A More Perfect Union  July 02, 2010  (10.7.2)

A More Perfect Union is a series of four articles about God's Divine Providence within America's two greatest documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Table of Contents on this webpage:

Article One: The Blessings of Liberty

Article Two: Separation of Church and State

Article Three: Our Unalienable Rights

Article Four: Kryptonite or Light (Finding the American Way, Rediscovering our Constitution)

The Blessings of Liberty

-2 pages-

By Larry M. Jaynes:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the opening statement of the Constitution (sometimes called the Preamble), and states the reason for the Constitution's formation and writing (for your convenience and for reference, we have posted a copy of the Constitution on our Recent Bible Bytes page, dated March 24, 2010). I would like to highlight and discuss the phrase and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. There are people who are trying to separate God out from the Constitutional laws and Amendments of the United States, thinking that one does not fit with the other. But I ask you to logically consider the following concept with me. Who can really imagine that Blessings of Liberty could come from any other source than from God? Yes, basic liberties can be appreciated by having the assurance of Government and State protections; however, Blessings of Liberty do not come from man, or from the Devil, or from the framers of the Constitution, nor from the Government of today, nor do they appear out of thin air. Rather Blessings of Liberty can only come from our God, and there is no doubt that the framers of the Constitution earnestly pursued the securing of our Blessings of Liberty without governmental interference for generations to come.

". . . I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel. . ." Spoken by Benjamin Franklin during the Constitutional convention of 1787, as recalled and written by Jonathan Dayton, a signer of the Constitution from New Jersey who was the youngest member participating at the convention, being 27 years young.

II Corinthians 3:17:
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Ephesians 1:3:
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all {ALL} spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Blessings of Liberty are spiritual; they are gifts from our loving God, and that is the plain and simple truth! The more we recognize where our God-given Blessings of Liberty emanate, the greater our spiritual union with God grows. God's spiritual endowments literally allow His blessings and love to extend out even to the non-Christian.

John 3:16, begins with these words, "For God so loved the world," the verse does not say that God just loves the Christians, or the Jews, or any other specific group, but He loves the world. Jesus said in Luke 6:35 that God "is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil," as God's blessings, kindness, and love is extended to beyond what we so often imagine, just as the forefathers incorporated and preserved these same qualities in the Constitution for all of the citizens of America. For an example of God's kindness and blessings, we read in the Book of Genesis at the time when Joseph was in Egypt that not only did the families of Israel prosper and flourish as they arrived in their new country, but all of the Egyptians did as well (who were considered unbelievers). In fact, because of the believers living in Egypt, Egypt became the most prosperous country in the world. This is not unlike America today because God lives within the hearts of believers, and the Father of Lights indeed blesses our country, and this is what our Constitution secures for us, for our children, and for future generations.

The Blessings of Liberty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution is so much more than a written blueprint for forming and maintaining a working government, it was formed in the spirit of liberty. The Constitution, "Renders therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's {the things in the political sphere that inspire and protect the Blessings of Liberty for we the people}; and unto God the things that are God's {safeguarding the moral and spiritual rights of protection and the Blessings of Liberty for we the people}" (Matthew 22:21).

The Constitution was written to secure that we the people may enjoy our unalienable rights, without oppression from the powers that be. The Constitution was formulated to guarantee our free rights to have God in every aspect of our lives, and to walk boldly and openly without external pressures. As a result, an atheist can appreciate, or at least gaze on, blessings of liberty that mysteriously sprout out of thin air or from the government, while a believer may experientially enjoy all the wonders of the Blessings of Liberty that are explicitly given from the loving hands of the blessed God and Creator of heaven and earth.

Psalms 33:12:
Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance.

Separation of Church and State

-47 pages-

By Larry M. Jaynes:

The above title is a fallacy and a fabricated myth, for the words "Separation of Church and State" are not written in the Constitution or the Amendments. Yet recently I again heard a major news commentator who had a judicial background explicitly state with animated emotion that we need to protect our Constitution by enforcing the separation of Church and State. In this article, we will reason out several common sense considerations and hopefully you will come to understand and appreciate the Constitution of the United States even greater than you may have had before reading this article. (For your reference and convenience, we have posted a copy of the Constitution on our Recent Bible Bytes page, dated March 24, 2010.)

The words "separation of Church and State" are written in constitutional type textbooks (the oldest text I found was 1858), the Supreme Court mentioning this phrase frequently when dealing with religious matters in cases that are brought before them to either ban or clarify matters of a "religious nature" with the precedent of separation of Church and State having taken root. However, and unfortunately, American society has come to believe that separation was the original intent of our founding fathers. Many, many people today believe in this separation with their entire beings, and some even think that it is written somewhere in the Constitution, when in truth the words separation and/or church are totally absent from both the Constitution and all Twenty-seven Amendments. The words state and states are often used, but only to identify the United States proper or to identify the individual states in the United States. Nevertheless, whenever any premise, thesis, or hypothesis begins in error, the findings will out of necessity sprout forth mythical inaccuracy. Following is the First Amendment (called Article I; the first of ten Amendments, also referred to as the Bill of Rights) to the Constitution of the United States of America:

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

We would need to change the accepted principles of the English language and disallow common sense to make the first two phrases above say "Separation of Church and State," simply because those two Constitutional phrases do not declare anything about separation of Church and State. True, those phrases are stating something very important as we shall discover and discuss, but they are not stating separation of Church and State.

How the dilemma came into existence: In 1947 the Supreme Court case of Everton vs. Board of Education isolated and extracted the last eight words from a sentence in the middle of the second paragraph from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Connecticut Baptist Association stating ". . . a wall of separation between church and State." This letter slipped quietly through history for 145 years without causing any controversy whatsoever until it surfaced in an attempt to prove that the theory of separation of Church and State was the original intent in the First Amendment.

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and was ratified by nine states in 1788, which is fourteen years before Thomas Jefferson wrote his letter to the Baptist Association, and thus the timing of his letter came well after the establishment of the Constitution into the law of the land.

This phrase about a wall of separation that Jefferson used in his letter has evolved into all of the separation of Church and State assumptions with progression to the so-called constitutional mandates of separation today. (See below this article for a brief on the Supreme Court's decision regarding Everton vs. the Board of Education.) Something else that the Court did in 1947 was not only to use a fragment in Jefferson's letter, but they added to it as follows, "In the words of Jefferson, [and following are the so-called "words of Jefferson"] the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State." Note that only the italicized words were taken from his letter, but the Court added all twelve words highlighted in bold that apparently appeared right out of thin air, and though totally based on fabrication, this apparition established the precedent for future grievances. The Constitution and the Amendments were not conceived and written by only one person, namely by Thomas Jefferson. Rather the Constitution was the collective work of many minds (more on this concept, below), and to choose something written out by one man fourteen years after the Constitution was ratified, legalized, and established is unfair and unjust. Adding words to the mouth, pen, and letter of Jefferson is just plain ridiculous and beneath the dignity of any judicial body, especially the Supreme Court, and still, somehow, this happened – and apparently – no one is the wiser!

I guess I would want to ask the questions, "How honest or tainted was the ruling?" and further ask, "Was the Court deceived by a jurist?" because those twelve words had to have came from somewhere. This important resolution in 1947 by the Supreme Court may not have been as it is titled a "Landmark Decision," but very well could be titled a "Landshark Deception."

Thomas Jefferson's letter was not a legal document of any kind ― it was a private letter to a small group of church leaders from one denomination, in one part of the country, rather than an official document to all the religions of America, or to all the people of the United States, or to the Supreme Court, or for the frivolous suits of constitutional lawyers for debate, revision, or ratification. Those extracted eight words were not even the main point in Jefferson's personal letter to the Baptists (and of course, those added twelve extra words were written to no one, though surely they had to have come from someone, but they have no place in the debate). Nevertheless, these eight words (hauled out from Jefferson's letter) have been used to literally change the course of American history in a degrading way (in my opinion), for it places God (or religion if you like) outside the founding fathers' original intent, let alone Jefferson's objective in his letter, or in the purpose of the Baptist Association letter to Jefferson. (Both letters are exhibited below this article for your examination, and please, further note in Jefferson's letter that the words, "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect" are absent.)

The Baptist Association were subtlety attempting to get President Jefferson to see the Constitution and the First Amendment slanted to their cause and belief that only a genuinely religious person should hold an office in the government, and if they were Baptist, well then, that would be so much for the better from their Baptist point of view.

Even though the Baptists, through their elegantly written letter, tried their best to butter up President Jefferson with such sweet and glorious phrases as likening him to the "radiant beams of the sun," the President was not fooled for a second. They coddled him with, "we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you [Mr. President] up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he [God] bears to the millions which you preside over." (One note: God is a heavenly Father to individuals, and He is universal; He is not simply "America's God," but the Creator of heaven and earth, and He loves the entire world, John 3:16.) At any rate, Jefferson did not take their flattering bait to appease them or condemn or commend the religious or the atheist, the principled or the unprincipled in Scripture, even though his allegiance and personal preference was that of being a humble and honorable Christian man.

At best, Jefferson's letter was stating that the separation he was referring to was between the Danbury Baptist Church and the State, but only as a point of argument (or clarification) that no one churchgoer or nonchurchgoer was superior or inferior to another in the eyes of the Constitution. The reason he stated this phrase was because the First Amendment prohibited him from uniting or separating the two (one, their Baptist church or religion in general, and two, the legislature or State specifically). Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church of the …American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof!" Note, that Mr. Jefferson precisely "quoted, with quotations" only the actual phrase in the First Amendment, setting the quotation out from what came before and after, rather than to infuse foreign, mythical matters as was added in the Supreme Court's 1947 decision.

Anyone who has no preconceived ideology could never (honestly) infer in thought or reason that a separation of any kind (in regards to separation of Church and State), is written within the framework of the actual words written in the Constitution or the original first ten Amendments! If we could debate the above first two phrases from both religious and secular points of view, and have a distinguished panel, even if all of them were professing atheist jurists, and we allowed that they cast a deciding vote on whether or not the First Amendment implies separation of Church and State, and if the panel were truly opened-minded, the separation of Church and State propounders would lose the debate overwhelmingly. Yet today, society itself places a wall of extreme separation that seems impassable. When people buy into this fallacy, this error somehow mysteriously takes preeminence over human logic and reason as the theory begins taking on a mythical life-force of its own and begins growing. I am not trying to tell you what to believe. Rather, I am simply stating the obvious facts, and the choice is yours. For if I or anyone attempt to convince someone against their beliefs, they will out of necessity still be of the same opinions and beliefs, and I know this for certain.

Years ago, I owned a Beatles record that always skipped on the same phrase, "eight days a we. . .eight days a we. . .eight days a we" (week), it always seemed to take me up to the third skip before I could catch the arm of the needle and bypass that skip. To this day, whenever I hear that song, I always sing it in the same skipped way, "eight days a we," and sometimes I change it up to "eight days are we." I know that this is not how the song really goes, as I can hear it played correctly every time the radio plays it over the airwaves, but because I had played my broken record the wrong way for so long, I always hear it the wrong way in my mind as though it was the correct way. This reminds me of the phrase "separation of Church and State"; even though the First Amendment does not say separation of Church and State, we are hearing it distorted and out of tune and with an eternally skipping deep groove phonographic error now amplified and having fastened itself into our subconscious mind and appearing as reality.

Article VI of the Constitution, third paragraph, reads as follows:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The above paragraph concludes with this clause, no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. This passage prohibits and restrains the negative effects of sectarian or religious bigotries and intolerances by providing that no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Before the Constitution, many State-run religions were imposed on individuals, not only in the colonies such as in Virginia (the Church of England), but throughout the colonies, as was the norm in many other European country churches that run through their respective governments because church and state edicts put them in bed together as they ruled over the people. Article VI was written to prevent that religious Test of allegiance be given to hold official offices of public Trust in our new form of government, state or federal; loyalty tests were employed around the world either to a government-sanctioned religion or to the Head of State or a foreign Prince, Potentate, or Sovereign.

