Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Congressional Issues 2014
The Supreme Court's War on God

Congress should
  • repudiate its allegiance to the Supreme Court-created doctrine of "separation of church and state," and
  • realign itself with our Savior, Jesus Christ.

Back in 1892, when Darwinism, Secularism and Socialism were starting to gain a foothold in America, the U.S. Supreme Court took some time to declare in no uncertain terms that America is a Christian Nation (Holy Trinity v. U.S.). The Court's opinion in this decision can single-handedly reverse the effects of 12 years of government schooling civics classes. It is then a comparatively easy task to expose the foolishness of "separationism."

The Court now declares that America's Founding Fathers intended to give us a "secular" nation, a government "separate" from God, that is, an a-theistic nation. The Court frankly admitted in ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989):

This Court, however, squarely has rejected the proposition that the Establishment Clause is to be interpreted in light of any favoritism for Christianity that may have existed among the Founders of the Republic. (

The Court violates the central assumption of American Constitutional interpretation: that the document is to be interpreted in light of the original intent of its Framers. The Court now believes it can make the Constitution "mean" anything it wants. And what the Court wants is to "be as god." And that means getting the real God out of the way by declaring, as the Allegheny Court went on to say, that

This is a lie. The Framers of the Constitution intended no such mandate, and never observed any such mandate. Just as all individuals have a duty to worship God, so do nations. America's Founding Fathers honored that duty. The Constitution did not repeal that duty. (The duty to "remain secular," in this particular case, means the duty of the government not to acknowledge Christmas.)

This page traces the Court's war on God.

UNDENIABLE: The Survey of Hostility to Religion in America 2014 Edition [pdf]

Separation: The Original Intent

The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .

As we show elsewhere, this Amendment was designed to prevent the Federal Government from creating:

  1. A church denomination officially recognized and protected by the sovereign over other denominations;
  2. A church denomination whose members alone were eligible to vote, to hold public office, and to practice a profession;
  3. A church denomination which compelled religious orthodoxy under penalty of fine and imprisonment;
  4. A church denomination able to expel dissenters from the commonwealth;
  5. A church denomination financed by taxes upon all members of the community; (even those not members of the denomination);
  6. A church denomination which alone could freely hold public worship and evangelize;
  7. A church denomination which alone could perform valid marriages, burials, etc.

This description of "church-state separation" is based on:

  • What the Founders did
  • What the Founders fought against
What they did. Christianity was made the center of American culture. The same Congress that approved the First Amendment immediately passed a resolution asking President Washington to lead the new nation in prayer and thanksgiving for the new constitution. The Supreme Court and the Congress both have always begun their work with prayer to the God of the Bible. School textbooks were filled with Biblical references and catechisms.
Mitre and Sceptre,
Oxford University Press, 1962
"[N]o understanding of the eighteenth century is possible
if we unconsciously omit, or consciously jam out,
the religious theme just because our own milieu is secular."
"[R]eligion was a fundamental cause of the American Revolution."
Richard Hofstadter says of the book:
"[P]uts the religious issue in the Revolution back
closer to the center where it ought to be."

What they fought. The great debates of the day came largely out of America's experience with the Church of England, as Carl Bridenbaugh (Mitre and Sceptre) has shown. Nobody was urging that the Bible, prayer, and the Ten Commandments be removed from schools. No arguments were made that teaching that God created the earth was "an impermissible teaching of religion." Nobody believed that the government must never acknowledge that God exists, for fear that atheists would feel like "second-class citizens" (Allegheny v. ACLU). The Holy Trinity case accurately described the character of the nation when the Constitution was ratified. It was "a Christian nation." The American Revolution was a revolution of "dissenting" preachers against the Church of England, as John Adams explained in his celebrated letters to Jedediah Morse, William Tudor, and Benjamin Rush. 

Separation: The Secularist Myth

Orwell could not have imagined a more successful flushing of history down the "memory hole" than Secular Humanists have pulled off. Secularists have convinced most Americans that the Constitution requires America to be a secular nation, a nation whose government does not take sides between believers and unbelievers. It is certainly true that the American government must never force atheists to go to any church, much less a government-approved denomination. Presbyterians will not be taxed to support Episcopalian clergy. But the First Amendment was not intended to keep the government from acknowledging that God exists and that all men have a duty to obey Him. "Freedom of religion" was not demanded by atheists, but by those for whom the freedom to worship publicly and devoutly was a religious passion.

"Freedom from religion" was not in the mind of a single person who signed the Constitution.

The religious character of the nation has been overthrown—largely since 1947. In order for Christians to go on the offensive and tear down the "wall of separation," these are the questions that should be asked of any "separationist" who denies that America is a Christian nation:
  • Did the Congress which drafted the First Amendment intend to separate God and country? To create a secular nation rather than a nation "under God?"
  • Do atheists have a constitutional right never to hear the government admit that
    • God exists
    • our nation ought to obey His Laws
    • our nation trusts in God
    • our nation is grateful to God for all our blessings
  • Do atheists have a constitutional right to keep Christians and Jews from seeing and learning God's Ten Commandments?
  • Do atheists have a constitutional right to keep Christians and Jews from knowing that our nation's laws were based on God's Ten Commandments?
  • Do atheists have a constitutional right not to be reminded by the courts that America is a Christian nation?
  • Do atheists have a constitutional right to go through the entire month of December without seeing any Christmas decorations?

Those who signed the Constitution would have said "NO!" Every single person who signed the Constitution would have laughed at such ideas. "Separationists" answer each of these questions "yes," and courts in recent years have agreed with them. Here are the most important of those cases.

| | Everson | | McCollum | | Torcaso | | Engel | | Abington | | Walz | | Lemon | | Stone | | Marsh | | Jaffree | | Aguillard | | Allegheny | | Lee v. Weisman | | Macintosh | |

Polygamists for Separation of Church and State

Before looking at those separationist cases, we should review the first U.S. Supreme Court case to mention Jefferson's "wall of separation" metaphor in a substantive way.

Shortly after the "Civil War," Mormon polygamists challenged the constitutionality of statutes against polygamy.

"Separation of church and state," they said.
"Freedom of religion," they argued.

"Christian nation," the Court ruled.

The 1878 case of Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878), cited Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is generally credited with the creation of the "wall of separation" metaphor:

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, - I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Sounds noble, but the Court turned down the polygamists' argument, saying in effect, if you're a polygamist or a witch doctor ready to sacrifice a virgin to the sun-god, "freedom of religion" and 50¢ will get you a cup of coffee. In a Christian nation you can believe anything you want to put between your ears, but—and this is surely more significant—the punitive power of the civil magistrate will not tolerate overt acts which are contrary to Christian morality.

In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court again reviewed a challenge to Christian penal sanctions under the "wall of separation" metaphor.

Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.

And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-43 (1890)

To criminalize unChristian acts is no offense against "freedom of religion," the Court said, because these acts do not even rise to the level of genuine religion.

The Court in Beason repeated the analysis of the Reynolds Court twelve years earlier:

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

Two years after Beason, the Court in Holy Trinity v. U.S. would declare at some length that America "is a Christian Nation."

Thus for well over 100 years after Jefferson used the "wall of separation" metaphor, the "wall" protected churches from the state, but never protected a rebellious or pagan state from the obligations of Christian morality. It was a "one-way" wall.

U.S. v. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605 (1931)

Court Opinion and V&FT Analysis
Court Opinion at

This case is seldom mentioned in any discussion of church-state relations, but it is an important historical landmark. It symbolizes the transition from the 18th-century world of Holy Trinity to the 20th-century world of Secular Humanism and Concentration Camps. Macintosh effectively overruled the Holy Trinity case. Holy Trinity involved federal immigration authorities telling a church they could not hire a pastor from a foreign country. The Court, observing that this is "a Christian nation," declared that "no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people."

Macintosh is a truly horrifying case. Whereas in Holy Trinity the Court held that because this was a Christian nation, all laws were qualified by a higher law, and no law could be interpreted in such a way as to exclude a Christian minister from entering the United States, the Macintosh Court, fully cognizant of the rule in Holy Trinity, completely reverses the rule, refuses to place the nation "under God," and instead declares that the State-as-god is owed "unqualified allegiance." The State is made lord of the conscience. (cp. Acts 5:29)

Macintosh was a Christian from Canada who was a member of the faculty at the Yale Divinity School, who sought to become a naturalized citizen. He indicated that he would be unwilling to kill upon government orders if such orders conflicted with his religion. Many Christians today and in the past have taken a "My country right or wrong" approach. Thankfully, that kind of patriotic naïveté is dying out. Growing numbers of Christians, if ordered by Janet Reno to burn a hundred "fundamentalist" men, women, and children and their house-church to the ground, would flatly refuse. Legally speaking, they are in the same treasonous category as Macintosh was in this case. Their loyalty is to a Foreign Sovereign (Philippians 3:20). Read more here. The Macintosh Court arrogantly claimed that such heavenly allegiance must be subordinated to the welfare-warfare State.

The applicant for naturalization here is unwilling to become a citizen with this understanding. He is unwilling to leave the question of his future military service to the wisdom of Congress, where it belongs, and where every native-born or admitted citizen is obliged to leave it. In effect, he offers to take the oath of allegiance only with the qualification that the question whether the war is necessary or morally justified must, so far as his support is concerned, be conclusively determined by reference to his opinion. [283 U.S. 605, 625] When he speaks of putting his allegiance to the will of God above his allegiance to the government, it is evident, in the light of his entire statement, that he means to make his own interpretation of the will of God the decisive test which shall conclude the government and stay its hand. We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States 143 U.S. 457, 470, 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But, also, we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption, and safely can proceed upon no other, that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God.

