You are on page 1of 31


USA, A Country of Christianity It Is The Law!

2011 Cameron Rebigsol

1. The Sole Political Choice ..P2 2. Religion of either This or That Kind...P7 3. Upside down Logics..P11 4. The Sole and Indisputable Ownership of the Land..P14 5. Misread on the First Amendment...P17 6. Genuine Separation between Government and Faith...P23 7. Ownership of the Government....P26 8. Matter of Reverence.....P29

1. The Sole Political Choice

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Unionsecure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. With this preamble, the US Constitution binds the country built in the land of America with the following immovable doctrines: 1. A union as a sovereign entity had been a reality before this document was established. 2. What the Founding Fathers aimed at with this constitution was not to give birth to a government for a new country, but to perfect the government for the same union, or country. 3. Therefore, this constitution cannot find in itself the legal power to name this country but a power to further guard and serve the country that already existed. 4. The country this constitution guards and serves is called the United States of America, which is a stile that some other document vested with earlier. 5. Indisputably, then, the document vesting this country with the name must enjoy grandfatherly reverence that this constitution cannot infringe. The Constitution can only add perfection to this grandfatherly document other than overshadowing any part of it. If the Constitution feels it needs to adjust or even abandon any part of this grandfatherly document to realize the perfection, it should have specific statement addressing so. However, it does not so happen. Instead, with clear statement, the American Constitution so obliges this country in revering this grandfatherly document: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. (Article VI) The Confederation is the union that the US Constitution works to perfect. The Confederation is the union reined by the Articles of the Confederation. The Articles of the Confederation then records the most sacred debt and engagement of the Confederation. It is the Articles of the Confederation that, with its First Article, is the grandfatherly document vesting the name The United States of America in this country: The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". The stile of a country is the topmost sacred engagement that a country can ever enter into! With the bold statement of its own Article VI, the US Constitution clearly tells people that it unconditionally inherits everything embodied in the Articles of the Confederation. Therefore, although awaiting perfection, the Articles of the Confederation (AofC from here on) is an active law body in this country. Anyone claiming the US Constitution has retired the AofC must support his claim with a law document that was drawn later than and has the same weight as the Article VI. With the words This Constitutionshall be the supreme Law of the Land, Article

VI has made AofC an inseparable part of this Constitution. A document that can obscure Article VI and thus play the role to retire the entirety of the Articles of the Confederation must have also retired the name The United States of America. Then, miserably and drastically, the US Constitution will find no one to render its service to and must end its own life! The original text of the US Constitution adopted in 1787 focused on government organization details. It does not have covered too much about obligation and right. Without specific explanation on obligation and right, a constitution would have missed a big part of its purpose of existence and easily let a country run wild. To make up the missing, the first ten amendments were adopted in 1789 and later ratified in 1791. However, the most part of these amendments only stress personal rights. To a lot of people, the obligation part is still not outstandingly obvious in the Constitution. With the Founding Fathers unquestionable political wisdom, how is it possible for them to have missed this gravely important social component in the Constitution? The fact is that they did not miss it, except that they just emphasized it with one concise statement. When emphasizing, their words paid more attention to government obligation other than personal obligation to a nation. Habitually and unfortunately, people generally give less weight to anything that is not specifically involved at personal level. The concise statement of obligation is the first clause (paragraph) in Article VI of the US Constitution. With it, the US Constitution fully obliges the government with what is stated in the following: The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. All these terms meet every sense of debt and engagement viewed by Article VI in the US Constitution, and one can exactly find them in Article III in The Articles of Confederation. On the other hand, no other document with the same grandeur as a constitution has ever defined and confined the content of debt and engagement stressed in Article VI of the US Constitution. Therefore, whatever the terms debt and engagement mean in Article VI of the US Constitution must be seamlessly matching those that are proposed in the AofC. For a period that has been too long, American people are told that the AofC has been invalid. The fact is exactly the opposite. Because of Article VI in the US Constitution, no lawabiding citizen can find himself any excuse to deviate from the obligation so stated in the AofC. If American people allow themselves to believe that the AofC has been invalid, they must make themselves ready to deal with two inconceivable political consequences. (1) They must accept an upside down logic: The words from the US Constitution revering the AofC are not yet so supreme, but something else can enjoy more supremacy and is able to discount the Constitutions authority. (2) Even far more dangerously, as already pointed out, invalidating the AofC must lead to invalidating the name of this country and lead the US Constitution to lifelessness. If somebody must insist that the AofC has become invalid, he must believe that he can rewrite the word valid in Article VI as invalid. So far, no law and no one can be so powerful.

Defending the wellbeing of a nation is forever the biggest debt a government commits for the nation it serves, regardless of how the ruling and the ruled may have different understanding about the nation. With the debts and engagement that the US Constitution pledges to inherit from the AofC, the US Constitution must continue to defend what the AofC takes as priority for defending. The number one account the AofC calls for defending in its Article III is religion. Given that all signers of the AofC are followers of Christianity, and given that all signers of the US Constitution are followers of Christianity, logic must allow the word religion to mean nothing else other than Christianity. The AofC appeared seven years before the Constitution was established. Eight years after the Constitution was established, George Washington told the nation: Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. Can anyone tell the nation that the religious principle in Washingtons mind is anything but exactly not the belief of Christianity? Can anyone replace the religious principle in his speech with the principle from Koran, Marx-Leninism, or evolution? Christianity blew the breath into a document that is unprecedented in human history. From the political womb of the Declaration of Independence of the United States this country began its life. Therefore, all social evolvement in this land must carry the political gene encoded and passed down by the Declaration of Independence. As we all can see, from the beginning to the end, the teaching of Christianity permeates in this document. Although the word Christianity is not specified in the Declaration of Independence, no one can explain the word God, Creator, Divine Providence in this document with equivalent figures from any other teaching. Any equivalence shammed in from other ideology as explanation will not match what these few words should suggest in the Declaration of Independence. The signatures endorsing the Declaration of the Independence further sealed this document with evidence of the teaching from Christianity. Prevailingly most of the signatories are church goers with sound evidence. Few of them may not have such evidence but they are buried in land provided by Christian establishment. An extremely handful of them may show lacking obvious evidence of their Christianity background. However, they had imperatively chosen being followers of Christianity when they signed the document with the term God revered by all other Christians. If this handful few had any disagreement on any part of this document they signed, particularly the part of belief, they should have made separate expression about what they would not go along with around the time they signed. However, they did not, not before, not during, not after. They signed the document in a duress free environment. Suppose one minute that the American Revolutionary War came out as a failure. Regardless of what church each of these signers had been associated or not associate with, they all were the melons from the same vine in the Kings criminal court. Religious offense must be one of the crimes in the list they would be charged with. Therefore, when all the signers pursued the same goal set by the Declaration of Independence, all these signers were offenders holding the same belief, which was only Christianity. No one can bleach their political and religious image in that nature. God creating human beings is one of the dominant beliefs found in all branches, or dominations, or sects worshiping Christianity. It is true that other teaching such as Koran also