These oaths of loyalty (or declarations) were often called religious Test, and more often than not, these loyalty tests were signed and kept by those in authority. Frequently these types of tests were signed just to get into America in the age of pilgrims who journeyed to the colonies of both separatist and puritans from England, and other immigrants from around Europe. However, in America, because of and since the time of the Constitution, these tests became prohibited by Constitutional directive and this is further augmented in even more detail within the First Amendment! In fact, it was the first phrase in the First Amendment to make no mistake how important the subject was to the founding fathers.

Mind you, that no religious Test does not imply that only nonreligious persons should hold an office as a separation of Church and State concept because the majority of our founding fathers were religious, mostly Christian, and they could (and afterwards did) perform duties in our government without taking a religious Test. What? Are we to seriously believe that they wanted to exclude themselves from holding any office in the government? Come on now, does that really make any sense? If a person is religious, he or she cannot be separated or singled out or be excluded and neither does an atheist or secularist need to take a religious Test to hold an office. This is a concept totally excluded these days when secularism concepts infer that the separation of Church and State myth is a true founding principle, because the non-test gives them access to the Constitutional right to hold official offices, elected or appointed. At the time of the founding of the Constitution, the absence of a religious Test presented an unprecedented entrance to the Constitution's blessings of liberty equally to all Americans ― distributed to all citizens evenly. You see, the Constitution is not banning the religious in any way, but much rather its very premise is letting the secular or atheist in, and they should drop down on their knees and thank their, oh, I am not sure ― their lucky stars or their good luck, or Mother Earth perhaps!

Atheists often claim while chipping away at the First Amendment regarding the separation of Church and State narrative that they do not care if others decide to be religious just so long as they do so behind the closed doors of a church because our Constitution does not allow you to be out there in our political domains. They try and tell us this is the same thing as being "separate but equal," out of sight and out of mind. Yet it is detrimental to religious and atheists, as these concepts add to the materials that construct the building blocks of bigotries, expand the divide of jointly sharing this country along with its true biblical principles of equality and evenhandedness in the Constitution. The phrase "separate BUT equal" can never mean "separate AND equal," never has and never will. Did you ever wonder why would an atheist attempt to get rid of something that they believe and confess is not real? It is simple; they have never experienced God, the Founder of all grace, His love, His peace, and His spiritual liberty, and yet the Constitution still allows the secular and atheist into the fold because God's grace is magnanimous, and the founders knew this in the heart of their hearts. For this, we all should be grateful, as the Constitution has its arms opened wide to one and all of its citizens, and only collectively does the ship of the state of our country stay on an even keel.

If one can say (logically) with conviction that separation of Church and State is true, then one must say (logically) with equal conviction that separation of Atheism and State must be uniformly true, but no one would say the latter, and thus no one should believe the former.

The sixth article removed any such religious Test, banishing these tests to the winds of time and away from our shores. However, these concepts do not disturb or remove God Who dwells within the human heart and conscious minds of free-thinking people.

Thus, it is not really true when people say, "God is being kicked out of our government or schools," because so long as believers live, study, or work in those institutions, then God is there, for He dwells within the hearts of those who have invited Him into their lives. We do not need a Test to know if God dwells in our life, He is there in fleshy tables of the human heart (II Corinthians 3:3–5, and Ephesians 2:22). Nonetheless because of the separation of Church and State fabrication, it is definitely becoming much more of a hindrance to freely express our inner allegiance to the Creator in the political and public arenas of our society.

To take a religious Test is prohibited equally and constitutionally to both the religious and the secular. Rather than enforcing with a religious Test one's commitment to the government – the absence of this test enables anyone from any walk of life to represent America, and thankfully it is not "neither – nor" because the Constitution gives one the right to have "either – or" by one's own personal choice without any such tests, oaths, or confirmations to a specific state-run or approved religion. Besides, a religious Test would only force a religious man or women to accept a precept that may be less or more than his or her personal commitment to their religion or God, and an atheist would have to outright lie in order to get into office. Thus, the Constitution is written to help protect the nonbeliever, especially if he or she has political aspirations. Therefore, a religious Test of any kind, in actuality, would only lower the standards of both the religious and the nonreligious.

A great deal of people who made the daunting voyage to America came for the promise OF religious freedoms (of any kind) that they could not enjoy in the old world, and a great deal of people who made the daunting voyage to America came for the promise of freedom FROM religion (of any kind) that they could not enjoy in the old world. Neither group came to America with any expectations that there would be no religion in America or only religion in America, but that freedom to choose was supposedly allowed by tolerance, by laws, and by the decency of personally secured rights, only to discover that many varieties of religious Tests were in the air ― everywhere. Literally, history is littered with religious Tests, even in America's literature and great historical documents; below we will view a few American examples.

Did you know that the colonies not only had to swear elegance to the "dread Sovereign Lord [_________], King of England, the Defender of the Faith," but they also had to sign their names to various and sundry types of religious Tests? For illustration, the Mayflower Compact of 1620 commences as follows, "In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten [note, names were signed], the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country. . ." This religious Test connected them at the hip to the old world, to the Monarch, and the Monarch stood between them and God (perhaps not in every aspect of life, but it was an intrusion of personal beliefs of liberty just the same), and therefore some State obstacles and/or restraints stood between them and their religious concepts of God.

(This King James, above (c. 1566–1625), was the same Sovereign who commissioned the translation of the (or his) King James Bible. The translation work began in 1604 and was completed in 1611, and if you have a copy of the KJV it would be worth while to read the dedication statements in the front of the Bible as this introduction to the KJV completes the ". . .etc. . ." (in the Mayflower Compact.)

Nineteen years after the Mayflower Compact, the people of Connecticut being established and settled down in the colonies began removing the Monarch's religious Test. However, they established their own; it is written in a document titled, The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (January 14, 1639), which is an important document in the sense that this literally began a semireligious separation from England. Conversely, the document keeps religion at the forefront of basically every concept in the document, and especially if one had political ambitions. In the First Order of that document we read that, ". . . the Governor; which being chosen and sworn according to an oath recorded [see the oath below and note that this oath was to be recorded] for that purpose shall have power to administer justice according to the laws here established, and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God. . ." Further ahead in the documents Order, number four, we read ". . . that the Governor be always a member of some approved congregation. . ." The only way into an officially elected position such as the governorship was that the candidate had to come from the ranks of an approved (religious) congregation, and my question would be, "Who was doing the approving?" Obviously, a devoutly religious group of citizens in the area would be deciding someone's worthiness, and that being based on at least the candidate's background knowledge, according to the rule of the word of God. At the conclusion of these Fundamental Orders, we also have the actual recorded Oath that the Governor was to avow, as follows.

"The oath of the Governor, for the present:
I, N. W. [the elicited Name Written] being chosen to be Governor within this jurisdiction, for the year ensuing, and until a new be chosen, do swear by the great and dreadful name of the everliving God, to promote the public good and peace of the same [everliving God], according to the best of my skill; as also will maintain all lawful privileges of this commonwealth; as also that all wholesome laws that are or shall be made by lawful authority here established, be duly executed; and will further the execution of justice according to the rule of God's word; so help me God, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Once religion, specifically a majority of one religious belief, enters a society and finds its way into the top of the political or governmental system, it will by its very nature turn into fanaticism, hem-in or exclude the secular and those of differing religions, and is detrimental to the rights of everyone else, as is becoming the norm nowadays throughout the world. Much like The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, above, another document came in 1641, producing the manuscript titled, The Massachusetts Body of Liberties, which came two years after. However, the Body of Liberties actually became even more fanatical, being laced with Bible verses and biblically-inspired instructions on how to govern "all the people" in the name and principles of God's Word. This document sowed the seeds of religious fervor deep into the government and society to the nth degree. But from a religious point of view, this kept both the secular and the atheists cornered to the point that many had to literally pretend to be religious (Christians) in order to get along in their respective religious communities. This was not what every person coming to America thought they would find, as many were refugees escaping various religious persecutions from abroad.

Religion, being the expected concept became as an autonomic system that was so ingrained that to even imagine an opposing concept was almost foreign to the average thinker, and whether or not they specifically wrote about being in a "church way," for all practical purposes, as a whole they were. The theme of religion was in the undertow and current of society in America as the accepted norm. Spreading Christianity even to the heathen world (i.e., to anyone who has not accepted Jesus Christ), was simply a reasonable and expected function of society, as Christopher Columbus once wrote, "I had to win their love, and to induce them to become Christians" (from Columbus' letter to Luis De Angel, announcing his discovery, 1493). This same attitude of inducing/imposing Christology was prevalent for decades, for not only the Natives and/or Indians the world round, but was induced upon all the people.

The Massachusetts Body of Liberties was one of the first codes of laws established in New England. This document was compiled by Nathaniel Ward (c. 1578-1652), a leading English Puritan minister who had been trained as a lawyer. He came to the colonies in 1634, and was for a time pastor in Ipswich, Massachusetts. The "Liberties" were established by the Massachusetts General Court in December 1641. This code of laws, we must recognize, was tethered to England, although born in New England and adopted in good conscience by reasonable and sincerely religious men. But as written above, "Once religion, specifically a majority of one religious belief, enters a society and finds its way into the top of the political or governmental system, it will by its very nature turn into fanaticism. . ." It became obliviously clear to many that an American form of governmental laws and code of conduct were still needed to satisfy all of its peoples because not all the people were Christians. Yet the flavor and feel of this Body of Liberties saturated so deeply into the American subconscious that it took years to get the taste of those constraining, so-called, "liberties" off the palates, and introduce an original, American-born form of freedom into our new society wherein people could rise up to be whatever their own conscience and aspirations would desire by patience and hard work.

In the 94th section of the Body of Liberties, we read of the capital laws for the, so-called, secular government (all of these below were backed up with verses of Scripture).

"If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.
If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.
If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.
If any person committ any wilfull murther, which is manslaughter, committed upon premeditated malice, hatred, or Crueltie, not in a mans necessarie and just defence, nor by meere casualtie against his will, he shall be put to death.
If any person slayeth an other suddaienly in his anger or Crueltie of passion, he shall be put to death.
If any person shall slay an other through guile, either by poysoning or other such divelish practice, he shall be put to death.
If any man or woeman shall lye with any beaste or bruite creature by Carnall Copulation, They shall surely be put to death. And the beast shall be slaine, and buried and not eaten.
If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woeman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.
If any person committeth Adultery with a maried or espoused wife, the Adulterer and Adulteresse shall surely be put to death.
If any man stealeth a man or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death.
If any man rise up by false witnes, wittingly and of purpose to take away any mans life, he shall be put to death.
If any man shall conspire and attempt any invasion, insurrection, or publique rebellion against our commonwealth, or shall indeavour to surprize any Towne or Townes, fort or forts therein, or shall treacherously and perfediouslie attempt the alteration and subversion of our frame of politie or Government fundamentallie, he shall be put to death."

Imagine a nonreligious person or family arriving in America back in those days being greeted with these words, or first having some of the leading citizens come up to welcome them with a pot-roast, bread, and then explain the above. They thought they were leaving behind this same state of affairs in the old world wherein their past government was in reality only an extension of Old Testament Law, which Law was written to one nation ONLY, the children of Israel, and if you know your Bible, then you know that they never fulfilled the law themselves (Acts 15:10). (This is a Bible teaching reserved for another day, and in another format.) However, in America, Biblical laws were being imposed on citizens, or in Columbus' words, they were "induced."

From a strictly religious point of view, those supposed Body of Liberties might have seemed most fitting and proper to them, but from a New Testament perspective or from a secular point of view, this must have been a tremendous burden to bear, as the government they were coming into was prejudiced and against their own personal beliefs unless they were of an Old Testament mindset. No, I am not condoning any form of sin, but I am logically looking at this in the way the framers of the Constitution saw the positions the government stood upon to restrict free will liberties of some of its own citizens. Amazingly, they found a better and most hospitable remedy that would accommodate all the people, and cater more fairly and uniformly to and for one and all. They named the documented panaceas, The Constitution of the United States of America.