In 1946, Macintosh was overruled in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61. Congress passed a law which said that people who refused to take up arms for the New World Order could still become American citizens if they would work for the government (but they wouldn't have to kill anyone directly). Thus, Naturalization of Brakel, 524 F.Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1979) noted that Macintosh was "overruled (on strictly statutory grounds) in Girouard. . ." (at 301, emphasis added). Girouard did not bring back Holy Trinity. Congress can reinstate the law in Macintosh any time it wants. That the State is no longer "under God" has never been denied. That the Holy Trinity case is dead meat is widely recognized.

Historically, then, in 1946 we are at a place where the Humanist-infected Court believes that God is dead, and is looking for a paradigm or metaphor that can be used to purge this dead religion from American life and institutions. Just as Darwin provided a metaphor for a new religion, so the Everson Court would find this metaphor in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.


Court Opinion and V&FT Analysis
Court Opinion at

This is perhaps the most important church-state case in this century; only the Lemon case may have been cited more frequently. The Court actually upheld expenditures which benefited Christians, but "dicta" in the opinion has had a tremendous influence. Here are the words most frequently quoted:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertain- [330 U.S. 1, 16] ing or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Everson at 15-16 While there is some truth here, the language in this important paragraph is ambiguous, and its ambiguity has been exploited by Justices with a secularist axe to grind.

• "Religious Activities" — "No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities," the Court says. Really? James 1:27 says the essence of true religion is taking care of widows and orphans. Religious organizations have been carrying out this religious activity for centuries. To say "no tax" can be levied to support the care of widows is to declare the entire Social Security system "unconstitutional." (Perhaps rightly so.)

Religion and State — Jefferson spoke of a "wall of separation between church and state," but the Court here repeatedly speaks of a separation between "religion" and state, as though the State cannot distinguish between religion and non-religion, between a Christian parent and a pagan who sacrifices his virgin daughter to the sun-god. Subsequent courts have used this language to separate the State from God and from that obedience to God which we call "religion." Not a single person who signed the Constitution had this in mind.

Note the citation of Reynolds by the Everson Court.. This is laughable, enough to embarrass a second-year con-law student. Justice Rehnquist exposed the Everson theory:

Reynolds is the only authority cited as direct precedent for the "wall of separation theory." 330 U.S., at 16. Reynolds is truly inapt; it dealt with a Mormon's Free Exercise Clause challenge to a federal polygamy law.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), note 1 of his dissent.

But the inaptly-applied metaphor has stayed with us. In particular, the dissenters in Everson have been cited frequently; in Abington at 374 U.S. 203, 217, McGowan in note 18, and by J, Blackmun, with whom J. Stevens and J. O'Connor join, concurring in Lee v. Weisman:

The dissenters agreed: "The Amendment's purpose . . . was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." 330 U.S., at 31-32 (Rutledge, J., dissenting, joined by Frankfurter, Jackson, and Burton, JJ.).  Lee v. Weisman 505 U.S. 577, 599

Not a single member of the "Religious Right" believes that the Federal Government should levy taxes to "support" any churches. But in ways so numerous it would be difficult to count them, the men who signed the Constitution believed the government was ethically obligated to obey the will of God, and to endorse belief in God and obedience to His Commandments. See some of those ways here.

The dissenters in Everson believed that the "wall" metaphor should have been more strictly adhered to. Their views would come to prevail. Everson would unleash a communist-style pogrom against religious beliefs in the public square.


Court Opinion at

Are voluntary religious activities unconstitutional? Yes, according to separationists, because such activities remind atheists that there is a God, even if atheists are not a part of these activities. The Champaign [County, Ill.] Board of Education permitted

interested members of the Jewish, Roman Catholic, and a few of the Protestant faiths . . . to offer classes in religious instruction to public school pupils in grades four to nine inclusive. Classes were made up of pupils whose parents signed printed cards requesting that their children be permitted to attend;[2] they were held weekly, thirty minutes for [333 U.S. 203 , 208] the lower grades, forty-five minutes for the higher. The council employed the religious teachers at no expense to the school authorities, but the instructors were subject to the approval and supervision of the superintendent of schools.[3] The classes were taught in three [333 U.S. 203 , 209] separate religious groups by Protestant teachers,[4] Catholic priests, and a Jewish rabbi . . . .

The Court held that permitting students to attend voluntarily religious classes at no expense to the taxpayer, was an "establishment of religion." The Everson case had been decided the previous year, and the Court in McCollum built on that foundation, holding that permitting voluntary religious activities

falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment . . . as we interpreted it in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1. There we said:

'Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.[6] Neither can force or influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.[7] Neither a state nor [333 U.S. 203 , 211] the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State." Id., at pages 15, 16 of 330 U.S., at page 511 of 67 S.Ct.

The majority in the Everson case, and the minority as shown by quotations from the dissenting views in our notes 6 and 7, agreed that the First Amendment's language, properly interpreted, had erected a wall of separation between Church and State.

Justice Reed, in dissent, raised some important points, which are found here. Justice Felix Frankfurter, concurring, delivered the following opinion, in which the Everson dissenters joined:

We dissented in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 512, because in our view the Constitutional principle requiring separation of Church and State compelled invalidation of the ordinance sustained by the majority. Illinois has here authorized the commingling of sectarian with secular instruction in the public schools. The Constitution of the United States forbids this.

Does the U.S. Constitution say anything at all about public schools and "sectarian education?" Does the Constitution give the federal judiciary the power to dictate which classes will be held in Champaign County Illinois? Separationists say "yes." Frankfurter continued:

The case, in the light of the Everson decision, demonstrates anew that the mere formulation of a relevant Constitutional principle is the beginning of the solution of a problem, not its answer. This is so because the mean- [333 U.S. 203 , 213] ing of a spacious conception like that of the separation of Church from State is unfolded as appeal is made to the principle from case to case. We are all agreed that the First and the Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than merely to forbid an 'established church.'

All nine of us.

The Court's language is revealing — and critical. The Court says the First Amendment now forbids much more than the wildest fears of Church of England vestrymen. It now forbids permitting students voluntarily to attend classes which teach religion, even if these classes are paid for by the various churches.

There is a hostility toward religion in this opinion, and its authors were laying the foundation to remove prayer and Bible reading from schools, as the Court would do in the early 1960's. The Founding Fathers, on the other hand, believed that one of the most important purposes of public education was to teach religion and morality. Read their statements here.

TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court Opinion and V&FT Analysis
Court Opinion at

The day after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, every state in the union believed that an oath was an appeal to God. Since atheists did not believe in God, they could not take an oath, and so atheists were not permitted to hold public office or testify in courts. The First Amendment was designed to keep the federal government from interfering in the way states understood their duties to God. "Congress shall make no law . . . ."

All of that changed in 1961 when the Supreme Court determined that they had the power to amend a state constitution where that constitution dealt with religion. One of the requirements of public office holders was a belief in God. The Court in Torcaso ruled that requirement  in the Maryland Constitution "unconstitutional." Apparently it took 170 years before anyone realized that such provisions in state constitutions were "unconstitutional," even though most state constitutions were written by the same men who wrote the federal constitution.

That well-worn paragraph from Everson was again quoted. The "wall of separation" between churches and the state was further deconstructed into a wall of separation between God and State.

We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.11
Torcaso, 367 U.S. 488, 495

Footnote 11 is famous for declaring that "Secular Humanism" is one of "those religions" which is not founded on a belief in God. Thus, in deference to the religion of atheism, oaths must be secular, and cannot be religious, that is, Christian. This footnote has proven to be a great embarrassment to Secular Humanists. Find out why.

There can be no doubt that those who demanded a Bill of Rights before they would ratify the Constitution were not demanding that the federal judiciary be given the power to tell the states what religious view of oaths they should have. When they spoke of an "establishment of religion," they were speaking of the establishment of a particular denomination of Christianity, such as the Church of England, or the Methodist Church. Read their statements here.

ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Court Opinion at
Justice Stewart's Dissent

Every session of Congress begins with prayer. Do Christians in schools have the same rights? Because of this case, No; they're not even allowed to read the prayers from Capitol Hill (State Brd. of Educ v. Netcong, 262 A.2d 21 (1970).

The Annals of Congress for Sept 25, 1789 record these discussions by the same Congress which approved the wording of the First Amendment, concerning the proclamation of a national day of Thanksgiving:

Mr [Elias] Boudinot said he could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings He had poured down upon them. With this view, therefore, he would move the following resolution:

Resolved, That a joint committee of both Houses be directed to wait upon the President of the United States to request that he would recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a Constitution of government for their safety and happiness . . . .

Mr. [Roger] Sherman justified the practice of thanksgiving, on any signal event, not only as a laudable one in itself but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon after the building of the temple was a case in point. This example he thought worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion; and he would agree with the gentleman who moved the resolution. Mr Boudinot quoted further precedents from the practice of the late Congress, [he was a member of the Continental Congress from 1778-79 and 1781-84 and President of the Continental Congress 1782-83] and hoped the motion would meet a ready acquiescence. [Boudinot was also founder and first president of the American Bible Society.] The question was now put on the resolution and it was carried in the affirmative.

Does this sound like a group of statesmen who would object to the New York education authorities authorizing a moment for students to say the following prayer:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 422 (1962)

— especially if atheists were allowed to excuse their children from saying this prayer? Such was the conclusion of the separationist Court in Engel v. Vitale, which ruled such an opportunity for voluntary prayer an "unconstitutional" establishment of religion.