has similar expression. However, God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence can only be the one from Christianity but not Koran. Two simple reasons support this view. (1) It is impossible for the Christian signers to accept a non-Christian god in their worship. (2) What is cited in the following can match well with the teaching of Christianity but must be offensive in the teaching of Koran: all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right, that among these are Life, Liberty That "all Men are created equal must violate Korans teaching, which forbids any of its faithful followers from equating himself with an infidel. If we replace the word men with people in above quotation, the teaching of Christianity must enable both man and woman to be placed at each side of a gender balance with political equality. Can Koran allow the same teaching and apply it to their men and women? No! Pursuing equality between men and women in the Islamic world can be offensive, and too often it can be punishable and may even lead to case of death penalty, particularly for the women. In Koran, women can be regarded as property of a man. Of course, then, their liberty is not directly endowed by a creator, but subjected to permission from men. Marxism-Leninism, or Socialism, is even more hostile to this idea of "all Men are created equal. Socialism can only approve and accept forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions so that someone can make themselves a ruler and have a world to win, although sometimes they may be kind enough to take some peaceful strategy. That all men are created equal is intolerably offensive to the socialists advocacy of class struggle. They cannot rest one day without ripping this idea of equality as being fake and deceptive. With the teaching of Socialism, the Socialists are able to set up one country after another that is dictated by family inheritance. How all men are created equal in a world in which power can be inherited and thus monopolized? The Declaration of Independence sets such a punch mark in the political course of America that the other two supreme documents later must quote this document for each of their own birth: In the Article of Confederation appears Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the Third year of the Independence of America In the American Constitution appears Done in Convention by Unanimousand of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth All these should be simple enough to tell people that the spiritual principle guiding the formation of America is unique by itself. All non-Christian beliefs must find the same principle repellent. Right at the moment anyone first sets foot on this land, the word Creator, as well as divine Providence, in the national birth certificate must remind him of that he is arriving at a country that should be overwhelmingly religious. When anyone quotes all men are created equal for any purpose except condemning it, he must have chosen to surrender to the Christianity teaching, being consciously aware of it or not. If anyone must put up an argument that America is not a country religiously shaped, he must first remove all the words referring to a supernatural from all the three most prestige documents in this country. If anyone cannot

remove these words but must place himself under the protection of the US Constitution, he is indisputably looking for the blessing from Christianity. Saying otherwise is at least an exposure of ignorance, if not lying. Anyone who perceives himself to have a right to inherit anything politically in this country, he must also inherit the belief that validates the idea of all men are created equal. No law provides separate inheritance in this regard in this land. That the three most prestige documents have words referring to a supernatural but not specifying Christianity does not mean they have allowed the throne for the supernatural to be shared by any non-Christian belief. The throne for God, or Creator, or Our Lord in these documents is exclusively reserved for the topmost supernatural reigning in Christianity. Any other understanding is unsupportive, and must fail. If someone does not agree with such exclusiveness, he must first prove that the belief held by the Founding Fathers allows two or more Creators to be identified. Doing so, he is to declare that the Founding Fathers are apostates, infidels, and religiously hypocritical. He who attempts so doing can only fail. The exclusiveness can be further witnessed by the absolute absence in these documents the signature from any other belief follower, such as Islam, Buddhism, and Sikhs, not to mention Socialism, evolution. Truly, the name of God in the belief of Christianity is not directly referred to in these documents; but why should it be so needed? Why could or should a signature from a Christian be regarded as endorsement of other beliefs? Can a signature by a Muslim be regarded as evidence that he has placed Jesus or Buddha as his Creator? When someone mentions his grandfather without explaining the existing nature of the grandfather, people will assume his grandfather as being a human being in his mind, but not a crow, not a serpent; what is so unnatural? If someone shows his family name as XYZ without mentioning his ancestral origin, people just traditionally assume the family name of his great-grandfather in the straight paternal line also to be XYZ; what is so unnatural? Before we can move to next section, we must also forbid us from missing one vital doctrine from the Preamble. With the term Our Posterity, the Founding Fathers, all those Christianity followers, have defined the citizens of every generation in this country to be followers of the belief the Fathers held dear. Therefore, bound by history and bound by law of the topmost supremacy, the country of The United States of America is a country of Christendom through and through. Any action escorted, or guarded, or even promoted by the US government but in violation of defending the religion of Christianity is gravely unconstitutional.

2. Religion of Either This or That Kind

What is religion? That could be of any belief, any mindset, or any human faith, which a group of people takes as unchallengeable and believes to have the power to guide them to overcome difficulty in life. Because of the wide varieties of ideas in modern civilization, the term religion therefore should cover both theistic and atheistic beliefs. Partisan politics is by itself a practice of religious mindset, although not necessarily in theistic nature. Traditionally, people have been accustomed with the idea that religion is theistic and has something to do with supernatural. However, gradually, superstition on atheistic ideas began to take shape in the modern ideological world. The debut of Manifesto of the Communist Party introduced the drastic beginning of mindset of atheistic superstition. Although people holding atheistic superstitious mindsets are not necessarily followers of the Manifesto, they all begin an era of having some gods walking on earth. They worship these gods in ritual style different from those of theistic ones. These gods may be either in human form or just in form of some terminology. With violence or nonviolence, the atheistic people concentrate all political power they can find toward these godly figures. They hope other people also take it for granted to show submission to the same figures without question. Typically, in history and in human form, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedonghave been all this kind of gods in the Socialist movement, or some less powerful one like Einstein in physics, or some even less powerful one like Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel in evolution. Duplicating the same procedure of god creation, a big population creates another kind of god but in form of terminology instead of human being. For example, the term human right possesses more and more godly power nowadays. Other godly terms are something like democracy, freedom, fairness, American dream, and racist, discrimination. Many people are so superstitiously adhering to these terms that they believe all social problems should conform to the measurement of these terms and come down to their approval. Typically, for example, both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party in America would declare only its own policy would have positive contribution toward democracy. Without due procedure of law, people can use these few godly terms to end someones political life or professional career in the court of opinion but not the court of law. Conversely, human right can be a godly term that can spare the life of a murderer or even extend his comfort that an innocent citizen may not be able to enjoy. Examples how these godly term would work, condemning or preferring, are just too many. A law professor was seriously harassed by allegation in 2009 because he was involved in drafting some outline work in behalf of waterboarding. Someone claims that the water boarding has compromised the human right of the enemies of US. Of course, those so accusing would declare they are defending human right while they obviously ignore the human right of the innocent lives destroyed by these enemies. A scientist intending to study mental power difference between races was threatened as being a racist and needed to be fired. Ironically, those so threatening were exactly those who insisted to promote these godly terms riding on the idea of survival of the fittest in order to expel Christianity. With the idea of natural selection, difference must exist between different living beings, mentally and physically. But to them, law should be submissive to these godly terms they have mastered with. Today, any educator who dares to cite