The above lists of "put to death" penalties or capital punishment were accompanied with thirty-one verses of Scripture from the Books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that are written and incorporated right into The Massachusetts Body of Liberties. In this document the word God is referenced sixteen times, Christ or Christian(s) or Christianitie fourteen times, Church(s) thirty-seven times, and religion or religiously or religious five times, while in the Constitution of the United States including the Amendments, the words God, Christ, Christian(s), or Christianitie, and church are completely absent, and the words religious and religion used once each respectively and we have already read both of them in this article. There are no "put to death" verses of Scripture in the Constitution, although many look for guidance in the Fifth and Eighth Amendments regarding capital punishment cases.

Let us read the 95th Order from The Massachusetts Body of Liberties. ". . . All the people of god within this Jurisdiction who are not in a church way [making every person to be All the people of god whether they are religious or atheists or secularist], and be orthodox in Judgement [i.e., as in following the whole document of the Body of Liberties], and not scandalous in life, shall have full libertie to gather themselves into a Church Estaite. Provided they doe it in a Christian way, with due observation of the rules of Christ revealed in his word. . ." Wow, who ever knew how hardcore they really were into religion? Well, with what we just read we now know!

This above clause was not fair to ALL THE PEOPLE in the colonies or even giving the appearance of separate but equal, but rather bred discrimination, intrusion, and often exclusion of personally held beliefs, and when beliefs are silenced, personal liberties evaporate. True, this gung-ho attitude for certain religious beliefs may appear most appropriate, but for, "We the people" (meaning, all the people) it was not fair or even honest. George Washington in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham, dated October 20, 1792, wrote, "Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy which has marked the present age would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see their religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." This letter does not mean that Washington was against Christianity (more on his beliefs below), but that he recognized a great and often unspoken reality and cause for calamity that transpires when only religion runs the political and pursestrings of a society. And still, because of religious fervor of this off kilter approach, the secular, although being patriots of the colonies in this country, could not be treated with equality because they had to pretend to be in a Christian way, and often had to be in a church way regardless of their true feelings or manner of living. They could not manifestly be of Judaism, Islamic, Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other non-Christian religion, or simply secularly participate in anything except to be in a Christian way, with due observation of the rules of Christ revealed in his word. This one-sided approach produced anything but a real "Body of" true "Liberties."

You will find that during these times, many clubs, lodges, organizations, and clans began adopting religious concepts into their dialogues, charters, and dogmas, and many Christian facades and symbols where introduced into their respective sects and all ― all for appearances of legitimacy so that they could be accepted out into the open, and believe and practice their true beliefs in secrecy, being preserved only by a religion of convenience and appeasement until they could act and be seen as they originally were. (This would be a wonderful study through history for an inspired writer because this has occurred time and again, even in the present now, and for the most part unrecognized, and under religious garb are passing themselves off as something they often cannot be ― their true selves, producing either wolves in sheep's clothing or sheep in wolves' clothing.)

I want you to understand that I personally would prefer everyone to be in a Christian way, as this is simply the nature of my personal belief system, for I feel loved by God and I try to love as best as I can, and no doubt I wished everyone could enjoy the same lovely experience as I do. The will of God is to "have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (I Timothy 2:4), and to have my will line up with His is noble. Even though what I would prefer cannot happen in a free thinking and open society, I am thankfully assured from Scripture that when Christ returns and establishes his (political) kingdom, then the whole world, not just America, will be of one heart, mind, and spirit, and be conducting their lives in a godly way. As the Book of Hebrews 8:11 teaches us, "they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, {do you} Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest {so no one will need to come to my door with a pamphlet and a scare tactic of impending doom}." And the Book of Habakkuk 2:14 reads, "For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea." (There are hundreds of verses about this time, but these will suffice.)

However, those in other religions would want everyone to become what they are and confess what they believe, and the secular counterparts would want everyone to become what they are and confess what they believe. History has shown us the perils when only one side has the say in the political arena, and that this breeds deprivation, discrimination, and alienates all too many, and rears and feeds into fanaticism and indifference to all others, and this on any side, whether it be of religion or of secularism. The best of man's intentions often fail, especially when attempting to form utopian societies with a one-size-fits-all mindset.

We do not live in a dream world, and we must learn that it takes all kinds of people and their ideas to make the political world go round in a multifaceted, free thinking society such as ours. So I will succumb to being content and believing as I do about my God, and leave you alone if you are of a different mind. Mind you, none of us should tinker with the Constitution, no matter what our personal preferences and beliefs may be (unless you are willing to make a new amendment). I have told you my beliefs as a Christian man, and you have yours, and I mean this from my heart, "I wish you happy trails." You see, the Constitution is like the mechanism behind a grand timepiece, setting all the constellations in place, empowering them on their separate courses, and helps set the science of governmental order that generate the country's smooth order of progress. Next to the Scriptures, the Constitution is the greatest document ever written, and for those who do not believe in the Scriptures, they are still left with the Constitution, the greatest document ever written.

Talk about tolerance, George Washington submitted a letter (September 17, 1787, on the same day the Constitution was signed) "By unanimous order of the convention," and this letter accompanied the Constitution when it was sent out to the Continental Congress, and forwarded to the thirteen States for ratification which in part read, ". . . We have now the honour to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable. . ." I believe that most Americans have no idea that this letter exists; therefore, a copy of the whole letter will be displayed below this article for your reading enjoyment.

George Washington, "By unanimous consent," and in the "spirit of amity," further writes in this letter, ". . . It is obviously impracticable, in the Federal Government of these States, to secure all right of independent sovereignty to each [state], and yet provide for the interest and safety of all [states]. Individuals [note, the subject changes from the collective to each individual] entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance as on the object to be obtained. . ." What they are giving up is having a one-sided government that fits all based on either religion or on secularism; this is a great sacrifice to let go of, especially for some people who want only religion or only secularism, and only what they believe to be the standard for everyone. And yet, the surrendering of the free will to allow both secures an all-encompassing safety net for all entering into our new society underwritten and approved by the people of America and lawfully applied as the law of the land in the Constitution of the United States!

Even with all of our individual goals, hopes, and dreams, and vastly different lifestyles, we all can have a common objective and standard rooted firmly in the Constitution to protect each other's personal rights. This was the intent of the founding fathers because each side (religious and nonreligious) counterbalances the other which makes for somewhat of an "I've got your back and you've got mine" concept. I can freely study and live with biblical principles without fear of the government storming into my house with gag orders or an arrest warrant, and you can do and be whatever you desire without any such pressures. How amazingly wonderful this is for us/we the people!

The Constitution protects the believers in sundry religions throughout this country. The religious can enjoy their individual relationship with God without external pressures from the government, and if this is not living in the sweet spot of life, well then there never was one. The Constitution protects the secularist in sundry activity throughout this country. The secular can take pleasure from their individual associations without external pressures from the government, and if this is not living in the sweet spot of life, well then there never was one. Until Christ returns, we believers are in a relatively safe place, better than any time in the history of the world since Paradise; and until Christ returns, the unbeliever is in a relatively safe place, better than any time in the history of the world since man's fall from grace, thanks to our Constitution! Together we are sharing this land and OUR jointly owned Constitution, we have our hope and they theirs, but together we enjoy the greatest country on the face of the whole earth. Both have vested interest in protecting each other's rights. The Constitution is our legally signed contract that the founders gave to us. Every citizen has a connecting confluence into the Constitution through their separate pursuits of happiness, and we need each other and must protect this concept or surely in time one side will be the demise of the other. If this happens, the surviving side will turn on itself until only one dominate power within the remaining side stands, but it will be the manifested fruits of fanaticism of the worst kind, whether stemming from religiousness or secularism. Examples of this are the Inquisition and the Nazi Party; both discharged cold-hearted brutality to the nth degree.

Owing freedom to one another and allowing freedom to one another while being connected in this standard through the eyes of the Constitution allows each of us to enjoy our personal constitution with conviction, and is paramount to America's ideals of freedom that we all enjoy collectively and even much more so separately. As the unanimous consent of the Constitutional Convention asked the people to give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest, I am more than willing to take on my shoulders a magnitude of the sacrifice. Even though at times I cannot agree with opposing opinions, I will still hear their concerns with an open mind and make all the concessions I can possibly make and treat them personally with all the respect I can muster up. You see, with the Constitution in place, both sides of an argument can agree that from each personal perspective that, "I am religious and I am safe," or "I am not religious and I am safe." What a remarkable document we have! I do realize that even in a disagreement, the opposing side must be as committed as I am, so from their point of view something must be inspiring them toward their personal objective, and more than likely they are motivated with something equally as great as my ideals. Thusly, I must give them all the leeway and all the sacrifices I am capable of making and vice versa.

With this in mind, I believe that in the end I will come out much further ahead because this attitude often will defuse emotional debates, and level-headed wisdom and counsel will allow the way to be made clearer when deliberating over important issues, concerns, and decisions. I will give opposing, concerned citizens the dignity that I would expect in return with this give and take attitude, so that in the final analysis I can enjoy the main object to be obtained, that being my personal security in the overall protections that are covered equally to all under our Constitutional blanket (our legal comforter).

We are individually a citizen of one, but one of the collective; and it is in this that our national strength is derived and then dispersed throughout our society.

Looking at the phrase in General Washington's letter, give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest that the Constitutional laws offer us all brings to my mind the great Edmund Burke's quote about liberty. "Liberty, to be enjoyed, must be limited by law, for law ends where tyranny begins, and the tyranny is the same, be it the tyranny of a monarch, or a multitude,―nay, the tyranny of the multitude may be greater, since it is multiplied tyranny." He also wrote, "What is liberty without...virtue? It is...madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites."

Think about all those people who were compelled to take a religious Test just to be accepted; would they really be able to perform up to the standard of those who are committed to a religious Test by choice (especially if they helped write it or personally agree with the Test). What if a monarch or a church leader today said, "You are saved by grace," but tomorrow said, "You are saved by giving certain monies to this church or that organization, or, you are accepted in God's eyes if you do not associate with those of certain religious or secular groups?" What if the Test taker were told to vote in a certain way as directed by their leader, church, or party directives? How much heart and soul and personal deliberation could be freely offered with clear-headed thinking? Well, those who converted by convenience and the promise in the hope of acceptability would only be offering platitudes and flirtations, as they would do just enough to give the appearance of following their Test, but their heart and soul would be elsewhere. Meanwhile, those who were converted by conviction and those who would blindly follow their marching orders unquestionably could so easily become tools if a tyrant arose; so either way, by convenience or conviction, if our government operated with a religious Test it would be detrimental for all of us―we the people.

Imagine with me if you will, just how detrimental the country would be twisting and turning if we were not allowed our free course of reason and personal choices offered us from the Constitution.

We can all be so very grateful that the framers of our Constitution carefully thought this out, and only required a commitment to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, and nothing else for or against any religion, or for or against secular concepts, although to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution is extraordinary in its own right.

I would venture to say that those religious types of Tests have destroyed men and women of moral character and conscience, weakened both mental and governmental constitutions, perhaps bolstered the wills of the few, but world round have condemned peoples and nations to failure, and flooded their ruling bodies with complacency, apathy, and callousness, and weakened it citizenry.

No other nation on earth enjoys this real separation or freedom of distinction. Walls do two practical things; one, they keep those within away from those without, and two, they keep those without away from those within. Yet, the Constitution provides a door that only opens one way, from the inside, so if one decided to have God in his or her political life, then he or she may open the door to Him, but leave any such idea of state accepted religion out in the cold. This is the only "figurative wall of separation" allowed by our Constitution and First Amendment. This separation literally unites one to both their country and to their God if one so chooses to, and as well, one may choose their country and nothing else if one chooses to be exclusively a secularist or an atheist, as this is constitutionally acceptable both by the Constitution and to the conscious mind of free and logical thinking peoples.

Once we have separation as a supposed mandate, like separation of Church and State, then we axiomatically will begin moving further and further to the left, like the mighty Bismarck with her jammed rudder, and even though many on board the Bismarck did not know their ultimate fate, they were destined to cruise in left circles and utter failure. Similarly, the separation of Church and State is ever-turning the Constitution toward abstract thought as it pulls away from the anchor of reason and the course set within the Constitution and morphs into a Bismarckian model, ever stuck on a left-rudder turn, ever doomed to its ultimate fate, ever turning to the eventual sinking the ship of State. Does not this cause you to pause to consider who may have been the first person to utter the phrase, "You cannot talk about religion and politics"? I would imagine it was not a religious person who loved his country, as these two ingredients kept the ship afloat.

