall (New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1978) p. xiii.)

James Madison concurred:

“I acknowledge, in the ordinary course of government, that the exposition of the laws and Constitution devolves upon the Judiciary.” (James Madison, June 17, 1789, The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1834) vol. 1, p. 520.)5

This is troubling because the Constitutional Republic’s judicial system is inherently flawed:

Constitutionalists believe the superiority of the United States juridical system is demonstrated in that even Supreme Court decisions can be overturned and made right by either future Supreme Court justices or by constitutional amendment. But history has proven the opposite is more likely. Furthermore, the injustices that often occur in the interim between a bad decision and a better decision would seldom, if ever, occur in a Biblical court.

Nothing demonstrates this fundamental defect better than Roe v. Wade, which constitutionally has provided for an endless number of infants to be murdered. While Christian Constitutionalists wait for the Constitutional Republic’s system to (they hope) correct itself, millions more infants are being murdered. Under Yahweh’s law, not one infant would have been murdered [under cover of law].

Even when wrong decisions are overturned, they can be overturned again by a later court. Judicial records expose this capricious tendency of the United States juridical system:

“…law not founded upon absolutes is very dangerous to society. Consider that without absolutes, the Supreme Court has reversed itself over 100 separate times!” (Mark A. Beliles, Douglas S. Anderson, Contending for the Constitution: Recalling the Christian Influence on the Writing of the Constitution and the Biblical Basis of American Law and Liberty (Charlottesville, VA: Providence Foundation, 2005) p. 146.)

The actual number is more than double this figure:

“The Court had reversed itself in 219 cases by 2000. Of this total, all but seven instances came after the Civil War. All but 28 came after 1913. Over 60 percent came after 1941. This process is accelerating.” (Gary North, Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Broken Covenant of the U.S. Constitution (Draper, VA: Nicene Council.com, 2004) p. 278.)

Judicial “standards now change as rapidly as the Justices. This causes an uncertainty for society; and, in fact, often establishes a dubious standard which, in effect, is no standard at all.”6 Unlike the Bible, the Constitution is not an infallible standard. Returning to a more “pure” constitutionalism is not the answer. The answer is found in returning to Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments.7

Such judicial volatility would be impossible under Yahweh’s immutable justice as codified in His triune law. This juridical instability was inevitable because the Constitution nowhere stipulates that judges must rule on behalf of Yahweh or render decisions based upon His commandments, statutes, and judgments:

And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH, who is with you in the judgment…. And he charged them, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of YHWH, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. (2 Chronicles 19:5-9)

That not even one constitutional framer contended for Yahweh, as did King Jehoshaphat, speaks volumes about the framers’ disregard for Him and His judicial system.

When the only constitutional qualification for judges is (undefined) “good behavior,” is it any wonder so little justice is found in the United States Department of Justice? Among other things, Exodus 18:21-22 stipulates that judicial appointees must be men of truth who fear Yahweh and hate covetousness.

Without Yahweh as its focus and His immutable law as its foundation, the Constitution’s judicial branch is but another usurpation of His sovereignty as King, Judge, and Lawgiver.

Stay tuned for Part 7.

 

Related posts:

Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation”

 

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

3. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America and Two Essays on America (London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd., 2003) p. 315.

4. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 502.

5. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

6. David Barton, Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Aledo, TX: Wallbuilder Press, 2005) p. 233.

7. Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Swallowing Camels… Pt. 5

Posted: 31st May 2013 by Ted Weiland in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

In this article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.

Article 2’s Atheistic, Polytheistic, and Impotent Oath of Office

In addition to fearing and serving Yahweh1, Deuteronomy 6:13 commands us to swear by His name. There are at least three reasons for this command: 1) By invoking Yahweh, all other false gods and any opportunity for polytheism are eliminated. 2) Yahweh is made party to whatever vow or covenant is being sworn to. 3) By swearing in Yahweh’s name, a curse is invoked upon the person who violates his vow or covenant. All three of these imperatives were lost with Article 2’s generic oath:

Because the presidential oath does not appeal to Yahweh, it is essentially atheistic [or polytheistic]…:

“The oath of the President of the United States could as well be taken by a pagan or a Mahammedan [sic] as by the Chief Magistrate of a Christian people: it excludes the name of the Supreme Being. Indeed, it is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all. In framing many of our public formularies, greater care seems to have been taken to adapt them to the prejudices of the infidel few than to the consciences of the Christian millions. In these things the minority in our country has hitherto managed to govern the majority. We look on the designed omission of it [the name of God] as an attempt to exclude from civil affairs Him who is the governor among the nations.” (D.X. Junkin, The Oath, quoted in T.P. Stevenson, Corresponding Secretary of the National Association to Amend the Preamble, “History of the Movement to Secure the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Proceedings of the National Convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) p. iv.)