one Nation under God in a public school must prepare to lose job even before any court action initiates. He is easily accused of being in violation of freedom of religion set by the First Amendment, which has been contorted by people who liberally apply these godly terms. In other fronts, someone is heard to propose to remove help me God or God bless America from some governmental statements. Apparently, someone prepares to deprive the nation of the Founding Fathers belief. To these people, the few godly terms should reign in this nation, not the Founding Fathers belief. If the godly-term promoters believe that infringement of freedom of religion is unconstitutional, they must explain how it is constitutional if somebody today infringes the Founding Fathers freedom of religion. One Nation under God well resonates with the Founding Fathers religious belief, but it has become a taboo in nowadays public schools. It then simply means the Founding Fathers with their belief would be in trouble in our nowadays schools if they ever lived today but didnt keep quiet. Some says that citing it in public schools or by anyone in public service, government or private business, violates the First Amendment. This country has left the same Constitution unchanged regarding freedom of religion after the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791. Should the same reason rejecting one Nation under God reject George Washingtons right telling this nation not to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle? Or more dramatically, should the same reason also reject the legality of all the Founding Fathers religious expressions in the AofC and the US Constitution, and further negate the more motherly document, the Declaration of Independence of America? All these are going to say is that intolerance of one faith is just to enthrone another faith. In humans ideological world, there is no vacancy allowed, intentionally or unintentionally. When Lincoln enriched the law documents of our nation with I invoke the gracious favor of Almighty God, has or has not he infringed the First Amendment? The same question must also be legitimately raised when he boldly told the nation that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. Inseparable from this statement, a speech emboldening a government of the people, for the people, by the people shall not perish has become one of the most precious political wealth this nation contributed to the world. How should the modern freedom defenders deal with all these with the measurement allowed by the First Amendment? Time has changed, but the US Constitution has stayed the same today on the freedom of religion. In front of the same law, should the American citizens of today and the American citizens of yesterday have equal right and responsibility? The US supreme law has a clear statement that the Constitution is mostly superior to any persons words, even the presidents. So, unexceptionally, the First Amendment must be superior to the sixteenth president. Now, based on this sacred doctrine, governed by the same supreme law, in explaining one Nation under God having become intolerable to the First Amendment, the country called The United States of America owes its citizens a list of answers in the following concerns: 1. Will this country nullify the legality of Emancipation Proclamation signed by Lincoln because it violates what the First Amendment approves? 2. Will this country retain the Emancipation Proclamation signed by Lincoln even if it violates what the First Amendment approves?

3. Will this country allow any other politician or people involving in public affair to enjoy the same immunity of law that Lincoln enjoyed if it is determined that Lincoln has violated the First Amendment? Or should each politician or any person involving in public affair be treated with preference but where is the law allowing such preference? 4. Will the untarnished staying of Emancipation Proclamation be a piece of evidence that invoking the gracious favor of Almighty God has had no part of the Constitution, including the first Amendment, violated? 5. Then, how could any law prohibit one Nation under God from invoking the gracious favor of Almighty God in the same land and in all schools of the United States? If nothing out of these answers can support that the First Amendment should have restricted the politicians like Washington and Lincoln, the same amendment can restrict no one today from giving expression of the same religious nature. It is not giving such expression that is unconstitutional; it is restricting such expression that is unconstitutional. If someone must apply the First Amendment to restrict others from giving similar expression, he would have wrongfully applied this law. The wrongful application may be caused by his contorted understanding or, worse, by a purpose needing this contortion. Either way, the effect is the same: unlawfully exposing the Founding Fathers belief to perish. It is plain persecution, as much against the Founding Fathers as against modern citizens. If the Founding Fathers belief is expelled, some other belief must fill in the ideological vacancy so left behind. No one can make any exception, and the new filler must be unquestionably of non-Christianity. Why is it more constitutional to allow a non-Christian belief to replace a Christian belief? Far worse yet, why is it constitutional to allow a non-Christian belief to replace a Christian belief in a country whose constitution obliges its government to defend Christianity? How is it answered without the word conspiracy? How is it answered if the power of this country has not been partially usurped by anti-Christian beliefs? One typical example of the immediate ideology replacement is to have evolution displace Christianity in the public schools. People siding with the displacing claimed that evolution is a science and therefore secular, meeting what the First Amendment approves. There are a lot of problems raised by this claim. What kind of science is evolution? How is secular defined in terms of law? Do people claiming their idea being secular have automatic entitlement of power in explaining and applying law? How to decide that the First Amendment has been correctly interpreted? If a science, is evolution a natural science or a social science? Unfortunately, before any of these questions is answered, a distorted understanding on law has made a decision to allow evolution other than Christianity to enjoy government defending in America. An absolute unconstitutional act easily snatches a constitutional crown. American law is so ruthlessly trampled. If evolution claims itself as a natural science, one topic can instantly kill such claim: Eugenics, no matter one is for or against it. The acceptance or rejection of Eugenics completely depends on human faith, but evolution must sooner or later leads to its appearance. Human faith owns the entire spectrum of religions, theist and atheist. If there is no human faith, there would be no religion; if there is human faith, there must be religion, although each religion expresses itself in different form. Unable to escape from relying on faith, evolution cannot resign itself from being a religion. Another evidence witnessing evolution as a religion is its inseparable


alliance with the theory Big Bang. Bing Bang is a genuine theory of creationism with a creator called Nothingness. (For more details on this evidence, a reader is cordially invited to refer to Evolution, a Creationism Veiled with Science by Rebigsol at Is evolution a social science, then? If it cannot show it independent of ideology, both on conceptual understanding and methodology, it must fail to pull it out of the tank of social science. What social problem does evolution propose to solve? What civilization principle does it teach people to abide to? The only answer is survival of the fittest, a principle that no more aggressively legitimates power grabbing and thus a principle no more viciously destructive to our nations most essential principle all men are created equal. Being a mental product, no human faith, belief, or ideology is free of human reasoning. No human reasoning can be free of contamination of certain consideration of this kind or that kind being either too much in excess or too little in shortage. He who claims his idea must be secular already shows to people that he has been arrested by bias. Therefore, there is no idea that is genuinely secular. Besides, our law does not say that anything secular can automatically entitle political power. But we do have a law, the Supreme Law, saying that Christianity descendants own the Constitution of this country. We to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution, said the Founding Fathers.