Every Christian or religious person would naturally desire everyone else be as spiritual as they feel they are, and for those who have experienced God in a real personal way, they are surprised when the agnostics do not convert over to their way of thinking. Similarly, every atheist or secular person would naturally desire everyone else be an agnostic, and for those who have experienced their personal freedoms and have felt the benefits from a life without God, they are equally as surprised that the religious do not convert over to their way of thinking. This is not surprising as the Apostle Paul wrote in II Thessalonians 3:2, "for all men have not faith," and those without faith cannot comprehend a life with faith, and vice versa. Paul further wrote in I Corinthians 5:10 that in order to get totally away from all the actions of the unbelievers you would need to "go out of the world," which is impossible (unless you are an astronaut), but that is the only way an unbeliever could get away from religious people of the world. Paul's point was ― get along, "as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18). This is also the soul and fiber within the Constitution's theme that helps support, protect, and foster people's personal aspirations and hopes.

In the recognition of religious and nonreligious, we acknowledge that there is a great divide, a never-ending debate, and a vast separation of personal convictions on both sides of the ledger, and even within those sides there are debates and irreconcilable differences. Still, miraculously, the framers of the Constitution found a way, made a road map that every citizen could follow without infringing on one another and hereupon this infant country set sail on the course of liberty for its citizens in order that they all could at least help row in sequence. Yes, a little left, but also a little right, and always cruising forward on that course of adventure of realizing the great experiment and the discovery of treasures in spendable and nonperishable liberties that became the hope, wonder, and envy of the whole world. This, and this alone, inspired many people in the old world to pack a bag and become a part of this great country that would afford them their innermost heart's desires, especially freedom of will to choose their life's destinies through acquiring genuine, palatable, and personal liberties.

The framers of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights saw and realized a titanic stumbling block as they worded out the great documents to circumvent divisions and keep the country on an even keel with well balanced principles that would work for everyone and their multifaceted hopes and dreams.

What the First Amendment is actually prohibiting is the State, or rather our Government from sanctioning one religion or one denomination or one church above another, or to extinguish anyone out, and for this we can be most thankful. Recall the phrase "Government of the people," well, it is the people who are responsible to the First Amendment equally as the government ever was, is, or will be. Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address wrote and spoke that this, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth," It is certainly fitting that the great Emancipator introduced this into our psyche, although nowadays the silent majority which is the greater part of all the people have been silent for too long and the few outspoken radicals have almost completely silenced them.

It is interesting to note that William Herndon, Lincoln's junior law partner, on a trip to Boston heard one of the great orators and preachers of that day deliver an inspiring sermon; his name was Theodore Parker. In his sermon, he explained some details of our republic which inspired Mr. Herndon enough to copy some of the words down, and he gave them to Abraham Lincoln. What Theodore Parker said is this, "government over all the people, by all the people, for all the people." Nine years after that, Abraham Lincoln reworked the three-sided phrase and incorporated it into the Gettysburg Address. Now here we are today, over 157 years later, and still able to address and acknowledge the same issues to be just as true since the power of the government is still in our hands, although some are trying to change it through the fable of separation, and if they are totally successful, well then, our form of government of the people will indeed perish from the earth, and the government will be of only one side, not for all the people, but over all the people for all time.

Contrary to the current popular hoax of separation of Church and State, the first two phrases in the First Amendment actually secure the protection of our free will union to enjoy both the religious beliefs of our own choosing, and to enjoy the security of having Congress initiate laws and stand by them and have the Executive protect this and the Supreme Court uphold it.

The framers of the Constitution allowed its citizens, all of its citizens, to choose freely for themselves whether or not to have religion in their lives, or to live freely as an atheist, or to just have no particular belief, lot, or part in anything other than to enjoy citizenship. This goes way beyond the myth that in all cases the majority rules, and gives the individual overruling power to silence the majority when dealing with personal, Constitutional rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (Personally, I was never happy until I allowed God into my life, then my pursuit of happiness became a fulfilling and everyday reality, and I have known people who were just as happy as me without experiencing any religion, club, lodge, or extrasecular activity whatsoever.) The Constitution extends its protection equally to all religious denominations, as well as to all nonreligious entities, thus allowing every citizen to have their free exercise of this choice according to the dictates of their own heart and conscience.

Whenever the Supreme Court takes cases regarding the supposed separation of Church and State myth, it appears that their premise has already begun in error and their findings will inevitably become tainted on false premises. One way that we can look at the Supreme Court is that they are a never-ending extension of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, so the idea that the Constitution is not a living document is dead in its tracks because they have never stopped interpreting, although they were never supposed to originate provisions to the Constitution or legislate. Are they not supposed to decide if cases brought before them are constitutional or unconstitutional, rather than upholding at all cost the myth of separation of Church and State? Or are they now bound only to protect past precedents, and that regardless of and/or at the expense of the Constitution proper? They rightly overturned the past precedents of "separate but equal" by unanimous consent, so there is a past precedent for overturning precedents. Plus, the Seventy-second Congress overturned the Eighteenth Amendment with Twenty-first Amendment, Section 1, which reads, "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed [canceled – annulled – abolished]." So there is a further precedent that a wrong can be righted when logical reasoning is applied.

In 1954, the Supreme Court overturned the 1896 Supreme Court ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson which held that the concept of "separate but equal" was constitutional, but come to find out, it was not, it was an unconstitutional myth. They should have gone all the way back to the actual Constitution and First Amendment to logically decide about the impartiality in the First Amendment. Article III, Section 2, in the Constitution begins with, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity [impartiality], arising under this Constitution, [emphasis supplied] the Laws of the United States. . ." Note the absence of the word precedent(s) which is not found anywhere in the Constitution.

It has been said that the Supreme Court is the final conscience of the nation. But I must ask, if God is in my heart, and I know and believe this with all my being, then does not my own personal conscience and impartiality trump their collective conscience, especially on a split decision regarding the so-called, separation of Church and State myth? Well, constitutionally the unequivocal answer is YES! (See Job 12:10, I Corinthians 3:16–17; 6:19–20, Ephesians 2:21–22, Philippians 2:13, I John 4:15–16, these verses are provided below this article.) As my Constitutional right, I claim the First Amendment that cannot be trumped on false premises, especially by adding, subtracting, multiplying, or dividing any letter (and in particular, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Church) written to a few church leaders of one denomination ― I would rest my case right here, except I have more to say on the subject. . .

You may be thinking that nobody is actually trying to take God out of my life, and to that argument I would say that that is true, but only to a point. Many people, atheist and even some professing Christians, jurists, and special interest groups are slowly eating away at the First Amendment in the courts, and it is only a matter of time before the separation of Church and State is the supreme standard of the land. After that, laws could be made to further hinder the free course of God's Word, nonprofit organizations and religious entities could be hindered, and it is already infringing on so many personal beliefs in so many ways. Why, it is nearly impossible to hear a commercial say Merry Christmas (although many people celebrate Christmas for many religious reasons), and the direction we are headed into is almost frightening.

As of right now no single organization or government owns and controls the Internet; there are many organizations, corporations, governments, schools, private citizens, and service providers that all own pieces of the infrastructure, but there is no one body that owns it all. What if the government was to take it over as is becoming more talked about in certain academic and political circles, and if they did take ownership of the Internet in America, what would happen? Well the nonreligious people could logically argue in the Supreme Court that all the nonprofit religious websites were infringing on their, so-called, "constitutional right in the First Amendment of separation of Church and State" (although in truth what they would be implying is that the religious are infringing on the myth of the past precedent of separation of Church and State).

In reality, this concept has nothing to do with the Constitution, but has everything to do with the fabrication and alteration of the original intent in the First Amendment. With this precedent now in place, the separation of Church and State promoters could easily discriminate against nonprofit websites like this one for instance, and millions of others around the country. They could argue that the government is supporting religious entities by allowing them on a government owned or controlled Internet, and attempt to push our heavenly Friend even further out into the periphery. Worse, they could dictate the content of the subjects allowed over the Internet at their personal discretion, and produce only a one-size-fits-all religion, and if one did not comply with government-fed dictates, the freedom of Christianity could go the way of the Dodo.

It is literally an impossibility to take God out of my soul, "if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou {God} art there" (Psalms 139:8), let alone take Him out of my mind and heart and have separation of any kind away from Him even if it is demanded by any judiciary (law) or application of that law or precedents proceeding from that law. Am I alone (not excluding the spirit of God of course)? Well if so, it is still my constitutional right to enjoy my heavenly Father's loving comfort, anytime, anyplace, anywhere, wheresoever I am right now, wherever I will go tomorrow, and where my future takes me. I resubmit the First Amendment again and again until it is seen for what it is, believed on for what it was intended, and upheld by individuals to be what it can provide to the individual's security. I put forward this argument until all three branches of government wake up from the separation of Church and State coma, until they recover to mental awareness of what they have inferred, imposed, or subtracted from the First Amendment, and what needs to be done, which is to leave it alone and allow it to stand ― as written! "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further" (Job 38:11).

The Constitution allows the citizens to rise with freedom that will be the hope and inspiration of the world ― again! "For in him {God} we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28), and no one can change this truth, not literally, lawfully, or spiritually, "In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind" (Job 12:10).

The Constitution and First Amendment specifically give the responsibility of making laws solely to Congress, except in the application of making new Amendments (Article V), which does reach out a little further than to just the Legislature (but it does not reach out to the Judicial or Executive branches until we the people have a new Amendment). Then, and not until then can the Judicial interpret it, and the Executive enforce it. However, in regards to changing or adding anything specifically to or against the First Amendment of the Constitution there are no exceptions, additions, or subtractions that can ever be made LEGALLY; as the first phrase declares, "Congress shall make" (which is the Legislative branch), but it does not stop there, it further states "Congress shall make NO!" The First Amendment was never ―― EVER to be tampered with in any way, shape, or form, NO not even by additional Amendments, mandates, precedents, or laws. The First Amendment was preserved for all time, so long as America exists! Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof! The Constitution's First Amendment is the Untouchable, end of story, and, "Thus reads (or saith) the Constitution." To take up the crusade of separation of Church and State in the courts is for all practical purposes nothing more than an end around play that circumvents Congress and we the people as a whole.

Perchance, even if President Jefferson was risen up by God Almighty, and he actually was able to radiate beams of the sun out of his eyes on a dismal, rainy night, he would still have no legal right to change the First Amendment on his own to suit any one church, domination, secular entity, or country. This he plainly admitted in his letter TO the Danbury Baptist church. By the way, his letter was not written FOR lawyers, judges, or legislatures, or FOR you or me; it was not written FOR any one except TO the Danbury Baptist leadership, and reading other people's mail is actually illegal, though we may learn something from it all these years hence. If you wrote a letter right now to a congregation, and someone outside the congregation read where it stated - "forced healthcare for everyone in America is wrong," could anyone logically take your letter to the Supreme Court and change the law of the land to what you wrote in your letter? Well, no, of course not ― it would be scandalous and illegal to use personal mail this way. President Jefferson's letter is still not addressed TO anyone living today, but the Constitution is written FOR us because it has crossed the timeline of days gone by and by, and still touches our very souls in the present now of our day and time in the here and now.

The First Amendment was and still is an unamendable statute, legal law of the land, and a personal right; it was an unyielding principle, a sacred trust, wholly given to the citizens of America. Nevertheless, if the Congress delivers its authority over to the Supreme Court, and they tweak and interpret the Constitution to infer that separation of Church and State is a real fact and the original intent of the First Amendment itself, as it now appears they have, then Congress has already given some of its own Constitutional authority away. This is not to mention having given away some of your personal First Amendment rights, and that Congress allowed the Supreme Court to do this in their stead, or was it the neglect of duties, responsibilities, and public trust given to Congress via the First Amendment? This is not to mention the overreaching boundaries and mandates assumed by the Supreme Court. Someone dropped the ball here and no one has picked it up again! Thus, this could (if it has not yet occurred), tip the balance of power that our Constitution originally formed and secured between the three separate branches of government established for the welfare of both the government's safety and "we the people."