The Court admitted that " . . . the schools did not compel any pupil to join in the prayer over his or her parents' objection. (Engel at 423).

Nevertheless, the Court overruled the clear intent of the Congress which approved the wording of the First Amendment:

Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the [First Amendment]. . . . [It] ignores the essential nature of the program's constitutional defects. . . . Prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State.
Engel, at 430.

The Latin phrase "ipse dixit" is useful in these contexts.

It is true that when an ecclesiastical denomination must resort to government coercion to compel citizens to attend its services, that denomination has been degraded. But nobody in this case was coerced. No denomination was favored over any other denomination, any more than Washington's proclamation of a day of prayer was an establishment of a state church. The Court hates religion. There's no getting around this fact. The Court asserted, "[A] union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion." George Washington spoke for the Founding Fathers when he declared, "[T]rue religion affords to government its surest support." Read their declarations here.


Court Opinion at
Justice Stewart's Dissent

When Roger Sherman quoted the Bible in urging the first Congress to approve a National Day of Prayer, he selected the passages and read from any version he chose. Pennsylvania schools passed a policy which gave students the same freedom:

Each school, either collectively or in classes, shall be opened by the reading, without comment, of a chapter in the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lord's Prayer. Participation in the opening exercises, as directed by the statute, is voluntary. Participation in the opening exercises, as directed by the statute, is voluntary. The student reading the verses from the Bible may select the passages and read from any version he chooses. . . .
Abington, at 207, 211n.4.

The Supreme Court finds such freedom to offend the Constitution. Never mind that

During the period in which the exercises have been conducted the King James, the Douay and the Revised Standard versions of the Bible have been used, as well as the Jewish Holy Scriptures. There are no prefatory statements, no questions asked or solicited, no comments or explanations made and no interpretations given at or during the exercises. The students and parents are advised that the student may absent himself from the classroom or, should he elect to remain, not participate in the exercises.
Abington at 207.

Virtually every single person who signed the Constitution believed that public schools ought to teach the Bible in a non-sectarian manner. Read their statements here.

WALZ v. TAX COMSN. OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970)

Court Opinion at

This case concerned tax-exemption for churches, and as is often the case, even when the Supreme Court seems to rule in favor of religion, they have succeeded in digging its grave a little deeper. Justice Brennan, concurring, declared:

Their principal effect is to carry out secular purposes—the encouragement of public service activities and of a pluralistic society. During their ordinary operations, most churches engage in activities of a secular nature that benefit the community; and all churches by their existence contribute to the diversity of association, viewpoint, and enterprise so highly valued by all of us. The means churches use to carry on their public service activities are not 'essentially religious' in nature. They are the same means used by any purely secular organization—money, human time and skills, physical facilities. It is true that each church contributes to the pluralism of our society through its purely religious activities, but that state encourages these activities not because it champions religion per se but because it values religion among a variety of private, nonprofit enterprises that contribute to the diversity of the Nation.  [397 U.S. 664 , 692-93]
Second, government grants exemptions to religious organizations because they uniquely contribute to the pluralism of American society by their religious activities. Government may properly include religious institutions among the variety of private, nonprofit groups that receive tax exemptions, for each group contributes to the diversity of association, viewpoint, and enterprise essential to a vigorous, pluralistic society. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 371, 373, 249 F.2d 127, 129 (1957)  [397 U.S. 664 , 689]

("Ethical Society" is a branch of the religion of Secular Humanism. That case gave them tax exemption, and was cited in Torcaso's infamous "Footnote 11.")

In other words, the State no longer grants tax-free status to churches because we render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and the things that are God's to God, nor because the State is "under God" and churches are a holy sanctuary which even the greatest emperors would not breach, but because the Humanistic Supreme Court magnanimously views churches as having a tolerable role to play in the creation of their new "pluralistic" secular society.

Justice Douglas would throw out the exemptions entirely, but would agree with Justice Brennan on the mandate for "pluralism":

[O]ne of the mandates of the First Amendment is to promote a viable, pluralistic society and to keep government neutral, not only between sects, but also between believers and nonbelievers. [397 U.S. 664 , 716]

It is true that the Founding Fathers were not hostile toward non-Christian religions. See their comments here. And of course, the Founders believed in denominational pluralism, in which each Christian denomination is on an equal legal footing. But the Framers did not espouse pure pluralism. Non-Christian religions could exist only insofar as they stayed within Christian boundaries — no sacrificing virgins, no polygamy, no pagan perversions. See the evidence here. We were one nation "under God" — a particular God, with particular moral standards. Pluralism is a myth. It is political polytheism. America was a distinctly Christian nation. Read the Founders' views here.

Walz held that tax exemptions had a long history and were therefore constitutional. Justice Douglas challenged the Court by noting that school prayer had an equally long history, but that did not stop the Court from throwing prayer out of schools. Despite its apparently favorable ruling, Walz is a dangerous case. And Lemon v. Kurtzman proves it.

LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) 

Court Opinion at

Taking its cue from the Walz case, this case may be more frequently cited than Everson. The so-called "Lemon Test" dominated church-state cases for more than 20 years.

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968);  finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674. [403 U.S. 602, 612-13]

This is certainly convenient for Secular Humanists. Every legislation must have for its purpose a goal which is acceptable to Humanists, its primary effect must not be to advance the interests of those who oppose Humanism, and it must not bring the government "under God" in an "excessive" way. Is there any wonder that Secularism has advanced so?

How does this "secular purpose/secular effect" test conform to the principles and practice of the Founding Fathers? Here is how James Madison argued against a very important piece of legislation. He opposed it

12. Because, the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of (revelation) from coming into the Region of it; and countenances, by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachments of error.

Madison felt no compulsion to muster up a "secular purpose." He said the bill should be defeated precisely because it did not advance "the light of Christianity." Today, however, legislation will be struck down by the Court if one of those who sponsored the bill hoped it might benefit Christianity in some in indirect way. (Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985; Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)

The "secular purpose" and "secular effect" prongs of the "Lemon test" are corollaries of the view that society should be secular and religion kept out of the public square. As Justice Brennan would write in Marsh v. Chambers (1983), the "Lemon test"

embodies a judgment, born of a long and turbulent history, that, in our society, religion "must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice . . . ." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S., at 625.

It is true that the Framers gave no power to the new government to tell churches which scent of incense they must use. Many other questions of "worship" or belief are rightly considered "private" questions. But the Founders also agreed with Ben Franklin, who knew quite well the value of Christianity to society, and who, in the context of teaching history to the youth of Philadelphia, said:

History will also afford the frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion, from its usefulness to the public; the advantage of a religious character among private persons; the mischiefs of superstition, &c. and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern. (Benjamin Franklin, Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1749), p. 22.)

The Founders believed in public religion. Official proclamations of national days of prayer and public appeals to the God of the Bible in the Addresses and Orders of every single Congress and President this nation has had since its inception in 1776 (and before) show that no one intended the Constitution to exile Christianity to the world of the "noumenal" and require every law to pass in review before the religion of Secular Humanism.

You might think that you have passed "the Lemon Test" if your legislation explicitly states your secular purpose. But think again. Kentucky decided her schools should teach good citizenship by teaching the Ten Commandments. A copy of the Ten Commandments, paid for by private funds, was to be hung in each classroom. That's all. Just hanging on the wall in case some student might want to learn them. A plaque under each poster read,

"The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States."

Can any student claim to know much about Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States without having some familiarity with the Ten Commandments. It is not possible. Nevertheless, the Court prohibited Kentucky from hanging the posters of the Ten Commandments.

The pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature.

Of course it was! What's wrong with that? This is a Christian nation, after all. As Chief Justice Burger noted in Lynch v. Donnelly (the Nativity Scene case),

The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent—not seasonal—symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. [465 U.S. 668, 677]

But times have changed:

In Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), this Court held unconstitutional the daily reading of Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer in the public schools, despite the school district's assertion of such secular purposes as "the promotion of moral values, the contradiction to the materialistic trends of our times, the perpetuation of our institutions and the teaching of literature." Id., at 223.

If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments. [This] is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause. [T]he mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the "official support of the State...Government" that the Establishment Clause prohibits.  [449 U.S. 39, 41-42]

This decision is more than ridiculous; it is evil. Not a single person who signed the Constitution would agree with the idea that the Federal Government has the power to order municipal schools to remove copies of the Ten Commandments from classroom walls. Read what the Founders said.

MARSH v. CHAMBERS, 463 U.S. 783 (1983)

Court Opinion and V&FT Analysis
Court Opinion at

There are apparently some limits to how blatantly a-historical the Court will get. This case may illustrate that limit. At first glance, this case appears to break from the anti-Christian tack the Court has been following. It concerned a challenge to the practice of the Nebraska Legislature of beginning each session in prayer. The Continental Congress, the very Congress that approved the First Amendment, and virtually every state in the Union, approved legislative prayer. It existed before the Constitution was written, and for 200 years since. Much as they may have wanted to, how could the Court have called it "unconstitutional?" Justice Brennan, dissenting, astutely noted, "If the Court had struck down legislative prayer today, it would likely have stimulated a furious reaction." (103 S.Ct. 3330 at 3351) Could the Court have braved such outcry?  Had there been any real prayer going on in the Nebraska Legislature, the Court might have found a way.

Luckily for the Court, complaints had been lodged years earlier that the prayers were "too explicitly Christian" (id. at 3339n.8), and so the Chaplain "removed all references to Christ" and replaced them with "elements of the American civil religion." (opinion of the Court, at 3336n.14)  The prayers thus had a secular purpose and a secular effect. Had these prayers been explicitly Christian they would have been banned. (Compare Allegheny v. ACLU, below, in which the Christian Nativity Scene was banned, but the Menorah was allowed to stand.)