3. Upside down Logics In every country, the constitution, if a country has one, is supposedly the topmost political document. It is there only to guarantee certain principles. The principles, of course, are to guarantee how to distribute interest, rights, and responsibilities between people. Typically, for example, the Communist Manifesto is not a law document but it preaches the principle of exclusive power for the Communists. Then all countries adopting socialism must have its constitution to guarantee this principle of exclusive power. Another example is the constitution found in an Islamic country. Openly declaring or not, the constitution of an Islamic country must guarantee the Muslims a government of the Koran, by the Koran, and for the Koran. All these principles are of religious nature; none of them is secular, or religion free. All these principles of religious nature are the soul of the corresponding constitutions. Contrasting to all other constitutions that must have their own soul, can the American Constitution stand by itself without soul? But why should the American Constitution only deserve no soul while everyone else must have their own? A constitution is nothing else but a mental product where concentrate the wisdom and intelligence of a big group of people, so any constitution must have a soul. Since the US Constitution is a mental product, like any other constitution, it must have its own soul. How can a soul be depleted from the American Constitution? If the Declaration of Independence of America had never emerged in history, no one can dream of the ever existing of the American Constitution as it is read today. Therefore, if one needs to empty the soul from the US Constitution, he needs to remove the Declaration of Independence. Conversely, to find the soul of the US Constitution, people can only look into the Declaration of Independence but nowhere else. The Declaration of Independence has a bold statement: We hold These Truths to be selfevident. By nature, holding anything to be self-evident is a firm, unchallengeable religious expression of faith. Based only on the idea of holding something to be self-evident, a person claiming 1+1=3 and a person claiming 1+1=2 would have equal legitimacy. To have one of them to prevail over the other, certain form of convincing power must present. With the same firm religious nature in expressing faith, Muslims can have a parallel statement that reads We hold Koran to be self-evident. The Communists can also have expression equivalently read as We hold exclusive power to be self-evident. Of course, wild animals, if they can ever speak, they can also have equivalent statement as We hold survival of the fittest to be self-evident. While the Declaration of Independence is not a law document today, what it held to be selfevident and what it demanded as support were the reasons for the American Constitution to appear. Therefore, the principles stressed with religiously confident faith in the Declaration are the soul of the US Constitution. Although the Declaration of Independence is not a law document today, it did serve the American people with certain law function in the past in this land. Before the AofC could act as a law, it was this Declaration that rendered the legitimacy and power to American people to fight against the British King. It rendered the legitimacy and power to arm a troop for the American people. It rendered the legitimacy and power to a group of people to collect wealth from the populous to support the military action and other agendas. Without such lawfulness from the Declaration being seen, some historians may possibly still term George Washington with a title


no better than a chief of bandits. Encoding the political soul of this nation, enabling the several states to act like a sovereign nation in some manner for a period, the Declaration of Independence of America is the motherly document for this country by any measure. Unfortunately, however, to quite a few of people today, they feel that time has come to an era for them to strip off the reverence from this motherly document. A big number of eggheads try to shovel down into peoples throat that the Declaration of Independence is merely a letter to the British King. With their academic training, they seem not even aware of that the Declaration has no part expressing you like any letter. It plainly presents itself as a document of announcement hammered down with a gavel. To the least, it is a verdict of death sentence to the Kings ruling on this land, not to mention it then announced the potential advent of an unprecedentedly new style of community in human history. These people so degrade the Declaration for a purpose. If the Declaration lost its political supremacy, these people would have faced one less road block in kneading the Constitution into a soulless document. They can then sham in it a soul they choose without even needing to modify the Constitution. Indeed, it has been this way for a while in America. Evolution replacing Christianity in the public schools is one of the outstanding examples of soul shamming in wholesale scale. Constitution alone will not tell people it is there to serve the lofty goal of all men created equal and to tell people to pledge mutually their life, fortune, and honor for the support of this goal. The successful removal of the supremacy of the Declaration can create ignorance about the ideological source that legitimates the goal and demands the pledge. In their speculation, the Constitution is easily perceived as a religion free document. The First Amendment even stands out to separate religion, the teaching of Christianity, from the government; so thought they. Is the Constitution really as religiously blind as portrayed by those who oppose Christianity beyond understanding but for a purpose? Not the slightest trace! It is not the Constitution that is religiously blind. The people who are truly blind are those who are unable to find the following clause from the Constitution when reading it: Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. Some may blur the religious stance of the Declaration of Independence by saying that the terms Creator or divine Providence are not exclusively from Christianity. However, he must accept that the year counting governed by our Lord shown in this clause is exclusively from Christianity. Subscribing their names underneath our Lord, each of the signers must find himself humble and submissive to no one but the Supreme Being our Lord in the belief of Christianity. With words as shown, if a signer happened to have come from other belief, he would have hereby made himself submissive to our Lord in the belief of Christianity, meanwhile slighting his original belief. With this closing clause, the Constitution clearly tells people that all time on this land is governed and granted by God, Our Lord. All events in this land must be witnessed and recorded in the time of Our Lord. Indeed, American Constitution can only decide that it should


have been unconstitutional to record any official document in this land with BCE and CE in place of BC and AD. The clause hereby quoted also delivers a crucial message about the cascade of dominance in this land. The order should be this: first, Our Lord; second, (the Declaration of) Independence of the United States of America; third, the document on which In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed. Anyone who is submissive to the Constitution must be submissive to this message, even if he equates the Declaration with merely a personal letter. A person must have been intoxicated with upside down logic or he is trying to promote upside down logic if he claims that the American government must be free of religion. How can the American government be free of the US Constitution? And, as shown, how is the Constitution free of religion as theistic faith is so boldly embodied in it? He who degrades the Declaration of Independence as a personal letter just tries to reinforce the upside down logic.