When the only Amendment that we cannot legally touch becomes the main one that seems to always to be under assault with relentless attempts to diminish it, then something is most definitely amiss, and our First Amendment should be watched over and protected all the more. This is why it was the first one written as the foundation that all the Amendments rest upon as it also anchors the Constitution to the public's trust-fund of exquisite, enjoyable, and powerful liberties. To go a step deeper, if one can shake loose the foundations of the First Amendment, one is, from a spiritual point of view, attempting to shake the Creator out of His esteemed place in America! I firmly believe that only "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (II Corinthians 3:17), palatable and enjoyable liberty.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; once this is under assault and begins to diminish, then, logically, the next set of assaults will allow the powers that be to start abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Once these freedoms are blurred or gone, there will be no way to petition the Government for a redress [to set right, remedy, rectify, make amends] of grievances, and then there will be an unavoidable alteration or worse, an end to the remainder of the Constitution. When a foundation crumbles and its edifice shatters into a million pieces like Humpty Dumpty, recall we already kicked out all the king's horses and all the king's men, and it would be impossible to get our Constitution put back together again and we the people would be utterly lost.

America is the last hope of the world, there is no better hope coming until the return of Christ. You see, without the First Amendment in place and upheld, there is nothing left for the people to hold dear as a standard government of the people, by the people, for the people whether they be religious or secular. Then oppression and even anarchy could easily manifest itself into a new form of a controlling government and world order that will interfere and affect its citizenry with ever-increasing denials of personal freedoms and liberties in the guise of majority rules, which means, and history bears this out, that only those with power, exclusively rule, with an express view of controlling we the people.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." If anyone reads these italicized words, out loud, accurately, but the words that come off their lips articulate the words "separation of Church and State," and if they really do hear the words "separation of Church and State" in their ears, then trust me, they have read into it, or over it, or around it, but they have not actually read it. Rather, they experience what I call, "an out of the mind ― hallucination," (perhaps someone having an out of the body experience could hear these words), because to read those italicized words is to perfectly read, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." We might question if common sense, reason, or logic have gone missing; as apparently many constitutional defamers have taken to jabbering about anything opposing common sense, reason, or logic, and yet, some people cannot let their errors go because they could become exposed and all their arguments irrelevant and, for some, their life's energies would drain out to nothingness.

If it were true that one of the meanings of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different outcome sooner or later, well then, what word would we use to describe the meaning if one continues saying those italicized words, but is expecting the outcome to sound like "separation of Church and State"? As we read above, before the forming of the Constitution there was an accepted theme of religion that had saturated into the psyche of most people as religion was as an expected and accepted norm of everyday life. Nowadays there is another theme, indeed history is repeating itself, but revealed on the other side of the same coin, clearly visible in the phrase, separation of Church and State, and now this is the expected and accepted norm of the conscious mind, but both concepts are just as detrimental to the progress of all the people.

The Constitution, once understood, becomes kryptonite to anyone from any position that has made his or her stand on the wrong side of right, light, and the original American way detailed in our historical documents (see our article titled, Kryptonite or Light). This is why the Constitution is barely taught in schools or discussed by many of our leading and ruling citizens whose stands are not truly, constitutionally acceptable. Many of these folks are afraid of its genuine divisions of authority that empower not only them, but also we the people. They know how the system works and they are borrowing our power and banking on the idea that most of us also do not know the Constitution which distributes powers and rights more fairly to all. Some also use the Constitution wrongly as a springboard from which to launch their opposing theories that when viewed through the acid test of the Constitution would only dissolve away into the land of past failures.

True, if you have never read the Constitution, then in an initial reading it may sound a little awkward at first blush and the understanding may not blossom into a banquet of practical or applicable knowledge. However, if you read it through several times you will become so amazed with all its wonderful details and nuances that it releases in your mind; it can be life changing. It almost reads as if it is only a shell of a document, seeming relatively meager in any specific details. Yet it is filled with so many amazing particulars that it almost leaves one awestruck in all its finer, precise points. The more you read it, the larger it becomes; it is very much like planting a seed and watching it grow ― the more you read, the more you are watering and cultivating its growth, and the more you see of the document ― the more light you are giving to it and the more bounty it returns back to you. The Constitution is not a seasonal plant that withers, but a great, ever-growing, evergreen tree.

Every time you read the Constitution it will take on greater meaning that will inspire you in more ways than I can begin to explain. One thing that I have noticed is the at least twofold ways that the Constitution provides answers on almost every concern, and in many ways, it is like my computer. As an example, I can refresh the screen by pressing the refresh tab at the top of the screen, but also by pressing the F5 key. In computers, there are usually two or more ways to do almost anything, including printing, highlighting text or graphics, to bold, to italic, or to underline, copy, and on and on it goes. The Constitution is very similar as it often provides several sides to an argument, and answers questions from two or more different perspectives. For example, the first two phrases in the First Amendment that we have been examining, and Article VI of the Constitution, third paragraph that we have been viewing both show how we can easily discern and expose that the separation of Church and State concept is a myth, and from many angles. Well, the whole Constitution seems to reveal itself this same way and this is just totally amazing to me.

Consider challenging yourself to read the Constitution and the first Ten Amendments every week for a year, and once a month read it through to include all Twenty-seven Amendments to enjoy its intrinsic blessings. When you look back a year later you will easily recognize two amazing things, well much more than that, but two that I will bring up. First, you will notice how many people who talk as though they have an understanding of the Constitution that can be found on the cable television channels daily; however, you will be able to see right through the facade if they do not really know what they are talking about regarding the Constitution. Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus) wrote, "Dimidium facti, qui coepit habet: sapere aude!" ("He who has begun is half done: dare to know!") Secondly, you will realize much more of the power and liberty you have been given. Unfortunately, you will recognize just how much power and liberty the powers that be are trying to extract from you, but at least you will know how to think, act, and believe for the best with legal information and abilities on your side and in your heart.

(Excluding the Bible, I will not be suggesting any other books to read that may help guide you further into understanding the Constitution because it is not my place to do so, all I will do is direct you to the document. You see, starting at the source itself and then spreading out from there is the best and most refreshing way to follow the flow from its fountainhead. If you start with books and study guides, you may end up entrapped in someone else's concepts bent to a certain way or political angle, but the Constitution is the best and most principled teacher of itself. Therefore, as you become inspired from within, then you will be able to follow your own inspirations on what you personally may decide to further discover and read, but please, have a basic understanding of the Constitution "in mind" first, this will help you discern and separate truth from error.)

Do you know of Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu? He was known simply as Montesquieu; he was a great French scholar (c.1698-1755). Montesquieu was a political and social philosopher, and his greatest work was published in 1748, titled "The Spirit of the Laws," which greatly inspired many of the framers of our Constitution perhaps more so than anything else. I just wanted to give you one quote of his, and notice that if he wrote this today, it would be just as true. "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner." Montesquieu's fundamental concept was the division of political powers into three branches or distinct sections, and each would act like a check upon the others because he saw that if or when government is concentrated in their powers that it will produce a fatal error to liberty itself. Does not this sound similar to the basic principles in our very own Constitution? Montesquieu's "Spirit of the Laws" inspired a lot of the thinking and decision-making of our most wonderfully constructed Constitution with three separate branches.

In brief (and I do mean in a nutshell), there are three great departments of Government, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. The Legislative writes the laws, the Judicial interprets laws according to the Constitution, and the Executive enforces them (end of the brief). But when, I ask, when did the Judicial start making laws to enforce the myth of separation of Church and State? Perhaps around the same time that the Executive started joining forces with and began originating and sending bills to the Legislative branch, and the Legislative started passing them for the Executive, and the Judicial started legislating from the bench!? At best, the Executive is to carry out the Legislative will of Congress (who represent we the people from all fifty states), not the other way around. Talk about a deep, progressive coma (again, please read Montesquieu's quote above). Perchance the balance wheel of our Government has a flat and may be in dire need of restoration and alignment. Well, I am assuming this is when constitutional matters started going a little off kilter because this is what happens when the first half of the third paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution does not appear to be real for those who were voted or appointed into office. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. They do not have to take religious oath or affirmation but by golly, they most certainly have to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, and not just to say it, but to do it, and not just follow the Executive, but lead for the people into a more perfect union!

In the meanwhile, have the three branches gone astray in their unconstitutional crusade to support the supposed separation of Church and State myth, and have some of them totally forgotten or have they just lost their way? They were all supposed to be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. It is a flimflam for this country to pronounce and enforce, "Look down here, look to and obey the separation of Church and State myth that is not even written in the actual Constitution. However, please do not look up 1 line at the Oath or Affirmation that supports what is actually written, that they are bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."

In the Constitution, we can read eight ways to Sunday regarding the concepts of separation between the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive branches, but nothing is written to separate or discriminate between Church and State.

The Constitution was a document for uniting the country, but built on the distrust of government itself, and thus it was laced with checks and balances so that the governmental machine could not overtake each other's mechanisms or the general freedoms and liberties of the population. Therein lies the crux and crucible of the Constitution of the United States, and its true bearers are all its citizens.

"A false balance is not good" (Proverbs 20:23). When a bill comes down from the government, rather than up from the people (excluding national security issues), then the balance of government shifts further off its original foundation, and that is not good; this is when the powers that be are completely out of touch with the people who were the founding fathers and the people who are we the people! "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" (Proverbs 20:28).

This is contrary to some popular sentiments, but America was founded upon biblical principles, and our Constitution is truly the very best of man's achievements to preserve our God-given unalienable rights. They wrote the Constitution so that the average person could easily understand it, and in its original form with the Amendments it took only twenty-three minutes to read aloud. This is nothing short of a Miracle that mortal man could accomplish this for all the people of the United States of America.

Yet today, we as a society have almost been completely hoodwinked into thinking that we cannot understand our Constitution and our rights, privileges, and responsibilities contained therein. Abraham Lincoln completely understood and comprehended the Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence, and we can liken his education or schooling level to that of any average citizen of today. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln was a genius, but he understood the Constitution at an early age, and in truth, both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution greatly contributed to his renowned intelligence, as he once said, "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments in the Declaration of Independence." To understand some of the conclusions that come out of the Supreme Court decisions, you need eight or so legal dictionaries and a few law degrees just to get a diminutive indication of the gibberish they often try to elucidate through elusive concepts that transmit abstract particles of disjointed intangibles laced with impracticalities of matters over mind. What? Well, yes, it leaves one almost dumbfounded to wade through all the mountains of precedents, and what may be worse is that some people act as if they understand and also believe that all the people (to whom the Constitution was given) are just too far down to grasp its relief or benefits.

The Constitution is what made America the greatest country in the world to live in and to raise a family in, allowing their citizens freely to serve the LORD if they so choose; as Joshua had said "as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD" (Joshua 24:15). The Constitution allows this in the lives of the citizens of the United States in any profession they pursue in life, including government positions and politics.

You may be surmising that I do not like the Supreme Court; however, that would not be the truth as I do pray for them every day. I just wish that they would wake up ― the country needs them more now than ever, and we need them to be mentally sharp. They possess the calming power to right and unite the country, and we need them as much as they need us in their corner with our trust and prayers so that they can continue to help support we the people. As I have said, they are the continuation of the Constitutional Convention ― that is as close as we will ever get to the truth and reality of the original America that sprang out of the Constitution. It is true that they are often being bombarded by special interest groups with super Jurists, some who possess the oratory skills to sell buckets of saltwater to fishermen out at sea.