The dissent astutely recognized that had the "Lemon Test" been applied, the uninterrupted 200-year tradition of legislative prayer would have had to come to an end. But tradition overruled Lemon in this unique case. As the Court would say in Edwards v. Aguillard,

The Lemon test has been applied in all cases since its adoption in 1971, except in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), where the Court held that the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening a session with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the State did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court based its conclusion in that case on the historical acceptance of the practice. (note 4)

(And the fact that the prayers had already been watered down into "American civil religion.")

The Court got back on track with this case. An Alabama law authorized a one-minute period of silence for students. In striking down the law, the appeals court and the Supreme Court agreed: "It is not the activity itself that concerns us; it is the purpose of the activity that we shall scrutinize." [472 U.S. 38, 47n.30]

The "purpose" was found in the statements of one of the sponsors of the bill who hoped the students would use the one minute of silence to pray. That was all the Court needed to hear. Chief Justice Burger, dissenting, was alarmed that the vote of the entire Alabama Legislature could be overturned because of this one legislator's Christian hopes.

Curiously, the opinions do not mention that all of the sponsor's statements relied upon—including the statement "inserted" into the Senate Journal—were made after the legislature had passed the statute; indeed, the testimony that the Court finds critical was given well over a year after the statute was enacted. As even the appellees concede, see Brief for Appellees 18, there is not a shred of evidence that [472 U.S. 38, 87] the legislature as a whole shared the sponsor's motive or that a majority in either house was even aware of the sponsor's view of the bill when it was passed. The sole relevance of the sponsor's statements, therefore, is that they reflect the personal, subjective motives of a single legislator. No case in the 195-year history of this Court supports the disconcerting idea that postenactment statements by individual legislators are relevant in determining the constitutionality of legislation.

They are only relevant if they are Christian, it would appear. Had the law been passed because its sponsors believed it conformed to the Secular ideals of the religion of Secular Humanism, there would have been no problem.

The Founding Fathers did not believe it inappropriate for legislators to harbor hopes that students would pray. In fact, the Framers believed that government had a duty to encourage and promote piety and true religion. Read their hopes here.

EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

Court Opinion and V&FT Analysis
Court Opinion at

This is another case in which Big Brother looks into the heart and overrules entire Legislatures if it finds Christianity in one legislator's heart. But the real dynamic in this case is the Court's belief that presenting scientific evidence against Darwinism—scientific facts which would tend to support the historical record in Scripture—constitutes an "establishment of religion." After all, "we all know" who wants these ideas taught in schools.

The court held that there can be no valid secular reason for prohibiting the teaching of evolution, a theory historically opposed by some religious denominations. The court further concluded that "the teaching of `creation-science' ... as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching `tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects." Id., at 427 (citing Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968)). The District Court therefore held that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine. [482 U.S. 578, 582]

This is simply a war on the beliefs of Fundamentalist Christians, by a Court that does not believe them. Can you imagine the court attacking any other religion in this manner? Suppose the Court had said

The court held that there can be no valid secular reason for prohibiting the teaching of white supremacy, a theory historically opposed by some religious denominations. The court further concluded that "the teaching of `honesty, fairness, and diligent labor' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching `tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects." The Court therefore held that the Good People Act violated the Establishment Clause either because it prohibited the teaching of Racism or because it required the teaching of goodness with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine.

Besides, was it the case that the entire Louisiana Legislature was acting only to advance the tenets of fundamentalists? That they knew this legislation was unconstitutional and nevertheless violated their oaths of office and lied about it? The only evidence to support this claim rested in the fact that the bill's sponsor hoped he could draft legislation with a secular purpose and a secular effect (Lemon) which would also conform to his religious motivations. The evidence in fact indicates he had a tough time convincing his colleagues to grant "equal time" to scientific evidence against Darwinism.

Thomas Paine on Creationism in schools.


Court Opinion at

The opinion of the Court begins with Everson, and concludes that the County acted unconstitutionally by permitting a private religious group to place a nativity scene on public property. Such a display could give the impression that the government "endorsed" Christianity.

Of course, the word "endorsement" is not self-defining. Rather, it derives its meaning from other words that this Court has found useful over the years in interpreting the Establishment Clause. Thus, it has been noted that the prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion "preclude[s] government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S., at 70 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). Accord, Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S., at 27, 28 (separate opinion concurring in judgment) (reaffirming that "government may not favor religious belief over disbelief" or adopt a "preference for the dissemination of religious ideas"); Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S., at 593 ("preference" for particular religious beliefs constitutes an endorsement of religion); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 305 (1963) (Goldberg, J., concurring) ("The fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government . . . effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion"). [492 U.S. 573, 593]

This is an accurate and helpful understanding of the Court's "endorsement" test. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with an accurate or useful understanding of the Original Intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

Sectarian differences among various Christian denominations were central to the origins of our Republic. . . .  Precisely because of the religious diversity that is our national heritage, the Founders added to the Constitution a Bill of Rights, the very first words of which declare: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or [492 U.S. 573, 590] prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." Perhaps in the early days of the Republic these words were understood to protect only the diversity within Christianity, but today they are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to "the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S., at 52.

Read what the Supreme Court said about "infidels" in 1844. "But today," whenever the Court discusses what the Founding Fathers believed about Christianity, it immediately follows with "but today . . . ."

Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that it was appropriate for the State to "endorse" and "promote" "true religion. The Court simply does not bind itself by the Original Intent of the Authors of the Constitution.

On the contrary, the Constitution mandates that the government remain secular. . . .  [492 U.S. 573, 610]

Every single person who signed the Constitution believed that government was an ordinance of God, with an explicitly religious foundation. Gain understanding of the Founders here. Since America was a nation "under God," no one believed that the government must remain secular, that is, indifferent to its relationship to God. Unbelievers have always been at a legal disadvantage in America because a Christian nation like America is predicated on belief in God.

LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

Court Opinion and V&FT Analysis
Court Opinion at

This case struck down the last outpost of prayer in public schools: The Graduation Ceremony. If the Founders believed the government should not compel religious observances, and if the Court in Allegheny believed that the government could not even give an appearance of "endorsing" religious observances, the Court in Weisman concluded that the government could not permit religious observances in public because an atheist might witness it and be plunged into the torturous depths of psychological vexation. The "psychological coercion test" gives a lone atheist the right to nullify the free exercise of an entire community of theists.

School principals in the public school system of the city of Providence, Rhode Island, are permitted to invite members of the clergy to offer invocation and benediction prayers as part of the formal graduation ceremonies for middle schools and for high schools. The question before us is whether including clerical members who offer prayers as part of the official school graduation ceremony is consistent with the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment . . . .  [505 U.S. 577, 580]  
It has been the custom of Providence school officials to provide invited clergy with a pamphlet entitled "Guidelines for Civic Occasions," prepared by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. The Guidelines recommend that public prayers at nonsectarian civic ceremonies be composed with "inclusiveness and sensitivity." . . . The school principal, petitioner Robert E. Lee, invited a rabbi to deliver prayers at the graduation exercises for Deborah's class. Rabbi Leslie Gutterman, of the Temple Beth El in Providence, accepted. The principal gave Rabbi Gutterman the pamphlet before the graduation, and advised him the invocation and benediction should be nonsectarian.
Rabbi Gutterman's prayers were as follows:

    "God of the Free, Hope of the Brave:
    "For the legacy of America where diversity is celebrated and the rights of minorities are protected, [505 U.S. 577, 582] we thank You. May these young men and women grow up to enrich it.
    "For the liberty of America, we thank You. May these new graduates grow up to guard it.
    "For the political process of America in which all its citizens may participate, for its court system where all may seek justice, we thank You. May those we honor this morning always turn to it in trust.
    "For the destiny of America, we thank You. May the graduates of Nathan Bishop Middle School so live that they might help to share it.
    "May our aspirations for our country and for these young people, who are our hope for the future, be richly fulfilled.

    "O God, we are grateful to You for having endowed us with the capacity for learning which we have celebrated on this joyous commencement.
    "Happy families give thanks for seeing their children achieve an important milestone. Send Your blessings upon the teachers and administrators who helped prepare them.
    "The graduates now need strength and guidance for the future; help them to understand that we are not complete with academic knowledge alone. We must each strive to fulfill what You require of us all: to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly.
    "We give thanks to You, Lord, for keeping us alive, sustaining us, and allowing us to reach this special, happy occasion.
    AMEN"   [505 U.S. 577, 582]

These non-sectarian prayers were tame compared to the explicitly Christian prayers routinely offered by the men who drafted the Constitution and served in the highest offices in the land. Read some of them here. Justice Souter, in his concurring opinion, acknowledged that the Founders allowed, encouraged, and participated in such prayers, but accused the Framers of not understanding the meaning of the Constitution they themselves had authored:

[T]hose practices prove, at best, that the Framers simply did not share a common understanding of the Establishment Clause, and, at worst, that they, like other politicians, could raise constitutional ideals one day and turn their backs on them the next. [Such acts were] patently unconstitutional by modern standards. If the early Congress's political actions were determinative, and not merely relevant, evidence of constitutional meaning, we would have to gut our current First Amendment doctrine . . . .

The Secular Court contends that their understanding of the constitutionality of prayer is more accurate than that of those who created the document.