4. The Sole and Indisputable Ownership of the Land With the belief the Founding Fathers held, they viewed the world to have only two sets of beliefs: Christianity and non-Christianity. Just because the Founding Fathers allowed freedom of belief on this land, it does not mean that they allowed any one to deprive them of what they believed. Just because a generous home owner allows the free access to his refrigerator by a visitor, it does not mean that a visitors hunger has first priority to be satisfied in his house. With the words found in the Declaration of Independence, the AofC, the Constitution, Christianity is the indisputable homeowner of this land, and all other beliefs are visitors and latecomers. Christianity is the only religion to receive official defense of the government according to the supreme law. When conflict arises between Christianity and non-Christianity, the conflict is to be smoothed in manners that the teaching of Christianity feels no threat. This is so demanded by the three most prestige documents on this land. Allowing matters to be solved in other way is literally a religion persecution against the Founding Fathers. This can be easily derived from simple examples. If any of the Founding Fathers had ever appeared in the ruin of the Twin Tower after the calamity of September 11, should his firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence only allow him to utter Jihad or Allah is great? If he had uttered help me God and gestured a sign of cross, must someone fire this Founding Father from signing the Declaration of Independence because the U.S. Constitution sees the firing as proper? In Section 1, we mentioned that by using the term our Posterity in the Constitution, the Founding Fathers have defined citizens of every generation in this country their political descendants, and therefore followers of Christianity. With this clever term, the Founding Fathers literally monopolized the spiritual purity of all citizens of every generation in this land through the supreme law. And the Supreme Law is established for their Christian posterity. Can anyone imagine that some Christian parents will not bring their children to the church on the way going to worship God, but instead, leave them at the doorstep of a mosque or a Buddhist temple? Or the other way around, will an Islamic family leave their children to a church but on their way to worship Allah? Therefore, with the word posterity in the supreme law, the Founding Fathers accepted only that all the future generations of citizens in this land would be unexceptionally from one Christian family. Then, whatever blessing needed to be secured with the Constitution will be the heritage handed down from generation to generation but within one family, a Christian family. The heritage of course includes everything, the country, the government, the belief, the culture, the educationcovered by this law. Legally, if anyone wishes to be a follower of other belief while keeping the American citizenship, he should openly announce his intention and complete his wish through a certain legal procedure of conversion. Unfortunately, however, this country does not seem ever having provided corresponding laws. This is a big missing-out in the American law body. Of course, on the other hand, neither does this country have law allowing free relinquishing the belief of Christianity when a citizen accepts the blessing of the American citizenship. In other words, he who accepts the protection of the US Constitution as an American citizen is accepting to be defined as a Christian unless he specifically declines it with law procedure. It is time for us to come to tally the ideological and legal accounts grounding this country under the sole ownership of Christianity.


Each citizens unalienable right, if he deserves to hold it, is granted by his Creator. This nation must have firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence. This nations time is bestowed and governed by our Lord. Whatever blessing needed to be secured is for the Founding Fathers and their posterity. All the terms meaning the supernatural dominating in the three most prestige documents can only be matched with the supernatural figure from Christianity. The Constitution begins with the preamble of a Christianity statement, ends with the religious timing source only found with Christianity documentation. The Constitution is in so much awe of the sacred authority of Sabbath (Section 7, Article I) that the Sabbath can extend schedule of law making. Message from the president on that day must wait, suffering from less priority. The Constitution has an independent clause pledging the unconditional inheritance of the AofC , which, through its Article III, obliges the American Government to defend Christianity. All the three most prestige documents are signed by only Christianity followers but nobody else.

All these religiously ironclad doctrines enthrone Christianity with the sole ideological reign over the United States of America. Yes, it does not mean that nothing can be changed. However, if America is a country of law-reigning, the change can only happen after certain law is changed but not before. On this issue, some people do attempt to legitimate a reality reformation without law changing but still camouflage themselves with law-abiding rhetoric. For their argument to change Americas religious nature from Christianity to non-Christianity, these reformists quote the Article 11 from the Treaty of Tripoli, which reads: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. These peoples main point focuses on a castrated phrase America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. They also stress that this document received unanimous ratification in the Congress. So doing, they have allowed the following missing-out to fail their own purpose in big time. (a) A treaty serving foreign affairs is a strategy for a country; it therefore must be submissive to the doctrines that guide a nation in both domestic affair and foreign affair. Whatever affirmed in a treaty can only bind the member countries that sign the treaty, not necessarily universally applicable to any other country that has nothing to do with the treaty. This is what strategy is about and it is what politics only allows.



(c) (d)

Treaty of Tripoli automatically perished as one of its only two beneficiaries already vanished with a fact that the vanished beneficiary did not appoint heir. The more complete statement that the reformists castrate is the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. It is so unfortunate to them that no one can find this statement written as the Country of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. As everybody knows, government is not the entirety of a country, which has far more social components than a government.

To these reformists quoting the Treaty of Tripoli, it is so unbelievable that, if not for a purpose, they would miss the second Treaty of Tripoli. Superseding the first one, the second one, signed at Tripoli Jun 4, 1805 had its Article 14 in place of the Article 11 of the first one. Article 14 of the second one reads: As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation In this statement, the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" appearing in the first one is left out. Someone from America drafting the second one detected the necessity of dropping out this phrase! Indeed, at this point we cannot help to ask again the same question we already previously ask. How can the American government be free of the US Constitution and how can the Constitution have been free of faith that is religiously emboldened in all the three most prestige documents? The clear fact is that, without these three documents, the United States of American would not have been on Earth. With these three documents, the Founding Fathers have placed this country in the hand of the Christians. Nothing can change it.


5. Misread on the First Amendment

No word from the three most prestige documents ever mentions to separate the US government from Christianity, not even to mention to separate this country from Christianity. Almost the only source of law that may arouse the dream of separation for some people is the First Amendment, which, being not a part of the original text of the Constitution, so states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof This simply says Congress will not exert power over establishment of religion. It then rejects anyones dream that the Congress can exercise no power over religion! Religion and establishment of religion are not equal, they are different. As a law, does the First Amendment play any role intending to force the Founding Fathers to politically and ideologically disown their Posterity? No is the firm answering! If our Posterity faces no discount of political value from new law carrying the weight as a constitution, Christianity as one of the qualities of an Americans citizenship stands untouchable. Then, Christianity needs no more law to earn respect, and no law can prohibit it at any extend either. About the time of the establishment of the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers saw only one religion overwhelming this land: Christianity. No evidence showed that this amendment was devised because of the existence of and possible interference from Islam, Buddhism, or Socialism. Their view of a single religion reining this land was further evidenced by the statement in the original Constitution: no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. With the political surrounding they felt confident of, they had good reason to assume that everyone allowed to preside over the office was their posterity and therefore a Christian. Requirement of religious Test not only became redundant, but it also improperly hinted a candidate possible religion denouncing, or even betrayal, before taking the office. In their era, the Founding Fathers had no concern if the government power would be snatched by any religion like Muslim, Buddhism, and evolutionother than Christianity. What they were concerned with was the possible polarized dominance of government power by some particular branches or denominations within Christianity. The First Amendment on the religion issue was to prevent such power polarization from forming. Because of this concern, this amendment was not found with a single word religion in place of a phrase establishment of religion. In other words, in the political landscape they projected, religion was of only one, while establishment of religion was of many. The Founding Fathers are great politicians, but not prophets. They could not predict how they would be betrayed and abused by some future generations. Indeed, it may even be out of their imagination that someone inheriting the magnificent country they created would betray them at all. The First Amendment is a law to secure the harmony of co-existence of all different groups of posterity holding different understanding about the Bible. It is not a law to provide reason for people to disrespect Christianity. Neither is it a law providing reason for people to cleanse Christianity from inside the US government. The First Amendment did not hinder Lincoln from