Do you know what it really takes for an immigrant to go through naturalization to become a United States citizen? Well among many things, he or she has to take an exam (which means he or she has to study and/or be taught), and then if he or she passes this exam, the immigrant is further required to take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. The exam is quite challenging, consisting of about one hundred questions on the applicant's knowledge about our country. They need to know details within the Constitution and they need to have an understanding about the government's structure, along with the role of each branch. They need to know the current government leaders, the names of states, rivers, national monuments, details identifying our flag, national holidays, the obligations of a citizen, and basic history from the colonial period up to the present. They can apply for this exam two times, and in case the applicant is unsuccessful in passing the exam after the second try, he or she has to undergo the entire process all over again to reach the goal of citizenship. I am guessing that if I had to take the test based on the little I learned in school, I would have failed ― miserably. How do you think you would fair? It is amazing that newcomers are required to know more than we are required to know, although I think that initially the founding fathers thought every citizen would be taught and desire to understand the details of the Constitution and the history of our country.

Think about this ― what would happen if the government simply starts passing out amnesty to anyone who snuck into our country or never left after a visa ran out. Well, then perhaps neither an exam nor an oath would be required (because that is something legal), or one dummied up, and we would have citizens who know less than the average born citizen and much less than the new citizens who studied for and took the exam and oath required by law. Can we really imagine that this is a grand way to get votes? We are a country of laws, not exceptions or built on excuses and a free pass as a reward for sneaking in!!! - Hello - anybody home? You must know that the majority of these illegal aliens would vote for the amnesty provider and his or her party, and if I myself were giving them a free pass, then someone should be pointing out to me Article II, Section 4, with emphasis on the word "Bribery." Is the acquiring of votes more important than having citizens who know something about the American way (other than how to evade detection, laws, and policies), and some of the details about the true cost of America's freedoms won by the tearful pains and shed blood of all too many patriots who lived or live by the rules?

In the Constitution, in the Legislative branch, Article I, section 8, 4th paragraph, we read, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and to change this in the Constitution from being a part of the Constitution of our now established laws, they would need a new Amendment, ratified. It can never be a uniform Rule of Naturalization if only people who did not take the legal way into citizenship become citizens along with those who have done so legally and constitutionally. It is not legal to change the Constitution on the whims and emotions of any past, current, or future Executive, unless of course it is now true that a man's campaign promise to get elected can legally outweigh the established Constitution and the rules and laws of the land and contradict the country's standards of we the people's uniform Rule of Naturalization. How did we get to this place as a country? It is because we have lost the standard and the standard is the Constitution! You see, when the First Amendment is replaced with separation of Church and State, there is already a crack in the foundation which presents the mindset of "anything goes." This is proof positive that the standard has been lowered and the nation has been altered and weakened as a result and that is how we got to this place as a country!

Besides those who are constitutionally or legally required to take an oath to defend our Constitution (i.e., serviceman and appointed elected officials), all the immigrants who become citizens of America are required to take an oath, the current oath ordered by the Constitution is as follows. "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same [emphasis supplied]; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." Do you think that someone who acquired amnesty by not following the rule of law can honestly change over a new leaf and start supporting the laws of the United States of America? I submit that if they could, then why not start before receiving citizenship, and become a citizen by the legal law and prove it ― first, to self, and then to every other legal citizen?

I wanted to show you this oath along with some of the hard work involved to become citizens to emphasize that we citizens simply have received the Constitution and all its responsibilities and rights by birth. We took no test, no oath, and crossed no borders, but we took the freedom just the same. We have to be among the most blessed people on the face of the whole earth, so let us not take this for granted, as no action on our part could very well allow others to act and take our Constitutional rights and privileges away. (For more information about our citizenship, see the Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, and the 14th Amendment, Section 1). Let us stand together as individuals who know and believe in something as wonderful as the Constitution, let us help protect the Constitution for the coming generations who will stand in our footsteps if we do not lose our way, as we are standing in the footprints of the founding fathers that did not lose their way but founded ours! And our representatives, they take the oath for us (but do they?), they should, and if they are not for us, well then, stop voting for them, and believe and pray for greater leadership to rise up who will protect and defend our Constitution or become that guiding light yourself and help guide us through the storms that are flooding out America's liberties.

The country can again recover if we act to right our dire situation – yet, we as a people have not adequately risen up to believe in our abilities – collectively, or in ourselves – individually. You see, we do not need a "reset" as some are suggesting for a remedy to solve many of our problems and the calamitous direction we are heading. What we really need is a new drive, a new "mindset," a new heart, and given the choice, people will easily desire to come out into the light when and if it can be seen and believed it is possible to change. I think that after you read our article titled, Kryptonite or Light, you will begin believing much more in your potential, and in the country's abilities, and in the powers that lie latent within the Constitution. We could literally be on the verge of changing our circumstances from a downward, gloomy outlook of a fast-approaching darkness, to looking up on a glorious, rising sun, and change our destinies and actually observe the country transform from darkness into the light and become a beacon of hope to the world ― again.

Personally, for as far back as I can remember, I always liked living in America even before my salvation, but when God came into my life and heart, and I began serving Him, my respect and love for my country grew. I have no doubt that God and His healing Word has taught me to appreciate and love my great country more so than I could have without Him in my heart, and this continues to cause me to be thankful for the rights given to me by the Constitution and its Amendments.

During the Constitutional Convention, though it is true that the framers had set some ground rules with a pact of secrecy to keep the proceedings from getting out, for the most part they kept this pact for the remainder of their lives. Some exceptions were Luther Martin (who showed up two and a half weeks late for the convention and left early) and George Mason both began speaking negatively about the convention as quick as they could get home from the proceedings. Robert Yates' incomplete notes were revealed after his death and Jonathan Dayton wrote about the convention as well, but the most notable of all may be James Madison who daily (and secretly) took notes about the convention and compiled many of the speeches and details of the proceedings; his collection of material was kept secret, but was purchased from his widow after he passed away and then published. All in all, the whole of the Constitution was produced in relative secrecy as they shaped this amazing document which changed the whole country and uplifted the entire world and the framers went silently into their graves with the secrets of their proceedings mutely intact.

The Secretary of the convention burned all their convention records at George Washington's behest except for some scanty minutes which were kept by General Washington. This plan of secrecy was to produce only a document, a Constitution for the people to consider and deliberate over, rather than to place any emphasis on personalities, either to shine a light upon any or to smear opponents as incompetents. This was a brilliant concept, as the individual States only had a document to examine and ratify and hopefully approve a new Constitution with Yea votes, rather than offering a party-line document to uphold and cast a disparaging shadow upon the Constitution with Nay votes. All in all, it was very close; thankfully, reason and logic won the day ― Yeah!

One final note about every man, "patriots all," who participated in the framing of the Constitution ― these men were held to a "gentleman's agreement" to keep the proceedings quiet for life and regardless of who stayed to the end and signed their names to the Constitution, we have no right to disparage anyone who was there and participated on any level, for America exists even today because of their collective efforts and this cannot be overemphasized! For all their labors, we should all be grateful; no man walks perfect every second of the day as we are all human and are subject to error. Still collectively, they all helped form the greatest document of liberty ever written that frees man's inspirational desires greater than has ever been experienced from any government or its people in the history of the world.

To this day, we know little about the daily proceedings, of their personal augments, disagreements, and debates, and so forth, from the members or even from most of their personal diaries. George Washington, the leading father of our country left us in his personal diaries some of the places he visited during the convention, but he writes virtually nothing regarding the actual proceedings of the convention itself. One thing though that he left in his diaries for posterity to find was his deep conviction for spirituality, government, and church. I believe he placed these in his diary so that we today could not mistake his intent of not separating the Church and State in any way, form, or shape, because we can read his personal examples of how he did not choose or respect one church above another. George Washington chose to go to several different churches to enjoy its serenity with Him Whom George Washington would meet in the sanctuary, and Who would console and comfort him in his deepest spiritual thoughts to be a great leader, and first President of our country. His diary shows him going on one Sunday to an Episcopal Church, on another Sunday going to a Roman Catholic Church, and on another Sunday going to a Calvinist Church during the Convention and all the while he was enjoying strength and comfort from above and taking an active part in helping to form our Constitution.

In church, I believe George Washington was experimenting with the Article VI that, no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States before signing his name to it. I often think how proud he must have been to be the first to sign his name to this glorious document. He came to realize by experience that he would be able to enjoy his constitutional rights and fellowship with his God from any pew of his choosing, as well as having his God in his heart while thinking and deliberating over the political issues of the day even as he resided in the Convention hall. Imagine the joy he had sitting in the assembly of worshipers, knowing a secret, the secret that he was the only person in the house of prayer who knows that he was experiencing for the first time in history, that no government, monarch, or religious mandate would be able to stand between him and his heavenly Father. This was the same feeling of having God in his life that he experienced while he was presiding over the Convention and this sentiment went with him into the highest office of the land, the Presidency of the United States. He must have realized just how precious the true separation was that they were creating to prevent the government from encroaching on people's religious beliefs as well as over other people's nonreligious beliefs. Yet, he was also enabling his unalienable rights to enjoy his personal union with the Supreme Being, enjoy His loving comfort, "for he {God} hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee" (Hebrews 13:5).

In religion overall, George Washington could have played denominational favorites or slighted them all if he so chose or even suggested that a few, winsome Scriptures be added to the Constitution. However, he chose to cut through any such ideas, and today we might point this out because he (as one of the fathers of our nation) chose no church or religion above any other. Knowing that he chose God in the way that he personally felt comfortable without any favoritism toward his government or a specific faith is important. You see, the Church of England was the state religion of the colony of Virginia (where George Washington lived), and the British Monarch was the Supreme Governor over the Church of England; however, it seems that George Washington ceased having anything to do with that church before the American Revolution commenced. At least one reason for this was because the Church of England combined (or forced) a united Church with State mindset through its clergy, and the clergy were obliged to swear an oath (a religious Test) of supremacy to the British Monarch rather than to God, so that the Monarch stood between man and a woman and his or her God.

Oh, how joyful George Washington must have felt to walk into any church and still experience his God's presence and presents without being connected or rerouted through the whims, sensitivities, and commandments of monarchs and kings and queens or a government; this is the only true separation that assures man's personal union with God!

Having or respecting a government authority that stands between a man and his God is not merely forcing a government-approved denomination; oh, it is much worse than that, it is enforcing a form of government domination, a sanctioned, but unwelcome power that stands between one's God and his soul.

George Washington in his letter to Sir Edward Newenham (June 22, 1792), understood the dangers of only religion dominating in a country, "Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society." George Washington truly realized that once religious sects (or denominations) enter a society and find its way into the top of the political or governmental systems, they will, by the very nature of the thing, turn into fanaticism, hem-in or exclude the secular and/or other religions, and cause even greater conflicts. This has always been a principal denigration of societies, but knowing this or writing about this as he did does not make the General a Deist or an unbelieving God-rejecter any more than I am just because I wrote these concepts in this article. Some people speculate that Mr. Washington was a nonbeliever simply because he did not write the name Jesus Christ in any of his letters. Oh, how asinine! Most Christians the world round since the resurrection do not simply scribe Jesus' name just so that later generations can discover that they were Christians; besides, actions speak much louder than words. Of the hundreds of millions of people who went to church last week, how many of them do you suppose wrote Jesus Christ's name in a letter, e-mail, or in a text? Perhaps a small percentage, but that does not make the majority of them all God rejecters, and I will bet that most of them will never leave the world written documentation attesting to their faith because a man or a woman stands before God and God alone and a Christian knows this in his or her heart.

Some of our founding fathers were very devout and outspoken and some kept their beliefs to themselves, some never wrote about Christ and some did, just as nowadays, we cannot prove who is a religious political leader based solely on their personal letters. Yes, we can find other people who wrote even in the age of the founding of America that they did not consider George Washington a Christian, but that is just some personal opinion, not the truth of the body of evidence we have even today. But again, what was their purpose or angle, their perspective of personally held beliefs or religions? "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him" (I Corinthians 2:11), meaning that no man really knows what is in the heart of his fellow man but the man himself.