The Weisman Court went beyond the Lemon Test, and beyond the "endorsement" test (Allegheny), and announced the "psychological coercion test." Under this test, if one person finds himself uncomfortable in the presence of an acknowledgement of God, then that activity is unconstitutional. One 14-year old objected to remaining respectfully silent during a theistic prayer, and her phobia eliminated the opportunity for the rest of the community to put into action their agreement with George Washington:

[I]t is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. . . .
Proclamation for a National Day of Thanksgiving, October 3, 1789

The illogic and departure from historic precedent by the Court is ably spelled out in the dissent of Justice Scalia, in which Justices Rehnquist, White, and Thomas joined. Read it here.

Observing the evolution of the Court's many "tests" and the increasing hostility toward Christianity, one is reminded of Thomas Jefferson's warning:

The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
(to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819.)

The "separation of church and state" as promulgated by the Supreme Court, is a myth.

The True Archist: Christ or the State? [Contents] || [Feedback] || [V&FT]


On Taking an Oath to "Support the Constitution."


The 20th Century

Christ vs. Caesar

The Constitution vs. Christ

Civil Religion: Religion in the Service of the State

America is at War with Christianity

The State as God: The "Support" Oath

Summary: Summers


The shift from Puritan Theocracy to Christian-American Civil Religion has already been examined. This essay examines the shift from Christian-American Civil Religion to Secular Humanist Theocracy.

We have seen that before the Constitution was ratified, every state barred atheists from taking oaths. This meant atheists could not testify in court, and because they could not take an oath of office, they could not hold any office or public trust. This was because early American statesmen were Christians, dedicated to establishing the Christian religion in the new world, and attempted to implement Biblical Law in society.

Although atheists were excluded from political leadership, great freedom was given to those who believed that God exists "and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). Even pacifists like Quakers were permitted to participate in political life -- if they should want to.

Christian Theocracy made America the greatest nation on earth. The Character of Christians, following God's Law, creates social order. Christians, with their total allegiance given to God, find their life and work blessed by God, and their nation secure. Christians do not envy, nor resort to violence when frustrated. This creates harmony and prosperity. It forms the bulwark against violent revolutions, stabilizing the political order.

Politicians used to understand this. Today, it is long-forgotten. This essay traces the memory lapse in now-secular courts. The Orwellian Memory Hole has been created by the religion of Secular Humanism.

The Christian Theocratic ideal was waning by the time the Constitution was drafted. There is evidence that the Constitution was designed by a minority of the Founders to repudiate Christian Theocracy. Christian terminology was used, but with a secular/rationalistic intent. A number of deists and other infidels who were quiet about their unorthodox beliefs were influential in American statecraft. The Sovereign Power in this country shifted from God to "We, the People." This essay traces the further evolution of this god from "we the People" to "we the State."

The 20th Century

The 20th Century is incomprehensible except in light of America's explicitly Christian Theocratic history. Atheists, having been excluded from Christendom, seem to have a greater awareness of the Christian roots of this nation than Christians do. Atheists have worked for -- and have achieved -- a Secular Humanist Theocracy, and with rigorous logic, have excluded Christians and others who do not believe in the new god.

Christians have been legally declared to be "anarchists." They have been denied employment as attorneys, teachers, or public employees, and are not permitted to become American citizens.

This is not a mistake by the courts. This essay attempts to demonstrate that the Bible really does stand in opposition to modern American Government, and the secular courts realized this before most Christians (Luke 16:8).

One battlefront in this war is the oath to "support the Constitution." It is against the law for Christians to take an oath to "support the Constitution."

Obviously there are many Christians who have taken such an oath, and are now American citizens, attorneys, teachers, or public employees. But it is most likely the case that they never publicly declared themselves to be Christians, but simply took an oath to "support the Constitution" like atheists and other Secular Humanists. If an anti-Christian judge had known that they place their allegiance to Christ above their loyalty to the State, they would have been denied American citizenship or employment.

Growing numbers of Christians oppose the "New World Order." They oppose the political agenda of Secular Humanists. The more dedicated they are to such beliefs, the more of a threat they are to the Secular Theocracy, and the more likely they might be excluded from political functions. The author of this essay is a very radical opponent of the "New World Order." But any degree of Christian opposition to the State and allegiance to a rival Sovereign is enough to have you disqualified from participation in the "New Order," just as surely as atheists were excluded under the old order.

The Biblical Conflict Between Christ and Caesar

In a very real sense, Christians are Biblically required to be "anarchists." Consider the following:

While Jesus says not to resist our enemies (Matthew 5), the State is the political institutionalization of resistance to our enemies: the State is the use of lethal force or violence either to prevent someone from hitting our cheek, or to exact vengeance from the cheek-hitting party. The New World Order has killed over 1 million people in Iraq in order to resist the cheek-hitting Saddam Hussein. This contradicts Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount.

Support of the State as the institutionalization of violence also contradicts the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. There he says Christians are not to participate in "the legal system."[1] It is better to be defrauded, better to turn the other cheek, better to go an extra mile, than to seek vengeance using the power of the State.[2]

In fact, technically speaking, followers of Jesus are explicitly commanded to be "anarchists." If you look at the Greek text in Mark 10:42-45, you will see that Jesus characterizes the Gentile kings as "archists," but His followers are "not" to be such. Our English word "anarchist" is derived from two Greek words meaning "not an archist." Rather than seeking power over others (like the Gentile "archists"), Christians seek to be servants.

The Bible never commands us to set up a State. Those who do so are in rebellion against God.[3] The State is the instrument through which we evade God's Law and the command to be servants. Jesus, knowing he was going to be murdered, did not take up arms. This is the model to be followed by the Christian servant (1 Peter 2:21).

But also in a practical sense, we live in a nation which has legally and officially repudiated God. You may not think of yourself as an "anarchist," but epistemologically self-conscious courts will. You have not given your allegiance to the new god. The U.S. government has repudiated your God.

This repudiation began with the ratification of the secular Constitution (1791).[4] No Christian can support apostasy and rebellion. No Christian can "solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution has become the charter of a new religion and an anti-Christian Empire.

The Civil Religion of the U.S. Constitution

"Religion" is the inescapable moral foundation of law and government. Every law imposes a morality, and every morality is the product of a religion.[5] In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that the purpose of the pre-Revolutionary Founders of this land was "the establishment of the Christian religion."[6] That Court acknowledged that before the Constitution was ratified, no one could assume any public office unless they professed faith in Christ.[7] Legislators used to insert Biblical references in the margins of the statute books to prove the validity of their laws.[8]

But the new religious source of law in our country is the religion of Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court admits that Secularism is a religion.[9] According to the so-called "Lemon Test," every federal, state, and local law must be in conformity with the tenets of this religion. If it can be shown that the purpose of the legislature in passing a law was to advance a Christian ideal and not a Secular one, the law will be declared "unconstitutional."[10] The Christian presuppositions of lawmakers living before the Revolution (1776-91) have thus been completely overturned.

The United States Constitution[11] embodies what scholars call a "Civil Religion." Using Christian terminology, the Architects of the Revolution effected a stupendous change in the religious foundation of this country, from Theocratic Christianity to a Secular Humanist "theocracy."[12] The use of Christian rhetoric and concepts to support a Humanistic secular state is called "Civil Religion." "Civil Religion" sometimes sounds Christian, and may even quote from the Bible, but the Christians always lose in the courts of this "Civil Religion."

Though not involving Christians, the following cases used Christian rhetoric to justify a thoroughly statist decision. They show that Christianity is in conflict with the "Civil Religion" of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. ex rel Turner v. Williams[13] The defendant in this case testified "that he has at no times been engaged as a propagandist of doctrines inciting to, or advising, violent overthrow of government," but "has at all times conducted himself as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen."[14] But defendant was deported as an "anarchist." The reason: he denied the moral legitimacy of a group of men getting together, taking money from other people under threats of violence or coercion, and seizing control over the businesses and families of others. Some people call such organizations "the Mafia." Defendant called it "the State." Defendant admitted that, technically speaking, this view made him an "anarchist," but he distinguished what is popularly called "anarchism" from what political scientists call "philosophical anarchism." He quoted Huxley:

"Anarchy, as a term of political philosophy, must be taken only in its proper sense, which has nothing to do with disorder or with crime . . . ."[15]

Although defendant denied "that he is an anarchist within the meaning of the immigration laws of the United States,"[16] the Court ruled against him. In analyzing the statute authorizing deportation of "anarchists," the Court held that

If the word "anarchists" should be interpreted as including aliens whose anarchistic views are professed as those of political philosophers, innocent of evil intent, it would follow that Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population . . . .[17]

What is "dangerous to the public weal," in the Court's eyes, is an Authority higher than the State; a "Law above the law." Of course, the Court denied transgressing the First Amendment, but the rhetoric of its reasoning showed the establishment of this new "Civil Religion":

We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself unconquerable, but this case does not involve these considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance; and as long as human governments endure they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here.[18]

In an unmistakable use of religious (Biblical) language,[19] the Court imposes its own interpretation of "the will of God" on a defendant who does not share the Court's religious faith in the New World Order. Any Christian who studies Edenic symbolism in the Scriptures[20] reaches an altogether different interpretation of Who possesses the "Keys of the Kingdom" and whom He admits to the Garden.[21]

Lopez v. Howe[22] The appellant in this case believed that the government's "orders should be obeyed," rejected violence and assassination as strategies of social change ("[O]ur ideals are founded on education."), and was "against killing and against destruction" ("We are to construct.").[23] But the appellant did not believe in the moral legitimacy of the Mafia or of the State, and so was deported under the Immigration Act which excluded "Anarchists or persons who . . . disbelieve in . . . organized government."[24]

The appellant believed that if the population practiced principles of moral conduct, the State would disappear. A great Christian statesman named Robert Winthrop similarly declared in 1852 that

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet.[25]

Faithful Christians have never relied on statist coercion ("the bayonet") to bring peace and prosperity, but rather the preaching and teaching of "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). The Court's assessment of the appellant in Lopez chillingly fits any thinking Christian: "His theories, if they could be put in practice, would end the government of the United States . . . ."[26] This is why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools "unconstitutional."[27] It is easier for an anti-Christian politician to extend his control over undisciplined, immoral people than over those who are governed by the Word of God. Widespread obedience to God's Law would end the reign of tyrants.