invoking the gracious favor of Almighty God. But the teaching from Christianity did enable Lincoln to be the same president telling the nation with malice toward none, with charity for all at the dawn of a huge victory. Because of Lincolns benevolence to humans nurtured by Christianity, this nation escaped a potential calamity caused by persecution that political revenge must encourage. History does not give us too many examples that victor would not exert revenge on the conquered. Lincolns Christian faith provides such a rare and extraordinary example. Contrasting to what Lincoln could do, Christianity becomes a straitjacket to all government workers today because of the contortion on the First Amendment. The US government nowadays has flooded with religions of non-Christianity, among which Socialism is the most typical one. What people can see today is the more and more madly enforcement of malice toward the successful, with charity for all losers through fair share of tax and abusive welfare programs. Some descendants of those long gone slaves even menacingly swear to avenge today. Indifferently, their target is at all those people who look like in the same race as the slave owners who have also been long gone. The Socialist idea makes them so happy to ignore that far bigger number of people in the same race as the slave owners sacrificed their life to remove the slave owners for their fore-parents and subsequently for them as well. Except a few amendments, the US Constitution has stayed the same for more than two hundred years. That the supreme law must stay the same is even officially guaranteed every four years by the Presidents oath. However, in less than two and a half centuries of dominance of the same Constitution, America has dramatically evolved. From a vigorously creative country, America has become a country with a big population whose business is earnestly waiting for or professionally forcing handout from the government. Along with this change is a population of near all Christians to a population of around 70% of Christians today. People must wonder what has made the evolvement possible while the supreme law stays essentially unchanged. The answer is the successful contortion forced on the First Amendment by some people. The key for the success of the contortion is an equal sign shammed between establishment of religion and religion. Before the contortion became legitimated, Lincoln could invoke the gracious favor of Almighty God. After the contortion successfully stays, one Nation under God becomes offensive in our public schools. The equal sign confuses peoples understanding on two different political entities. In the mud of confusion, some people effortlessly force the idea that the First Amendment is a law separating the religion from a state, and they then quietly glue Socialism with the government. Socialism is an ideology glamorizing governmental robbery for those who have power to control the government. But the American government is one that derives its just Power from the Consent of the Governed. Political steering by handout recipients is then so easily realized. Can the separationists, who insist the separation between religion and state, answer what the Founding Fathers portray as religion? When the First Amendment was debut, Communist Manifesto was something in the future. Telling people that Christianity was no better than opium, Marx had many statements sternly placing Christianity at the target to receive his venomous loathing. Vowing to win the world through violence, Marxs Communist Manifesto tied Christianity and bourgeoisie together in the list to be executed. Had the Communist Manifesto emerged in America when the Founding Fathers drew the First Amendment, would they still make no law prohibiting the


free exercise of the religion of Socialism? This is of course what the modern separationists fervently long for happening but impossible for the Founding Fathers to accept. Any faith openly challenging their faith all men are created equal by their Creator is to make itself an enemy to the Founding Fathers. Even to some religious activity going on under a symbol of Cross, the Founding Fathers may not stay idle and make no law prohibiting the free exercise. At their time, had something similar to what happened in Jonestown and Waco, no one can tell the Founding Fathers not to prohibit the activity there because of the First Amendment. Neither can anyone tell them that, if they had interfered with armed action, they would have jeopardized the entire religion of Christianity. If they would choose to be idle while facing all these events, they must have chosen to betray their own vows they wrote in Article III of the AofC. Therefore, the power over religion is unseen in the First Amendment. Its power only focuses on some individual material unit, or the so called an establishment, not spiritually on a religion. Government action empowered by the First Amendment cannot go beyond individual establishment. As to religion, Christianity has been enthroned in America by the US supreme law! Nobody can slightly dent it. If the First Amendment is to check the entire religion, it must first make itself powerful enough to obscure the first clause in Article VI of the original Constitution. Then, of course, Article III of the Aof C is paralyzed. The First Amendment has not even a slightest suggestion to endorse the separation of religion and the state. When the modern separationists insist such a separation, they never apply the same idea between partisan politics and government. Instead, they engulf themselves with the zeal of infiltrating the government with the party they choose. Partisan politics in America is the biggest scale of hypocrisy against the First Amendment. If a group of people cannot dominate the government with the Christianity faith, why can a group of people holding other faith dominate the government? Where is the law for the discrimination? Applying the First Amendment but exercising the power it never has is openly unconstitutional. Americans have allowed such open thief of constitutionality for too long. The thief of constitutionality veiled under the equal sign between establishment of religion and religion has damaged America big, economically, ideologically, morally and culturally. A political party, theistic or appearing as atheistic, is just simply a people assembly supporting the same mindset, or belief. The particular faith inside any party just works the same way in parallel to those doctrines working inside the theist religions. Believing atheism itself is a religion because it is an unchallengeable doctrine to those who reject any theistic figure, in spite of evidence, question, and logic presented by others. Probably in our time no one would argue that Mr. Stephen William Hawking is one of the most pronounced natural scientists in the world. His more and more apparent atheist attitude has enabled him to declare that he is "not religious in the normal sense". This just means that he has been religious in some special sense. On the one hand, he suggested the existence of God was unnecessary to explain the origin of the universe in the book The Grand Design. On the other hand, in some TV interview, he stressed that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. A universe is created from nothing! Dont the atheists represented by Hawking just spell the name of God, the Creator, with only different letters? In the US supreme law, no one can find any statement suggesting atheistic faith with more political supremacy over theistic faith. Assuming entitlement of government power by the