So many secularists highlight President Washington's thoughts from his diaries and letters, but draw attention to them way out of context, as many atheists infer (especially from Washington's letters to Sir Edward Newenham) that the General had lost all hope, faith, and refused his Christian principles. Some people are touting that many of our founding fathers were actually against Christianity or religion in general, and that is totally absurd to clear thinking people. (Please see, The Constitution of the United States, posted March 24, 2010 on our Recent Bible Byte page, and read the last sentence of every signer of the Constitution, located at on the bottom of this page, in the section titled, "A very brief history of the signers of the Constitution.") I say shame on all those people who still generations after the death of the great General, Commander-in-Chief, and our first President, feel obligated to surgically (and underhandedly) amputate God out of his life and make him out to be a rank and file unbeliever (Matthew 12:36–37, see these verses below this article). It is amazing what some people will do for their fifteen minutes of fame, while they belittle the deceased and pat their own backs as they become the modern-day Pharisees (in a faulty belief that we must have a separation of church and founding fathers). Simply because some historians can imply that many of our founding fathers were God-rejecters, does not make it true! John 10:28-29 reads, "And I {Jesus} give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Therefore, no minister, historian, or author can ever pluck any believer out of Jesus' or God's hands, no matter how distorted their theses may be or how sound their reasoning may appear, because their hands are not bigger than God's hands - praise God! A few of Washington's letters cannot be interpreted to be a rejection of God, especially when the majority shows us a neutral or positive spirit. A few of his letters do reveal an honest and upfront view into the chaos that religion can produce when religious people fight and disagree over religious issues, just as we viewed through this article in some detail.

You see, by extracting out phrases from the past, any half-educated cynic can change the meanings and inferences of almost anything ever written, and when it comes to our founding fathers' personal religions, the critic can change reality simply to excuse their own disbelieving attitudes about the living God. Anyone can prove almost anything by highlighting bits and pieces of printed material out of context, for illustration, I can prove that the Bible itself teaches that, "There is no God," its true, look it up in Psalms 14:1, 53:1, but the truth proceeding the phrase clearly reads "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." (See whole verse below this article.) This verse is presenting the opposite, highlighting that only a FOOL would attempt to say or believe there is no God ― this verse reveals to us God's opinion of a God-rejecter. Nevertheless, just as anyone can make the Sacred Text say almost anything he or she wants to prove, so can anyone change the intent in the words of Washington, but when we recognize the heart of what George Washington really said and the premise for why a defamer is dishonestly trying to change history, then we can also easily realize the truth. Before I would tell the world that George Washington lost his faith and abandoned his God, I would need to read those precise words repeatedly from his own thoughts and recorded from the hand of his own quill.

I will show you another example from the Articles of Confederation. In Article XIII, we read the following. "And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them." We read that it is impossible to ever alter anything in the Articles of Confederation; nevertheless, I changed the whole truth in this Article by not completing the context. If we were to continue reading the remainder of the sentence, the truth presents itself totally different, with ". . . unless [UNLESS] such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State." Thus, just by extracting words out of context, we can alter any common sense reality.

After George Washington rose up to the Presidency of America, he received hundreds of letters of congratulations from around the country and the world. The President replied with many heartfelt thank-you letters, especially to many religious denominations which reveals his love for God, for people, and for the government that stands shoulder to shoulder with them as they dwelt unfettered in America.

President Washington wrote a wonderful Thank You letter to the Ministers, Church-wardens, and Vestrymen of the German Lutheran Congregation, in and near the City of Philadelphia in April 20th, 1789. Another went to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States in May 1789. Another went to the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States in May 1789. Another went to the General Committee Representing the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May 1789. Another went to the Ministers and Elders of the German Reformed Congregations in the United States in June 1789. Another went to the Directors of the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the heathen in July 1789. Another went to the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the States of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina in General Convention Assembled in August 19, 1789. Another went to the Synod of the Reformed Dutch Church in North America in October 1789. Another went to the Religious Society called Quakers at their Yearly Meeting for Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Western Part of Maryland and Virginia in October 1789. Another went to the Roman Catholics in the United States in December 1789. Another went to the Hebrew Congregation of the City of Savannah in May 1790. Another went to the Convention of the Universal Church Lately Assembled in Philadelphia in 1790. Another went to the Congregational Church and Society at Medway, Formerly St. John's Parish, in the State of Georgia in May 1791. Nothing but his utmost thanks, love, and respect for each group was relayed in these letters, and further, nothing of a God rejecting nature can be found in his letters.

(These letters display his astounding insights into a unified spirit, and would be worth reading, and especially if one still imagines that George Washington was a God-rejecter. These wonderful letters may be read in their entirety at the following web address:
sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/general/george-washington-letters-churches.htm .)

If the framers of the Constitution were to debate the merits and/or the demerits of their perspective religious beliefs, believe this, they would have argued until kingdom come, the result ― would have been no Constitution, and a malfunctioning America would have ensued. However and thankfully, what they did was miraculous to keep the heavenly Creator in their lives without infringing on each other's belief systems as much as they possibly could in both religion and government. Article VI and the First Amendment are amazing, astounding, and masterful. We are left almost speechless in its reflective radiance, and gratefully we believers can utter from the depths of our heart's foundation, "Praise be to God, Amen, and Amen!"

Today we have George Washington's example, as well the full accompaniment of all the constitutional framers, showing that they personally did not separate Church from State, yet simultaneously kept the Government and the powers that were, or will be, completely shut out from encroaching on their personal religions, while simultaneously allowing the secularist into sharing all the blessings of liberty.

George Washington chose any denomination he wanted, because he saw the bigger picture and knew Him Who stands in eternal righteous judgment, and invoked His eternal principles in his personal stand as a "free to choose citizen" of this great country. We might also point out that he gave six days a week to working on the Constitution, and one day a week he gave to his God.

We cannot separate George Washington's actions from his governmental duties and his religious beliefs because they both worked together and enhanced and enlightened his life making him the great American example that he was, not only in his day but also his examples inspire us today. He was a leader of true freedom who was unquestionably a religious man and each part of his life augmented the other. He could not and did not separate Church from State, but enjoyed both Church and State because God can and does work in union and harmony throughout every aspect of life. God still can bless us today in whatever direction we pursue in life because we, like Washington, know and believe the truth.

By the way, General Washington knew that Sundays were a day of rest and no work was done on the Constitution, as it was set aside for God, for religious reflection, and/or for a rest period away from the political arena, for whatever personal reasons, read: Article I, Section 7, 2nd paragraph, "Sundays excepted." The word except(ed, ing, and ions), is used 14 times in the Constitution and all with the meaning of excluding Sundays, not including them, in other words ― all days EXCEPT Sunday! Lately our government voted on bills on a Sunday and they did not allow the Constitution to stand in the way of a frenzy of impatient activities with an air that suggested the sky would fall if they waited until Monday morning. I propose that if the Executive would not pressure the Legislature to work on Sundays, but use that day for reflection, rest, and a regrouping, then levelheaded awareness and logical reasoning and clear thinking would prevail (again, please read Montesquieu's quote above). Much greater outcomes could result and, who knows, perhaps they would have had time to actually read what they were about to vote on, and the better wisdom of the collective heart would manifest themselves in the country's affairs and in the people's vested benefit.

The Constitution was designed to purposely slow and align the wheels of government as they gradually turn ― checking and balancing, sifting and analyzing, readjusting and clarifying matters along the way as the collective Legislative body passes through a rigorous process. Spinning through this process at breakneck speeds now seems to be the norm, engendering vague fears of uncertainty and unrealistic promises made from one overbearing head. Those powers and pressures that rise ― rise only for the short span of a term(s), while the country, the people, and the Constitution must go beyond this passing hour or wither on the vine and go the way of the world's past and irrelevant constitutions.

The framers of the Constitution adopted and the people of that era used sort of a covert language when referring to God and religion, but this was not a secret code of speaking to evade, they simply wrote and spoke in terms of referring to God in a generic fashion. For instance, they would not necessarily come right out and say things like, "Jesus saves," or "Jesus is the answer," or "hell is the destiny of all sinners." However, they referred to the Creator as being their heavenly Friend, or the Supreme Being, or referring to God in terms of Him being behind Providence, or the Governor of the Universe, or the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, or the Great Governor of the World, and they used many other phrases of this nature. The reason for this was so that nobody could say the religious people were directing anyone to any church or specific religious belief system, but they still were allowing a heavenly concept into their conversations with these general terms for Him. These allowed God into their discussions and were offensive to few (if any), because as a whole, almost everyone believed in some type of a Supreme Being, and the nonreligious could accept their counterpart's religious beliefs as their right, just as they had their own. Naming God a heavenly Friend or our heavenly Friend was easily acceptable from many different religious aspects and allowed all religious people into the conversation without infringing on each other's personal beliefs of religion. This was more than reasonable and understandable to the secularist as a right that the religious people enjoyed because the secular made accommodations as much as the religious make concessions for the secular conceptions and beliefs.

This language lasted for a long time in political circles; let us read President Lincoln's Proclamation for Thanksgiving: "The year that is drawing toward its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God . . . I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. . . ." The White House, October 3, 1863.

Note, someone just may suspect that Abraham Lincoln had nothing to do with establishing the government's acknowledgment of Thanksgiving, well that is true, because if we go back sixty-five years to 1789, the year the Constitution was ratified, we have the nation's first official Proclamation for a day of Thanksgiving written by President George Washington. He "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 form of government for their safety and happiness." In this Proclamation, he reasoned that we were, "To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue." (See the entirety of Washington's Proclamation at the bottom of this article, which only further substantiates our government's Proclamation for acknowledging that they never acknowledged a separation of Church and State.)

Imagine this, our government actually set one day aside, every year (to this very year, it is written on my calendar as a National Holiday) to remember the blessings we receive from above, from the beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. America's Thanksgiving is between Him Who dwells in heaven and America's inhabitants; this does not bring God down to man's level, but brings man up to His, acknowledging Him in His rightful place. Thanksgiving Day is a day not just to eat a lot of food (which is not even mentioned in the Proclamations), but is a day of remembrance to offer Thanksgiving to our heavenly Friend, and, this day is sanctioned, yes SANCTIONED by none other than our legal friend, our government of these United States! Well, how do you like those apples? Well, I will bet it is more fulfilling than the meager giblets the separation of Church and State proponents are serving. How can we now separate Church and State when in reality our government gave us a day off to acknowledge Him Who dwells in the Heavens? Both the religious folks and nonreligious thankfully accept this day, and take it off year after year; this awesome day is set aside, provided, encouraged, and legally given to, we the people for Praise to our beneficent Father!

The Supreme Court case Everton vs. Board of Education

Referenced at: wikipedia.org

Argued on November 20, 1946 / Decided on February 10, 1947
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1] was a seminal United States Supreme Court case in Establishment Clause law in the United States. The case was brought by a taxpayer against a tax funded school district which offered reimbursement to parents of both public and private schooled children taking the public transportation system to school. The taxpayer contended that reimbursement given for children attending private religious schools violated the constitutional prohibition against state support of religion, and the taking of taxpayers' money to do so violated the constitution's Due Process Clause.

The Justices were split in their decisions over whether the New Jersey policy constituted support of religion, with the majority in agreement these reimbursements were "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that they did not violate the constitution. However both affirming and dissenting Justices issued strong agreement that the Constitution was intended to maintain a strong "wall" between church and state.

Effects of the decision:
Despite the contentious result reached in Everson, it remains one of the most important cases relating to church-state separation in Supreme Court case.

The Decision:
The 5-4 decision was handed down on February 10, 1947. The Court, through Justice Hugo Black, ruled that the state bill was constitutionally permissible. Perhaps as important as the actual outcome, though, was the position that the entire Court adopted on the Establishment Clause. It reflected a broad interpretation of the Clause that was to guide the Court's decisions for decades to come. Black's language was sweeping:

"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 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. 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.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16. Despite the bold rhetoric, the outcome rejected the claim of improper government aid to religion.

Minority opinion:
Justice Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justice Frankfurter. Justice Rutledge wrote another dissenting opinion in which he was joined by Justices Frankfurter, Jackson and Burton. The four dissenters agreed with Justice Black's definition of the Establishment Clause, but protested that the principles he laid down ought logically to lead to the invalidation of the challenged law.

Justice Rutledge argued that:
"The funds used here were raised by taxation. The Court does not dispute nor could it that their use does in fact give aid and encouragement to religious instruction. It only concludes that this aid is not 'support' in law. But Madison and Jefferson were concerned with aid and support in fact not as a legal conclusion 'entangled in precedents.' Here parents pay money to send their children to parochial schools and funds raised by taxation are used to reimburse them. This not only helps the children to get to school and the parents to send them. It aids them in a substantial way to get the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching." 330 U.S. 1, 45.

