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




Liberty Under God
The Myth of Neutrality

Congress should
  • not pretend to be neutral
  • pursue the Kingdom of God.

There is no other legitimate purpose for any human action than the advancement of the Kingdom of God.
  • Patriotism (advancing the interests of a political coalition) is wrong;
  • Humanism (advancing your own personal interests) is wrong;
  • Satanism (advancing demonic interests) is obviously wrong.

Since all human action runs to some purpose, if the purpose is not the building of God's Kingdom, then it is to build a rival Kingdom. There is no neutrality. The State cannot be impartial and non-religious.


Let me illustrate this vital concept with a scenario so silly you will never forget it.
The concept of "neutrality" is closely related to the issue of "extremism."

    God will have all, or none; serve Him, or fall
    Down before Baal, Bel, or Belial:
    Either be hot, or cold: God doth despise,
    Abhor, and spew out all Neutralities.
Robert Herrick (1591-1674)

h/t the blog formerly known as Utah Journal

Suppose the inspired Prophet Isaiah rises before the court and says to his honor, "This prophet speaks in the Name of God, Who has full authority - full, plenary, absolute, unconditional legal, constitutional, ethical, moral, religious, metaphysical, and ontological authority - to issue direct orders to this court and expect them immediately to be obeyed, and this God hereby orders this court to rub its tummy and pat its head at the same time."

Now suppose the court replies that it will remain " neutral " with regard to the Prophet's claimed authority over the court. It will not deny the prophet's claim, but neither will it affirm the prophet's claim (and thereby risk an "establishment" of religion). The Court will not render a decision on the issue of whether or not the prophet's words do indeed have full, plenary, absolute, unconditional authority over the court, but the court does not begin rubbing its tummy and patting its head at the same time. It is, most assuredly, denying the prophet's claimed authority. (If the court accepted the authority claimed by the Prophet, then it would surely act obediently in terms of that revelation.) There is no neutrality. The State must not attempt to be "neutral." It must be faithful. The only other alternative is disbelief and rebellion.

The God of the Hebrew-Christian Bible claims this kind of authority. Everything we do has to be done Theocratically, says this God. If the court claims religious "neutrality" but does not obey the precepts of this religion, it is in fact denying the authority and legitimacy of this religion.[4]

In America, courts have been denying the authority of Christianity, while simultaneously claiming "neutrality."[5] And with 4,000 babies being murdered each day in America, you can see that this issue is not mere academic tummy-rubbing.

A government can be formed which says, "We deny the authority of God, and affirm the authority of Satan." A Christian cannot "support" such a government. A government can also be formed that says "We deny the authority of Satan, and affirm the absolute authority of God." This would be remarkable, and deserving of the Christian's support. But what are we to say about our own government, which claims to be "neutral" with respect to the all-encompassing and radical claims of Christ? Our nation is actually affirming its own authority and the right of Man to decide for himself what is good and what is evil. Can a system based on the philosophy of autonomy and "neutrality" expect the support of a Christian?

Clearly not. A non-Theocratic government is evil and leads to evil:

  • A government which does not claim to be in submission to the God of the Bible teaches all of its citizens that God need not be obeyed.
  • A government which does not claim to be based on the Bible is claiming that the Bible can be ignored.
  • A government which claims that it need not "choose this day whom you will serve" (God or Baal[6]), implicitly claims to be above both, able to ignore the demands of both God and Baal with impunity. Such a State claims to be God. To support such a State is idolatry.

Another Example:

"Obama State Department deletes 'Mother, 'Father' from forms for more correct 'Parent One, 'Parent Two'"

That's the headline from the Los Angeles Times.

"More correct."

Certainly more politically correct.

The Times reports,

Deleting the customary "mother" and "father" terminology, says Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council, "allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family.” Chrisler's group has long lobbied for the changes.
"Different types of families." You know: all those different types of families that don't have a "mother" or a "father."
"Feeling." The U.S. Supreme Court relies on this kind of thinking. In SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. v. DOE, the Court ruled that the school district cannot allow students to voluntarily pray before a football game. Allowing them to pray would convey some kind of "endorsement" of praying, and this would make those who don't pray feel "left out." Allowing voluntary prayer before a football game

is impermissible because it sends the ancillary message to members of the audience who are nonadherants “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherants that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” [quoting Justice O'Connor in a previous case]

So now who feel's "left out?" Who is "favored?"
There is no neutrality.

So does the government recognize traditional families?

No longer.

Do those who see "Father" and "Mother" as a part of their family feel included?

There is no neutrality. If the government does not promote Biblical values, then the government is at war with them.

I hope you are willing to accept these two propositions:
  1. This is a Christian nation, or it was intended to be so by those who left Europe to settle here. (The evidence for this is too overwhelming for any but the ignorant to deny.)
  2. For these people, all oaths were "test oaths." Only Christians were allowed to hold public office, and it was necessary to test their faith, to see if they were fit for office.
This was the theology of oaths which was codified into law by the states for 180 years under the U.S. Constitution. Darwinism, Communism, and Secularism gradually whittled away at this Christian consensus[7] until 1961, when the U.S. Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins ruled Christian test oaths "unconstitutional."[8] It now appears that anyone who believes as the Founding Fathers did concerning oaths (that they are sacred and must be made in the Name of God) cannot take an oath - unless they are willing to take an oath which conforms to the tenets of the religion of Secular Humanism.[9]

Let me say something that may sound fanatical, but I think you'll be persuaded by the evidence in the next section: This decision ( Torcaso v. Watkins ) is a hideously anti-Christian decision. It is part of a chain of Court decisions that have worked deliberately and systematically to kill Christian influence in America. The antiChristian bias of the courts is both astonishing and admittedly based on ignorance. Let me give you just a sample of this willfully ignorant anti-Christian bias.

Next: "So Help Me, God." or
Can a Christian be a Politician?


4. Now the court may explicitly deny the plaintiff's authority and begin, sua sponte , to rub the court's tummy and pat the court's head. But this is not obedience . It is nothing less than rebellion. (Which explains why even "good works" can be "filthy rags.") The State must give glory to God ( 1 Corinthians 10:31).  [Return to text]

5. It is also the case that they have been obeying the precepts of a rival religion, that of Secular Humanism.  [Return to text]

6. Joshua 24:14-15.  [Return to text]

7. As a Calvinist, I am not overly enthused with the Scottish rationalism and crypto-Deism emerging in 18th- and 19th-century American theology. See generally C. Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History 34-35 (1964):

The result of the growth of Deism and the breakdown of Calvinism was quite a different intellectual temper from that which had characterized Puritanism and colonial thought in general during the seventeenth century. . . . Mosier has well observed that this revolutionary age demanded that both the absolute God and the absolute king must 'henceforth rule by the consent of the governed. The God of Puritanism, stripped of His antique powers, had no recourse but to enter as a weakened prince into the temple of individualism and there to seek refuge.' [note omitted] This sovereignty which He once claimed, and was accorded by the Puritans, was now claimed by man himself. . . . Most of the Revolutionary leaders desired to retain the Christian ethic, but to separate it from the biblical revelation and to find a new basis for it in natural law."
[Return to text]

8. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961). By 1961, only a dozen or so states still prohibited atheists from assuming public office, and some of those statutes were still on the books more than a decade after Torcaso. L. Manning, The Law of Church-State Relations in a Nutshell 3 (1981).  [Return to text]

9. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 at 495 n.11, 81 S.Ct. 1680 at 1684 n.11 (1961).  [Return to text]

next: Campaign Finance, Corruption and the Oath of Office