quality of being rational and secular is an aggressively preemptive robbery of power. It is a stern challenge to the Founding Fathers, placing their Christian posterity under the power of those who are against Christianity. If Lincoln lived today, he must be victimized by this power robbery, making himself in violation of the First Amendment. Isnt openly violating the supreme law a reason for impeachment? As soon as people group together to look for interest, they already destine and bias themselves with a faith. They must lose rationality here and there, making them themselves impossible to be secular. When one group of people thinks they are rational and secular, people holding opposite idea must judge otherwise. Simply, between pro-choice and pro-life, which is more rational and secular? Between supporting death penalty and abolishing death penalty, which is more rational and secular? Is allowing buying suffrages with government money more rational and secular than buying suffrage with private fund? Or more directly to the bottom line, why the quality of being rational and secular can take it for granted to dominate the government? Who controls the measure of such quality? What we can see is that, wearing a tag of being rational and secular, some people have made the First Amendment into a political revolving door of nearly all the government buildings. They bar certain religion, Christianity in particular, from entering, but then abusively let in other religions, such as Socialism and evolution to fill in the vacuum thus left behind. Unfortunately, the brainwashing riding on the contortion of the First Amendment has been tremendously successful for the modern separationists. The contortion has made a big number of American youth misunderstand that infiltrating the government with nonChristian religion being essential to democracy. All this infiltration has been more and more dragging our Congress to do what the First Amendment objects. It is even seen that Islams honor killing law gets endorsement in some of our courts, the courts handed down by the Christian Founding Fathers! The word establishment in the First Amendment is not capitalized. It therefore cannot even mean a large collection of authority. Before the adoption of the First Amendment, all nouns in the three most prestige documents were capitalized. Only few years later, the same grammatical usage stopped even in law documents as important as the Bill of Right. Instead of Establishment of Religion, we read establishment of religion in the First Amendment. The Founding Father must have considered the difference that may surface up whether establishment had been capitalized or not. Without the letter e being capitalized, an establishment of religion may mean a branch, a denomination, a sect, or a church but will not mean the entirety of a religion. If the Founding Fathers must mean a religion, they could have used a concise single word religion in place of an establishment of religion. They were not low educated rednecks but outstanding politicians who published the Declaration of Independence, a document that has immeasurably influenced the world for centuries to come. Not capitalized, the phrase an establishment of religion stressed a world of materials, including something such as altars, costumes, symbols, buildings, rituals, offering, and people. The word religion stressed something in spiritual world, such as mindset, idea, belief, dogmas, faith, and the soul. Although the recognition of a religion must rely on something from the material world, the materials thus used are not an exact replica of a religion. A particular tree stump may mean a lot from the superstition world to a certain local people, but a visitor may just see it no more than a stump until he is told about its sacred loftiness. On the other hand, the visitor may have been told about the sacred belief dominating the local people but he may not


have been able to relate it with some particular tree stump until he is shown. Therefore, an establishment of religion and a religion are two different political entities. Taking an establishment of religion as religion is as ridiculous as taking an embalmed tiger as a live tiger. If the First Amendment must have power to rule over religion, it would have to denounce all religious terms from residing in the three most prestige documents, especially the original text of the US Constitution of 1787. Venerating the Sabbath, how the original text of the US Constitution of 1787 is not the topmost document violating the First Amendment? Emancipation and the Speech of Gettysburg Address must altogether be condemned and scraped because they rely on God to call on the people. If all these became real according to the ideas of those secular defenders of our Constitution, the country called the United States of America must prepare for her new fate. According to them, this country has never earned legality to exist, because the US supreme law is permanently in violation with the First Amendment and this amendment is empowered to remove the supreme law. Truly, separating government and religion can prevent the government from being dominated or even abducted by a religion. However, the separation should only be limited to the exercising of governmental power. It cannot extend to separating ideology from what a government pursues to satisfy. As previously pointed out, no ideological world of any country can escape from being filled with this kind or that kind of faith, belief, and religion. No one can create a vacuum. Anyone claiming he can create an ideological vacuum is only to prepare space for certain faith to move in, purposely or not. Indeed, it is exactly what has happened in America today. Those who veil themselves being secular are madly paving the way for Socialism or some other non-Christian religions, such as Islam, evolution. To them, any ideology works, so long as it can entrap Christianity with mayhem. What they diligently chase after is to make the First Amendment read as Congress shall make no law respecting Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise of anti-Christianity. If an equal sign can be shammed between establishment of religion and religion, lets question if people can remove the difficulty caused by the shamming. Why the word religion in Article III of the AofC and in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is not written as establishment of religion? Why does the First Amendment have establishment of religion in its text but not religion? The difficulty is solid. Replacing religion with establishment of religion would make Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli a statement of nonsense. Replacing religion with establishment of religion in Article III of the AofC is to make reason calling on civil war. Replacing establishment of religion with only religion in the First Amendment will make this amendment a lamed duck until it is also furnished with the power to remove any religious expression including Article VI in the text of the Constitution. Therefore the laws themselves provide unchallengeable evidence rejecting the existence of an equal sign between religion and establishment of religion. Logic, legality, history, and rhetoric all forbid us from understanding the First Amendment as a law that can sanction religion. Let no one humiliate and persecute the Founding Fathers with contortion on the ideas that the Founding Fathers left behind.


It is clear that even the First Amendment promises no power to sanction religion. No one should have power from any part of the Constitution to expel Christianity from our public schools but to install evolution there. Doing so, someone is satisfying the demand from establishment of non-Christian religion with a power no one can lawfully find from anywhere. The unconstitutional act then converts our schools into establishment of religion of antiChristianity. If America is truly a law-abiding country, the Congress should immediately consult experts on Christianity teaching regarding how to reinstate the reverence of Christianity in the public schools. America has excellent tradition to respect thoughtful ideas. If evolution does not have open words provoking the removal of God, people feel dear about Christianity would have no problem to tolerate its existing in the same school in the name of science study.