End

My final thoughts to the above decision and my concerns:

I disagree with the above wording in the decision for the obvious reasons I explained above, not regarding the case that came before the Court, as the state or government should not subsidize transportation for religious purposes unless they are subsidizing everyone's bus fares because learning about God is worth a million out-of-pocket bus fares. However, I completely disagree with the wording of 'a wall of separation between Church and State,' in the out-of-context way they used it and changed it to imply something else. This unfortunate event has provided a catch-all phrase and steamroller precedents that have slowly isolated, discriminated, and are still banishing anything religious, godly, or biblical from any public view or conscious awareness of the presence of our heavenly Benefactor. This has, to a large degree, shunned religion overall in America, and this has inadvertently placed religion and its followers into the background and subculture of our society rather than mainstream where the Creator belongs.

The majority of our citizens believe and worship in a benevolent, loving Creator (at church, in sanctuaries, at temple or mosque, in their day-to-day business, when all alone, and at home), but this separation has further segregated the concept of the Creator (in whom we trust) to being nothing more than a Concentration Camp confinement (period)! This was not in any way the original intent in the Constitution or in the Amendments or of the founding fathers' imaginations; however, this is the only intent of many agnostics and God-rejecters. These misguided people now possess an ever increasing pipeline into the Supreme Court's decision processes, when most always there is no case whatsoever without the inflated, unconstitutional, mythical phrase, "Separation of Church and State," so adamantly supported as if it were a real Constitutional reality. I am more concerned that the Supreme Court is prohibiting the free exercise thereof through their decisions based on past precedents of the myth of separation of Church and State.

The founding fathers were gracious enough to allow every nonbeliever to have a say in our government, along with every religious person, but today the unbelievers are becoming so stubbornly arrogant though their winnings that they try in every conceivable and unconscionable way to ban religions from having a way in or having a say in America's political, public, and educational arenas.

Frivolous suits now abide in force to obliterate any trace of our true and benevolent Friend from heaven to Whom they have given the boot. And without Him Who governs in the affairs of man, man become separated from Him who enjoys the affair, yet without Him, man must stand alone, all alone in this world without God and without hope! When man, piece by piece, removes the bridge that spans the gulf between God and man, then all man's labors are in vain. "Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman (whom we can liken to our three branches of government) waketh but in vain" (Psalms 127:1). Thus, the Psalmist wrote, "I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love" (Psalms 119:113). Who would not also love the Constitution in its purest sense, in its ease of comprehension, in its freely offered powers, and in its inseparable, equal protections?

May God save us from ourselves, and may He continue blessing America –Amen!

The letter Thomas Jefferson received from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.

To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States―and all the world―until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you―to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge
Eph'm Robbins - The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson

Thomas Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists

January 1, 1802.

GENTLEMEN,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

In Convention, September 17, 1787 - George Washington's letter that accompanied the Constitution, delivered to Arthur St. Clair, the President of the Continental Congress, and forwarded to the thirteen States.

Sir [President, Arthur St. Clair]: We have now the honour to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled, that constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable.

The friends of our country have long seen and desired that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the General Government of the Union; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident: hence results the necessity of a different organization.

It is obviously impracticable, in the Federal Government of these States, to secure all right of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all of our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to suspicious the greatest interest of every true American—the consolidation of our Union—in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State, is not, perhaps, to be expected; but each will doubtless consider that, had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish.

With great respect, we have the honour to be, sir, your excellency's most obedient, humble servants.

By unanimous order of the convention.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, President
His excellency the President of Congress.

Verses quoted above:

Job 12:10:
In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

I Corinthians 3:16–17:
16: Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17: If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

I Corinthians 6:19–20:
19: What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20: For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

Ephesians 2:21–22:
21: In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Philippians 2:13:
For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

I John 4:15–16:
15: Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
16: And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.

Matthew 12:36–37:
36: But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37: For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Psalms 14:1, and 53:1:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They {fools} are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they {fools}, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it 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, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to 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 form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed [emphasis supplied]; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go [George]. Washington

Our Unalienable Rights

-3 pages-

By Larry M. Jaynes:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The above is the first sentence of the second paragraph from The Declaration of Independence, and it is self-evident to people, instinctively, that all men are created equal, and God is the Creator. (For your convenience and for reference, we have posted a copy of the Declaration of Independence on our Recent Bible Bytes page dated March 23, 2010.) All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, some of which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Still, these are not all of our unalienable rights. It is interesting to me to find the word unalienable used in so many books relating to our independence, transposed, or rather mistranslated into the word inalienable; "inalienable" means not transferable. However, "unalienable" means not to be separated, or taken away!

Someone may think, Oh well, what is the difference anyway? I am glad that question came up! Unalienable means that our God-given rights are inseparable from any aspect of our lives, and was to be handed down not only to us, but to our posterity as well, while inalienable infers that the rights cease to exist with the framers and the generation of the time when the Declaration of Independence was written. It is interesting to read how the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on October 7, 1801, used the word inalienable in a correct way in their letter to Jefferson, "we enjoy as favors granted [from the Constitution], and not as inalienable rights." Unalienable literally prevents separating our personal religious beliefs from our conscious decision regarding politics, or any thing else that we pursue in our lives. I realize that this cuts across the "Separation of Church and State" MYTH! (See our article titled, Separation of Church and State, and a copy of the Danbury Baptist Association letter is posted at the end of that article.)

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This above is the Preamble of the Constitution, and explains the reason for the documents construction and writing. Let us draw our attention to the phrase, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity where it is observable that this was written to highlight that Unalienable rights were to be preserved not only to that living generation, but were to be extended and secured for their Posterity which includes us today and our Posterity tomorrow. (See our article titled, The Blessings of Liberty.)

The Declaration of Independence was written to help initiate and preserve our freedom without fears and threats from any government, to enjoy our union with the Creator and to thoroughly experience our God-given unalienable rights. The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence concluded it with this sentence: And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE [God], we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. They laid their very lives, fortunes, and honor on the line to secure for us today the Divine Providence of God's protection.

Following is a statement of Benjamin Franklin: . . . In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room [where they were writing the Constitution] for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend or do we imagine that we no longer needed His assistance? What an amazing statement to make during the framing of our Constitution, to recall to the minds of the delegates that it was by the Divine Providence from our powerful heavenly Friend, Who is the Creator of heaven and earth, that freedom was secured so that they could continue on the course of freedom with God as their stronghold and refuge, and that they, as well as we, need His assistance in life.

Complacency and apathy towards the Declaration of Independence have been growing considerably, and it is only because of God's grace that America is still free. I do not believe all is lost by any means, for we still have God's blessings of liberty upon our country, and upon our very souls. Today we do not necessarily pledge our fortunes and very lives. Rather, we simply enjoy the pledge and the fruit of their labors. Did you know that in most (not all) cases that when someone earns a fortune by hard work that their heirs usually end up spending it all by the third generation? The reason why is because they never earned it in the first place! They only enjoyed having it given to them based on the labor of others. This is similar to Americans of today, all we have is what the founding fathers gave to us, and thankfully and with the Divine Providence of God Almighty, we still, generations later, enjoy the labors of the past.

Declarations and Constitutions have come and gone through time, in fact, the American Constitution is contiguously the longest lasting Constitution in the entire world today, in fact, it has endured twice as long as any other current Constitution. Once a book dealer went into a book collectors shop and asked if they carried any copies of the French Constitution, and the desk clerk replied, "Sorry, we do not deal in periodical literature." This could be said for most of the Constitutions written from all around the world that have come and fell by the wayside, only to be replaced by ever newer versions, some lasting only hours, days, weeks, months, or a few years. Yes, many countries have remained the same country for much longer than the United States, but our Constitution has stood through the storms of time, and has outlasted all the others because it allows God into its followers' lives and it continues to protect their beliefs when and if they do so choose to invite their heavenly Friend into their hearts.

I heard once that if the founders of the Constitution could return today, they would be sickened by the way our country functions; however, I do not believe that for one second, they could never had fathomed that their work would still be providing the foundational principles that are upholding America all these many years hence. We still live in the greatest country in the world because the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These great documents were founded upon allowing the Father of Lights to have His place in our hearts (without fear), so we could freely enjoy His healing Word and allow His Word to have free course, being completely unfettered by our society. We still live in the greatest place to be examples of the love of God to the world. We today are blessed because of God's blessings upon America, and we do live with God in Christ in our hearts as examples of how to live as a Christian, and as Christian families.

When we secured our independence from Great Britain, America blazed the secured trail to the heart of God's divine will for all men.

Today God thrives in the lives of His children and we can enjoy our lives with Him without fear. His blessings that began to be multiplied with our forefathers and upon our land have continued growing even to this present day in the same way that Ezekiel expressed:

Ezekiel 34:26-37:
-26: And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will cause the shower to come down in his season; there shall be showers of blessing.
-27: And the tree of the fields shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall yield her increase, and they shall be safe in their land, and shall know that I am the LORD, when I have broken the bands of their yoke, and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.

Kryptonite or Light

(Finding the American Way, Rediscovering our Constitution)

-28 pages-

(This article is still in the editing process and will soon be posted; for now we have posted only the first page.)

By Larry M. Jaynes:

In this article, we will highlight and witness one of the most astounding epics in America's history and is also one of the greatest events of all time about one of the most peaceable transformations of power and government that has ever transpired in a society. The United States exchanged its form of government from one form of laws, principles, and rules to a completely different form of government, effortlessly. This episode in America's history all came forward without any armies forming, without a signal cannon being lit, without a gun being fired, without a sword being drawn, without a single leader being forcibly replaced, imprisoned, or hung, and without a drop of blood being spilt. The weapons that were used to make this metamorphosis possible were quill and ink, simply by connecting the right words together that would stand the test of time. The battlefield in this amazing epic was the mind and the victory won was awarded to all of the people in America. Yet this incredible drama has slipped through history almost unknown and unappreciated by this living generation.

So astounding was the event that it can only be categorized as a miracle, and miracles cannot happen without the phenomenal Providence of the Supreme Being's intervention. This intervention we will examine, that miracle we will discuss, and the outcome and prize offered and received we shall evaluate and enjoy through this article.

The event happened in an age when all the stars lined up and shined down upon men for a very brief moment in history, between Friday, May 25, 1787, and Monday, September 17, 1787, whereon they signed the new document. This inspiring light showed the way for a small group of men gathered in the State House in Philadelphia, where inspiration and sound thinking stimulated the human heart to reach for and grasp, as a collective body, the foundations of perfection. Upon this foundation, they formed and built, word by word and line by line, understandable reason that composed a new formula for government, unequaled in the world. Dare I say that they brought political science to its zenith? Yes, I dare to say so because it is true! So true that they put the formulas down on paper in easy to read phrases and articles that worked every time, no matter who performs the experiments (i.e., the American experiment). Nothing this grand was so realized aforetime, nothing so marvelous was given to govern in the affairs of man before, and nothing so splendid will ever come this way again.

The principles and protocols in their schematics were applicable for a strong government and for a vibrant people, for the group and for the individual, for the rich and for the poor, for the young and for the old, for the educated and for the uneducated, and it distributed powers more fairly and equally to all in every geographical location.

Out of chaos, the newly designed principles brought forth freedom, peace, and order. Out of foreign and domestic threats, the freshly drawn up schematics distributed trust, confidence, and safety. Out of insecurity, the pen handed out palatable liberty, justice, and personal rights. Out of confusion, the proof of their protocols delivered order, sanity, and a viable guide to govern nation and self with tranquility. These new treaties lead man's inner aspirations out to the light of creativity as a free-spirited procession of discovery of human potentials began emerging under the security of free-willed liberty to rise and amend depleted hopes back into renewed, obtainable realities.

What was this formula that the world had never seen or experienced before, that worked so amazingly, and that brought the nation out of darkness? It was the Constitution of the United States ― this was man's miracle received.

To be continued. . .