On November 26, 1873, at the National Convention to amend the Preamble, Pastor E.R. Craven noted the following:

“On Tuesday next another inauguration is to take place. President Grant may, if he so choose, appeal to God; but even as he takes the oath required, he may proclaim himself an atheist, and there is no power on earth that can stay his inauguration. The Constitution does, in terms, require an oath, but by the proviso quoted it degrades it to the low platform of a solemn promise—the oath that it requires is emasculated.” (E.R. Craven, Address, Proceedings of the National Convention to secure the religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States: Held in New York, Feb. 26 and 27, 1873 (New York: John Polhemus, Printer, 1873) pp. 18-19.)2

No one knows what god, if any god, President Grant swore his oath to. The same is true for Obama and all past presidents.

As early as 1796 when oaths still retained an appeal to the Supreme Being, they were already inclusive of gods other than Yahweh, as attested by United States Representative Zephaniah Swift:

“All persons who believe in the existence of a God, let their religion be what it will, may be admitted to be witnesses….” (Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham, CT: John Byrne, 1796) vol. 2, p. 238.)

This polytheistic inevitability was the consequence of Amendment 1’s freedom of religion provision. In 1844, Daniel Webster testified before the Supreme Court regarding the pluralism of constitutional oaths:

“What is an oath? …[I]t is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues or punish our vices…. We all know that the doctrine of the … law is that there must be in every person who enters court as a witness, be he Christian or Hindoo, there must be a firm conviction on his mind that falsehood or perjury will be punished either in this world or the next or he cannot be admitted as a witness.” (Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and in Favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young, Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington, DC: Gales and Seaton, 1844) p. 43.)2

It is true that George Washington and many subsequent Presidents took their oath of office with their hand on a Bible3:

But this empty tradition is nowhere required in the Constitution. Even if this custom were spiritually significant for some of the presidents, it was a meaningless ritual for the majority of them. How could swearing upon a Christian Bible be meaningful to these men when Christianity itself means nothing to them?

Swearing upon the Bible is an empty gesture for an even more important reason. If ever there were an unequal yoking, it is when public officials place their hands on the Bible and swear to uphold the laws of WE THE PEOPLE. This no more Christianizes the oath than Aaron’s naming the golden calf “Yahweh” sanctified his idolatry. The Bible offers no precedent for swearing to uphold any other law than Yahweh’s. Swearing in Yahweh’s name, or swearing on the Bible, means nothing to Him if you simultaneously swear to keep the laws of another god. This is treason and sedition against the God of gods and King of kings.4

Not only does the Constitution’s oath fail to identify Yahweh as a party to the office, it also lacks any imprecation by which the one swearing calls a curse upon himself if he fails to keep his oath of office:

Swearing in Yahweh’s name places a person under Yahweh’s jurisdiction and judgment:

“For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute.” (Hebrews 6:16, NASB)

In order for such an oath to end every dispute, it must be self-maledictory—that is, one in which the person calls down a curse upon himself if he does not uphold his oath. An example of a self-maledictory oath can be found in Nehemiah 10:

“…their nobles … entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law … and to observe and do all the commandments of YHWH our Lord, and his judgments and his statutes….” (Nehemiah 10:29-30)

Unlike the vast majority of oaths, which are broken whenever it is advantageous, the oaths taken in Nehemiah’s day actually meant something. Maledictory oaths taken in the name of Yahweh place the oath taker under the curse of Yahweh if he does not uphold his oath….

Oaths that do not force us to answer to someone greater than ourselves are impotent. In the event that the oath taker is not a man of his word, something must compel him to uphold his pledge. Cole v. Richardson noted that without self-imprecation, an oath becomes merely an “amenity.” The presidential oath of office contains nothing compelling or binding. Nothing prevents a president from disregarding his oath the moment he steps off the inauguration platform.4

Biblical oaths are sworn in the name of Yahweh, invoking His imprecation, and are enforced by the Third Commandment’s judgment.

Stay tuned for Part 6.

 

Related posts:

Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation”

Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism”

 

1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

3. George Washington was inaugurated as Worshipful Master, with his hand on a Bible taken from St. John’s Masonic Lodge in New York City. Four other presidents have been sworn in using the same Bible, including George H. W. Bush. Had it not been for inclement weather, George W. would have been as well.

4. Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

Older Entries
Newer Entries