Abrams v. U.S[28] Defendants, who "did not believe in government in any form," were convicted of espionage for encouraging resistance to war.

Events at Waco and Ruby Ridge evidence the growing militarization of the secular state. We have replaced the Religion of the Bible with the religion of the bayonet, and the U.S. has become a police state, both domestically and internationally. During the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, we were promised that the Federal government would not become entangled in foreign disputes. We should not have believed this. Those who are truly in control of world affairs -- the bankers and other corporate oligarchs who "leave" the business world to become "public servants" -- use war as a tool to increase their power and to protect their investments.[29]

Christians should oppose these wars on this basis alone, to say nothing of the millions of innocent men, women and children who are maimed and killed in these wars to expand the New World Order.[30] Abrams was right (Luke 16:8): wise Christians also lack a faith in war, and similarly have "no interest whatever in the government of the United States."[31]

America is at War with Christianity

U.S. v. Schwimmer[32] When the king of France declares war on the king of Spain, Christians should not take sides. The Kingdom of God is a Universal Sovereignty that transcends the petty and greedy interests of the politicians of earthly nations. The applicant in this case was a woman who refused to declare her willingness to take up arms against another country because she was an "uncompromising pacifist" with "no sense of nationalism."[33] The applicant was not permitted to take the oath to "support the Constitution" (even though she was willing to do so) because her beliefs were held to be inconsistent with the requirement to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States."[34]

The dissent raised First Amendment questions, but the majority was more concerned over defendant's "purpose or power to influence others" as a "lecturer and writer" to adopt her "anarchist" perspective, a purpose which every follower of the Prince of Peace shares. Every Christian is an "ambassador for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20), a representative of a Rival Sovereign. Our citizenship is in heaven (Philip. 3:20) and we represent Christ even after the dictators of earthly nations cast us into prison (Eph. 6:20). The duty of an ambassador is to proclaim the Crown Rights of the True King, and urge the "signing" of an "unconditional surrender."[35] We have a Great Commission to go into every nation and assert the Lawful Reign of Christ the King (Matt. 28:18-20). The Gospel we preach is "Good News" to those who believe and have the heart of a servant, but "bad news" to those Gentile kings who love to rule over others.

A careful examination of human history and God's Law as recorded in the Bible suggests that God nowhere commands people to abandon the Patriarchy of our father Abraham[36] to form non-familial political structures. Families are commanded to educate their children, give them vocational training, care for their elderly, care for their ill, care for the familyless, teach the ignorant, and care for those who cannot care for themselves. If families dedicate themselves to all these things, you will have a "well-governed" society. But there will be no time for "government." Thus, there will be no reason to "support" a Constitution.

This case holds that Christians who believe such "revolutionary" ideas would be liars if they took an oath to "support the Constitution." Most people who call themselves Christians don't see the conflict. The courts of the New World Order do. Most Christians who swear to "support the Constitution" understand neither the Scriptures nor the law of the land. The loyalty of the Christian is to the Word of God, and the State says such people cannot "support the Constitution."

The State as God

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the oath to "support the Constitution" implies an unqualified allegiance to the State and a willingness to obey all its laws. This is an impossible demand for a Christian. A Christian "must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). If the State passes a law requiring everyone to turn their Jewish neighbors in to the Concentration Camp Administration, true Christians will not obey this law; Christ said we are to give our lives rather than take the life of another (John 15:12-13). The following cases further demonstrate that Christians cannot "support the Constitution."

In Re Clarke[37] Does the "support oath" required of attorneys, teachers, public employees, and those seeking to become American citizens really require unqualified support of the Constitution and blind obedience to the laws of the State? Virtually no one believes this. All who have taken such an oath will admit that they do not agree with everything in the Constitution, and would not support a law which required evil or forbad righteousness.

This sounds comforting, at first, and you might be inclined to think, "Perhaps I'll just be honest with the system and tell them that when I say 'I support the Constitution' I do not mean to swear 'unqualified support' of the laws of the State, but only 'so far as they are in accord with the moral law of Jesus Christ.' " Will the system accept such a qualification? Will "full disclosure" help your cause?

In the case of In Re Clarke, the petitioner wanted to add those exact words ("insofar as they are in accord with the moral law of Jesus Christ") to his support oath, and his petition was rejected in the strongest terms. "No sophistry of illusionary reasoning can minimize the ordinary import of the oath," the court said, adding that a qualification of the oath would "open the door for further infractions and anarchy may stalk in unmolested."[38]

Anarchy! Oh, dear!

Christianity means allegiance to a rival Sovereign; or seen from the vantage point of the secular State, "anarchy." It cannot be tolerated. In this case religious freedom for Christians was denied and a religious faith in a secular State was established.

U.S. v. Macintosh[39] An Applicant for Naturalization was unable to take the "Support Oath." "[T]he position thus taken was the only one he could take consistently with his moral principles and with what he understood to be the moral principles of Christianity."[40]

Here, a Canadian Christian was required to take an oath to support the Constitution in order to become an American citizen. This should not be a problem, except that he was a Christian, and would obey the State only if doing so was not disobedient to God.

The Court, restating the principles in U.S. v. Bland (below) and U.S. v. Schwimmer (above), imposed its religious views on the applicant:

When he speaks of putting his allegiance to the will of God above his allegiance to the government, it is evident in the light of his entire statement, that he means to make his own interpretation of the will of God the decisive test . . . . [True, w]e are a Christian people,[41] according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But,[42] also, we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose . . . government must go forward upon the assumption, and safely can proceed upon no other, that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land . . . are not inconsistent with the will of God.[43]

I trust you see, dear reader, that they are inconsistent. Christians "must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29); many of the New Testament epistles were written by an Apostle in jail. Christ and His Apostles suffered more than deportation for their religion. But deportation and crucifixion are both abridgments of the Christian's free exercise of religion, based on the establishment of a "Civil Religion," a rival interpretation of "the will of God." In Macintosh, the Court unmistakably rejects Petitioner's Christian religion and imposes its own interpretation of "the will of God" upon him, an interpretation which conveniently includes "unqualified allegiance" to the State.

The Court cites a case from the previous century which held that "we are a Christian people," and many Christians are thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court would acknowledge this. But the "Civil Religion" is at work here, and the Court ultimately ruled that anyone who "must obey God rather than man" cannot become a citizen of this nation. In other words, if your loyalty to Christ is greater than your loyalty to the State, you cannot become a citizen of this "Christian nation." That's what this Supreme Court case is all about. And their decision is the law. You cannot become an American if you are a Christian!

This case is a hungry, statist wolf wearing sheep's clothing so old it's see-through.

U.S. v. Bland[44] Under facts nearly identical to Macintosh[45] and decided the same day, an applicant for naturalization sought to qualify the "Support Oath" by adding "as far as my conscience as a Christian will allow . . . . Petition Denied."[46] The request is so simple; everyone assumes the existence of "freedom of conscience." The implications of the Court's denial are staggering. The State claims higher authority than Jesus Christ.[47]

In re Summers[48] Although his loyalty to the State was clearly subordinate to His allegiance to Christ, Clyde Summers was willing to take the "Support Oath" in order to become admitted to the practice of law. But the U.S. Supreme Court looked back to the Macintosh case, which had asked,

If the attitude of this claimant, as shown by his statements and the inferences properly to be deduced from them, be held immaterial to the question of his fitness for admission to citizenship, where shall the line be drawn? Upon what ground of distinction may we hereafter reject another applicant who shall express his willingness to respect any particular principle of the Constitution or obey any future statute only upon the condition that he shall entertain the opinion that it is morally justified? The applicant's attitude, in effect, is a refusal to take the oath of allegiance except in an altered form. * * * It is not within the province of the courts to make bargains with those who seek naturalization. They must accept the grant and take the oath in accordance with the terms fixed by the law, or forego the privilege of citizenship. There is no middle choice. If one qualification of the oath be allowed, the door is opened for others, with utter confusion as the probable final result.[49]

Summers was denied admission to the Illinois Bar.

Smith v. County Engineer of San Diego Co.[50] Even though by this time (1968) the American "Civil Religion" has so thoroughly indoctrinated the population that virtually no one thinks there is a conflict between Christianity and the Constitution,[51] the appellant in Smith sought to qualify his "support oath" with a public recognition of the subordination of the State to the sovereignty of Christ:

In taking this oath I make no mental reservation. I am a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and I declare that I owe a supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in making that declaration I take the same God as my witness invoking His assistance to help me to render due obedience to my Country in all temporal matters.[52]

His qualification was little more than the oath of office required of every office holder before the Constitution. But his profession of faith was rejected at the price of his life's vocation. After "exegeting" a text from the Bible,[53] the court affirmed the new Civil Religion by saying, "Respondents [the State] properly refused to accept the oath encumbered and compromised by appellant's injection of an unauthorized potential qualification of its meaning and clarity."[54] The only "clarity" here is that Christians are not allowed to become Americans.

Petition of Williams[55] Fifty years after Macintosh, faithful service to the State is still an issue. In hearings before the naturalization examiner, Diana Williams

stated under oath that she believed in the Constitution of the United States, and the form of government of the United States; that she has never been arrested, but that she would not take the oath of allegiance. . . . Petitioner states that she has mental reservations about taking the oath in any form and stated that she would only obey those laws that did not conflict with her religious beliefs."[56]

"We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).

The court noted that Petitioner's "religious beliefs and training prevent her from voting, becoming active in politics, serving on a jury, bearing arms, or serving in civilian service deemed to be of national importance," but noted as well that "petitions have been granted to those people who refuse to perform these obligations based on religious beliefs and training."[57]

The courts have held that attachment and favorable disposition as used in the statute relate to mental attitudes. Allan v. United States, 115 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1940). However, the courts have also noted that patriotism ". . . is not a condition of naturalization" and "that attachment is not addressed to the heart, demands no affection for or even approval of a democratic system of government, but merely an acceptance of the fundamental political habits and attitudes which here prevail, and a willingness to obey the laws which may result from them." United States v. Rossler, 144 F.2d 463 at p. 465 (2d Cir. 1944).[58]

But these contradictory cases were not resolved in favor of the Petitioner.

It is, therefore, apparent that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that a person be "attached" to the principles of the Constitution as well as willing to take the oath of allegiance without mental reservations. In the instant case, the petitioner not only refuses to perform the moral obligations of citizenship, but expresses an intention to disobey any law which conflicts with her Christian conscience and interpretation of the Bible, irrespective of the nature or subject matter of such law. Petitioner, therefore, is unable to take the oath of allegiance without mental reservations as to the pledge contained therein to support the laws of the United States. . . . [P]etition . . . denied. . . .[59]

All good Christians likewise have a "mental attitude" and cannot take a similar oath.[60]

In re De Bellis Petition for Naturalization[61] The facts in this case parallel those in Williams, above, and the court's conclusion is laced with "Civil Religion":

In this case, petitioner has testified that she alone will decide which laws she will obey and that she will not take the . . . oath without qualification."

Plaintiff explained her philosophy by referring to the Bible, John 17:16 and James 1:27. Perhaps Congress, when it enacted the naturalization statutes, had Luke 11:21 to 23 in mind. I do not know, but in any event, since petitioner cannot take the oath without mental reservation, naturalization must be denied.[62]

Applying Christ's description of Himself[63] to the State as a means of justifying military service to the State[64] may or may not be blasphemous under Canon Law, but certainly reveals that the underlying issue is sovereignty: The State vs. God.

* * * * *

Let us review by re-examining the case of In Re Summers.[65] This case is a Paradigm. It clearly shows the conflict between Christ and the secular State. Although willing to take the oath to "support the Constitution," Summers was not permitted by the State Bar, the Supreme Court of Illinois, and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, to do so, because he could not do so in "good faith," given his religious disagreements with certain provisions of the Illinois state constitution.[66] He was otherwise qualified for admission to practice law.[67] Justice Black, dissenting, stated the issue clearly:

The fact that petitioner measures up to every other requirement for admission to the Bar set by the State demonstrates beyond doubt that the only reason for his rejection was his religious beliefs.[68]

Three important points are illustrated in this case:

Biblical Faith rejects coercion, force, or violence as individual and collective means of self-preservation.

In formulating his views on the State, Summers took the Sermon on the Mount into consideration. While Jesus says not to resist our enemies, the State is the political institutionalization of resistance to our enemies: the State is the use of violence and force either to prevent self-injury or to exact vengeance from the injuring party. This contradicts the Sermon on the Mount.

This belief comes also from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. There he says Christians are not to participate in "the legal system." It is better to be defrauded, better to turn the other cheek, better to go an extra mile, than to seek vengeance at the hand of the secular State.[69]

The "Support Oath" establishes a religious faith in violence and the New World Order.

When the Illinois State Bar heard these kinds of views from Clyde Summers, it refused to allow Summers to take the "support oath" and be admitted to the practice of law. The State Bar said Summers could not swear his "support" for such a constitution in "good faith" because of his religion, which caused him to question parts of the constitution.[70] Based on the Sermon on the Mount, Summers questioned the legitimacy of the Empire's use of war and violence.

Summers appealed the decision of the State Bar. This was Summers' argument in his petition before the Illinois Supreme Court:

The so-called "misconduct" for which petitioner could be reproached for is his taking the New Testament too seriously. Instead of merely reading or preaching the Sermon on the Mount, he tries to practice it. The only fault of the petitioner consists in his attempt to act as a good Christian in accordance with his interpretation of the Bible, and according to the dictates of his conscience. We respectfully submit that the profession of law does not shut its gates to persons who have qualified in all other respects, even when they follow in the footsteps of that Great Teacher of mankind who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. We respectfully submit that under our Constitutional guarantees even good Christians who have met all the requirements for the admission to the bar may be admitted to practice law.[71]

The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the State Bar's rejection of Summers.

In the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling of the Illinois State Supreme Court was upheld. The Court held that an applicant who had such disagreement with the Constitution as Summers did could not take the support oath in "good faith," even though he was willing to do so.[72]

There was no misunderstanding. The Sermon on the Mount is at odds with every concept of "the State." In fact, the Illinois Bar was quite astute in sensing the implications of Summers' pro-Sermon on the Mount position. Although there is no record of Summers' views on 1 Corinthians 6, the position of non-violence taught in the Sermon on the Mount is quite consistent with the position the Apostle Paul takes against using the non-Christian legal system to solve problems (or to remedy our frustration over having not solved our problems). In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says plainly that Christians should not sue in secular courts. If everybody took the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Corinthians 6 seriously, there would be no "law" (i.e., no "State") as we know it. It is easy to suspect that the Illinois State Bar recognized this ominous fact. In unofficial correspondence with Summers from the Secretary of the Bar, the would-be attorney was told,

I think the record establishes that you are a conscientious objector. Also that your philosophical beliefs go further: you eschew the use of force regardless of circumstances. But the law[73] which you profess to embrace and which you teach and would practice is not an abstraction observed through mutual respect. It is real. It is the result of experience of man in an imperfect world, necessary we believe to restrain the strong and protect the weak. It recognizes the right even of the individual to use force under certain circumstances and commands the use of force to obtain its observance. * * * I do not argue against your religious beliefs or your philosophy of non-violence. My point is merely that your position seems inconsistent with the obligation of an attorney at law.[74]

The establishment of one religion results in the restriction of the freedoms of a minority based on their exercise of a rival religion.

The Secretary's judgment is a consistent application of a non-Christian political paradigm; Summers may not have been consistent to his.[75] The Summers case stands in a long line of cases holding that religious belief in the politically orthodox use of violence is required even of those who would defend others against such violence. The "Support Oath" establishes a religion contrary to the First Amendment and contrary to Christianity.

One would think that every Christian's beliefs include those of the applicant in the Summers case -- they would thus be barred from taking an oath to "support the Constitution" under that holding. Summers' petition was rejected for his failure to support only one "delegated power." As defenders of a Biblical Social Order (Patriarchy), Christians, after comparing Biblical Law with the Constitution, are unable to support the delegation of any Christian responsibilities to the State as is found, e.g., in the enumeration of congressional powers in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution; Christians believe each of these responsibilities, if morally legitimate at all, are duties which families cannot delegate, or need not delegate monopolistically (i.e., only to a "State"), and in any case cannot fund through the theft of taxation[76] or inflation.[77]

When the decentralized Patriarchal (Family-centered) social order of the Bible is compared with the political (polis-centered) order of every constitution, we see the conflict between two religions and two kingdoms: the religion of the Bible and the religion of Greco-Roman "classicism," a religion we today call "Secular Humanism;" the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of man; Christianity and America: a nation which is a "re-incarnation" of the Empire which enslaved the Hebrew children, pictured on the back of a one-dollar bill as a "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM," and which we now call the "New World Order."

The Word of God in the Scriptures, not any Constitution, is the foundation of law, order, peace, and prosperity. We have, for too long, been relying on the latter and disregarding the former, and our nation is crumbling in violence and immorality.

America and its Constitution are the heart of the New World Order.

Christians can no longer be Americans.


(1) See generally Buzzard and Eck, Tell it to the Church, 1985; Sande, The Peacemaker, 1991.

(2) Cf. Romans 12:2,14,17-21.

(3) Cain: Genesis 4:17; Lamech: Genesis 4:23-24; Nimrod: Genesis 10:812; Babel: Genesis 11:19; Israel: 1 Samuel 8. The Bible says we are to pay our taxes. The United States of America was formed by men who refused to pay, choosing rather to shoot and kill officers of the British Occupational Government.

(4) The true anti-Christian nature of the U.S. Constitution is exposed in Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, by Gary North (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989). Or as the Bible-believing Patrick Henry put it, "I smell a rat in Philadelphia."

(5) See R.J. Rushdoony, "Can We Legislate Morality?" in Law and Liberty, Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1974.

(6) Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 at 466, 12 S.Ct. 511 at 514 (1892).

(7) It took decades for these explicitly Christian oaths of office to be removed from the statute books after the Constitution was ratified.

(8) For an example, see John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641, Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835 in 2 The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117 (No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law").

(9) Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495n.11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 1684n.11, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, 987n.11 (1961).

(10) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 93 S.Ct. 1463, 36 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973).

(11) and other founding documents of the Revolution.

(12) "Theocracy" means "the reign of God." The question is not, "Shall we have a theocracy, or not?" The question is always, "Who shall be the god of our theo-cracy?" The god of the religion of Secular Humanism is "Man," "Mankind," or "Humanity," which in practice has a funny way of becoming "the State."

(13) U.S. ex rel Turner v. Williams 194 U.S. 279, 24 S.Ct. 719 (1904). An attorney was disbarred under this holding in In re Margolis, 269 Pa 206, 112 A 478, 12 ALR 1186 (1921).

(14) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 280-81, 24 S.Ct. 720.

(15) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 293, 24 S.Ct. 723.

(16) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 281, 24 S.Ct. 720.

(17) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 294, 24 S.Ct. 724.

(18) Id. (emphasis added).

(19) Genesis 3:24. Cf. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History, Phila: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1964, p. 35.

(20) See generally, David Chilton, Paradise Restored, Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985.

(21) See Revelation 22:14; Jesus, not the State, admits us to the Garden.

(22) Lopez v. Howe, 170 CCA 337, 259 F. 401, 12 ALR 192 (1919).

(23) Ibid., at 259 F. 403-404, 12 ALR 195.

(24) Ibid., at 259 F. 402 n.1, 12 ALR 193 n.1.

(25) Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1952) p. 172 [from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet."] Cited in David Barton, The Myth of Separation, p. 254.

(26) Lopez., at 259 F. 404, 12 ALR 196.

(27) Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed.2d 199 (1980).

(28) Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, 40 S.Ct. 17 (1919).

(29) Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. World War I produced legislation ("The Trading with the Enemy Act") which was conscripted for duty in Roosevelt's "war" against the "Great Depression." Congress approved his Executive decrees which essentially declared all those who might believe in a Free Market to be "enemies" of the State, and the gold of all these "enemies" was confiscated. The "limited government" rhetoric of Constitutional conservatives has no effect during a time of "national emergency."

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. [H]undreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers . . . which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the county without reference to normal constitutional processes. ... A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 [now (1995) 60] years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. [A]ctions taken by the Government in times of great crises have -- from, at least, the Civil War -- in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."

Emergency Powers Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency; Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, U.S. Senate, 93rd Cong., 1st Session, iii, 1, (1973).

World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, and Iraq also resulted in a number of "emergency" measures.

To "solemnly swear to support" a Constitution which has been suspended for 60 years is -- either knowingly or ignorantly -- to rubber stamp the corporate-martial law that replaced it. [Note as well that the Constitution was suspended by those who swore to "support" it.]

(30) The Secular States of the world are responsible for the murder of approximately 200 million people in the 20th century alone. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, 1994. The United States of America is the only secular nation thus far to have targeted and delivered nuclear weapons on innocent civilian populations.

(31) Ibid., at 250 U.S. 618, 40 S.Ct. 17-18. See note 75, below.

(32) U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889 (1929).

(33) Ibid., at 279 U.S. 644, 49 S.Ct. 448.

(34) Ibid, at 279 U.S. 646, 49 S.Ct. 448.

(35) Gary North, Unconditional Surrender, Tyler, TX: Geneva Press, 1981.

(36) Galatians 3:7,9,14,28-29; Romans 4:13,16; 9:8.

(37) In re Clarke, 301 Pa 321, 152 A. 92 (1930).

(38) Clarke at 152 A. 95.

(39) U.S. v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed 1302 (1931).

(40) Ibid. at 283 U.S. 619, 51 S.Ct. 573.

(41) The Court here refers to an 1892 case (Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457,470,471, 12 S.Ct. 511,[516], 36 L.Ed. 226) which is a throwback to the pre-Revolutionary days. The Macintosh Court is using the Christian rhetoric of this case in a most deceptive way, reaching a wholly opposite conclusion. This is "Civil Religion" at its finest. (Or worst.)

(42) . . . the language of reversal!

(43) Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, at 625, 51 S.Ct. 570, at 575 ("his own interpretation," Court's emphasis; all other emphasis added).

(44) U.S. v. Bland, 283 U.S. 636, 51 S.Ct. 569 (1931).

(45) U.S. v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed 1302 (1931).

(46) Bland, at U.S. 636, S.Ct. 570.

(47) Bland and its companion case, Macintosh, were later overruled in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61, 66 S.Ct. 826, 90 L.Ed. 1084 (1946). Congress passed a law which said that people who refused to take up arms for the New World Order, could become American citizens if they would work for the government (but they wouldn't have to kill anyone directly). Thus, Naturalization of Brakel, 524 F.Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1979) noted that "these decisions were overruled (on strictly statutory grounds) in Girouard. . ." (at 301, emphasis added), suggesting that the religious underpinnings of Macintosh-Bland-Schwimmer were left untouched. Macintosh is still cited by courts.

(48) In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 65 S.Ct. 1307, 89 L.Ed 1745 (1945); reh. den. 326 U.S. 807, 66 S.Ct. 94, 90 L.Ed. 491 (1945). See below.

(49) Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 at 626, 51 S.Ct. 570 at 575. There is certainly logic here, given the Humanistic paradigm presupposed by the oath; why make a law if you're just going to invite a bunch of cocky Christian law students to come in and re-write the law with their own variations? But the "utter confusion" which the Court fears is actually the collective attempt of those with rival faiths to hammer out an oath which is "narrowly drawn" and satisfies the "legitimate interests" of the State without establishing a vague faith in the reigning political orthodoxy. Alas, it is an impossible task (Luke 16:13-14).

The Girouard case did not claim to overrule the Summers case.

(50) Smith v. County Engineer of San Diego Co. 266 C.A.2d 645, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 (1968).

(51) and "anarchists" don't seem to be as numerous as they were before the Great War

(52) Smith, 266 C.A.2d 645 at 648, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 at 503.

(53) Smith, 266 C.A.2d 645 at 657, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 at 509. ("Apposite is the admonition, 'render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.' (Matthew, xxii, 21).") See Singer, above.

(54) Smith, 266 C.A.2d 645 at 657, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 at 509.

(55) Petition of Williams 474 F.Supp. 384 (D. Ariz., 1979).

(56) Ibid., at 385.

(57) Ibid. at 386.

(58) Id. (emphasis added).

(59) Ibid., at 387. (Emphasis added.)

(60) See also In re Petition for Naturalization of Matz, 296 F.Supp. 927 (E.D. Cal., 1969). In the Mormon Polygamy Cases, of the late 1800's, defendants who claimed a "Law above the law" had their "religious freedom" abridged because Christianity -- ostensibly the established religion of the nation -- frowned on polygamy. In Williams and Matz, however, the established religion is the survival of the State, which frowns on the unwillingness to participate in the "national war effort."

(61) In re De Bellis Petition for Naturalization 493 F.Supp. 534 (E.D. Pa. 1980).

(62) Ibid., at 536. See also Naturalization of Brakel, 524 F.Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1979).

(63) "He who is not with Me is against Me. . . .

(64) and as a basis for denying citizenship and, arguably, admission to the Bar

(65) In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 65 S.Ct. 1307, 89 L.Ed 1795 (1945).

(66) Summers, at 325 U.S. 565, 65 S.Ct. 1310.

(67) Summers, at 325 U.S. 563, 65 S.Ct. 1309.

(68) Ibid., at 325 U.S. 573-74, 65 S.Ct. 1314.

(69) Cf. Romans 12:2,14,17-21.

(70) In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 at 565, 65 S.Ct. 1307 at 1310.

(71) Ibid., at 325 U.S. 570, 65 S.Ct. 1312. Emphasis added.

(72) Cf. American Communications Ass'n CIO v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 at 405, 70 S.Ct. 674 at 687 (1950).

(73) that is, the law of the polis, the State, as opposed to the "law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2), which, it may be inferred, would be considered "an abstraction."

(74) Summers, at 325 U.S. 563 n.3, 65 S.Ct. 1309 n.3.

(75) Why should someone who opposes the use of force be given a license to "practice law," i.e., use the institutionalized force of "the law" (the Sheriff's gun) to get people to do what he could not persuade them to do through logic or love? And why should Summers even want to wield a gun ("practice law") when he professes to follow the "abstraction" known as Christianity? For Christians, the answer is found in the Biblical commands to defend individuals oppressed by statist violence, whether initiated by the State or other individuals. (Proverbs 31:8-9; Isaiah 1:17; Job 29:12; Jeremiah 21:12; 22:3,16; Isaiah 59:4,14; Zechariah 7:9; Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 24:11.) These commands are not written for politicians alone. They are in fact directed to Christians, who are the true governors and kings of the land (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 5:10; Psalm 72:1-2,4,12-13; Proverbs 29:14.) Thus, while Christians join Abrams (see case above, p. 2) in saying they do not "support" the Constitution, and have "no interest whatever" in using the statist bayonet, in another sense, it is only Christians who really care about the government of our nation.

(76) Art. I, § 8, para. 1 ("collect taxes"); Amend. XVI.

(77) Art. I, § 8, para. 2 ("borrow money").

What is an "anarchist"?

The word "anarchist" comes from two Greek words, a, meaning "not" or "without" and archist, meaning "ruler."

Jesus Christ is an "Archist." He is the beginning, the First Principle of the Universe (Colossians 1:18). He is the ruler of the Gentiles (Romans 15:12). Christians are not "anarchists" because they believe in Christ the Archist.
     I Am NOT an ARCHIST
Satan tempted man to "be as god" (Genesis 3:5). This was the temptation to be an "archist," for which temptation men have fallen. Jesus said the kings of the Gentiles are those who strive for political godhead; they want to be "archists" (Mark 10:42-45). But Jesus commands His followers not to be "archists." Christians reject the temptation of Satan, and the ways of earthly archists. That means that in the eyes of demonic kings and power-grabbers, Christians are "anarchists."       How to Become a Christian Anarchist

back to: The Separation of Church and State