6. Genuine Separation Between Government and Faith

How genuine and sincere is the separation in the mind of those modern separationist who promote the separation between religion and government? The way to find out is simple. Just ask whether they would support the following idea: Before each government employee, including all elected legislators, assumes the office, he must take oath to disassociate himself with any nongovernmental organization, atheist and theist. The dissociation will forbid the candidate and the organization from benefiting each other in any way. This will not violate no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. The reason for not violating is simple. (1) The oath will not require the candidate to testify what organization he has been from or associated with. (2) The oath will not ask him to give up what ideology he feels sacred to him or accept what he wants to keep a distance. (3) Without touching his belief, the oath only asks him to cut off any mutual support between himself and any non-governmental organization. If the modern separationists believe the doctrine they get from Socialism, evolution, Party A, Party B, Party C are not religious, they have no reason to decline this idea. Within a certain period after the government employee leaves the office, the same oath would further forbid him from taking part in any activity held by any non-governmental organization. The only exception for this oath is for a government employee going to church, and church only, on Sunday. This is the privilege the Sabbath gives to the government employee according to the Supreme Law. But even so, the employee cannot attend any management gathering of the church or give public address in behalf of the church. Is there any way better than this to keep the government from being dominated by any establishment of religion, theist and atheist? No word from the US Constitution says that it forbids political party from controlling a government office. Neither does it have word to legitimate such controlling. Any doctrine that any organization holds as unchallengeable is of religious nature. Any political party must have its own unchallengeable doctrine. Therefore, any political party is an establishment of religion, theistic or atheistic. With the US Constitution, any number of people holding any belief can form political party to compete peacefully for a government office. However, with the words as shown, the Constitution would value an establishment of Christianity with higher legitimacy in controlling the same. The veneration found in the US Constitution toward Christianity allows no one to discriminate Christianity with unfavorable terms. If someday a party in America openly titles itself with Christian terms, what law will make this party less lawful than the Republican Party or Democratic Party in competing for the same office? Barring this party bearing a Christian title from competing for government office is an exact violation of the First Amendment. If a candidate aims for a government office with an idea of realizing what God teaches, how is his action different from what Lincoln did in principle? Article VI in the US Constitution and subsequently Article III in the AofC fully guarantee his right in so doing. When a Christian establishment feels the doctrine from Christianity having been threatened by some non-Christian establishment, the US government must take action to remove such threat. The First Amendment may not have power to remove the non-Christian establishment, but the non-Christian establishment must adjust its expression or behavior to a save level according to law.


In American history, there are three big waves of separationists. The first wave is a classic one, represented by people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The second wave appears during the Civil War, promoting separation on issue that has very little to do with theistic religion. Therefore this second wave will not be in our discussion in this article. The third one is the modern one. In the name of separating religion from the state, what the third wave of separationists looks for is actually to crush Christianity. While the first wave of separationists tried to install a political wall between the church and state, they did not denounce Christianity. They themselves were Christians. Thomas Jefferson affirmed his believing the existence of Almighty God who created the humans body and free mind. Whatever religion some modern separationists try to label him with, his words fully venerated a Creator who was the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind. If no one can identify the holy author in his mind with a supernatural figure from other religion, such as Islam, Buddhism, Socialism, the holy author in his understanding can only be from Christianity. Madison, revered as the father of the US Constitution, is an Episcopalian. What he pursued in his separation between church and the state is purity other than persecution against any religion. In his word, religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government. The modern separationist is not anywhere near his lofty vision. Nevertheless, what Jefferson and Madison said was their opinion, not law, no matter how influencing their idea may have been. Whatever their influence could have reached in the assembly of the Founding Fathers, such influence must have met influence from others. All such influences condensed together to form the Supreme Law. In other words, the Supreme Law we read today contains the wills directed by more than one idea. No any individuals will can carry the weight heavier that what the law allows. We cannot tell whether the first clause of Article VI being a result of compromise or being a common ground all Founding Fathers felt the need to lay for this country. Whatever it is, it comes out as an unconditional pledge inheriting the Articles of the Confederation. With their superior mastering in law and rhetoric, it is impossible for politicians like Jefferson and Madison to have missed how Article VI in the Constitution would continue to vitalize the AofC. Rather, it is even more possible that they especially enacted Article VI to continue to vitalize the AofC. They needed to go one step ahead that in the future no one could present reason to humiliate the religion of Christianity in the name of separating religion and state. If neither of these considerations was the reason for the appearance of Article VI, the reason could only be that the will of the group insisting Article VI prevailed. The end result was that every Founding Father accepted the first clause of Article VI as an indispensable part of the supreme law and handed it down to their posterity. For the purpose of the modern separationists, they try to contort what the Founding Fathers said in any way the separationists feel fit, including even to bleach the religion background of the Founding Fathers. While failing to find any support from the Constitution, the separationists limited the debt and engagement in Article VI to mean treaties with foreign countries. In so doing, they conveniently convert the US governments responsibility of defending Christianity into persecuting Christianity. Threatening to fire a football player for praying before each of his game is only a small incident of persecution comparing to forcing evolution in the entire public school system. Today, the US public academic establishments have become establishments of


religion of anti-Christianity. The religion in these establishments worships a Creator of Nothingness for the universe, survival of the fittest, and fairness without proper contribution. The final goal of this third wave of separationists is to enable individuals interest to prevail over a nations interest. Their end effect is to help someone to build the strength in grabbing the power of this nation. Conspiracy? You bet!


7. Ownership of the Government

No human can escape from flesh desire. If every human being can only listen to this animal instinct in making decision, only the rule of jungles would govern our civilization. To have a genuine civilized society, we need morality to restrain each persons animal instinct. For this, the Founding Fathers chose the set of morality from the teaching of Christianity for them and for their posterity. Their wisdom led them to have devised through the Constitution a political machine with populous voting. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the Consent of the Governed, so thought they with their devising. Unfortunately, the message of morality from the ballot box is not always clear. For example, a proposition of raise or lower property tax may make the property owners and tenants to form good allies at the poll, but a proposition of rent control may distance them apart widely at the poll, too. The morality a government displays is only as good as how the population being ruled can herd it. Nearly every politician must surrender to one moral code: to get more power. To get more power, he must speculate. Almost all those being ruled, or the voters in all Western countries, must also obey one moral code: to get better interest. At where populous voting is available, to get better interest, a voter will choose a politician who makes speculation in the voters behalf. All these kinds of moral codes have their roots from animal instinct. In America, if all these kinds of moral codes are not refrained by Christianity teaching during ballot casting, the voters just herd the government to satisfy more animal instincts. The result must be that corruption opposed by people in normal sense earns legal halo to dominate our society. Typical example is some politicians buying suffrages with government money through the abusive welfare system. Another one is their earning ballot counts through compromising law, land, and sovereignty of a nation to the formidable troops of unarmed invaders. In other words, public voting alone cannot be an effective political tool to rein the government unless the posterity themselves can rein their own decision with teaching of Christianity. How is the Christian reining to be measured and by whom? For this, the posterity of the Founding Fathers are in need of an institution to monitor how well the government has defended Christianity. The preamble of the US Constitution strictly defines the ownership of the American government to the posterity of the Christian Founding Fathers. The institution must consist of people of firm believer of Christianity, with branch or denomination background being irrelevant. Such institution should be powerful enough to monitor the working behavior (but not the working details) of all government employees and present such information to the public. When the institution finds an employees working behavior intolerable, the institution can recommend, and recommend only, certain government office to take action. However, this institution would have no power to interfere any government policy making, governments daily operation, and officer installing or removal, except the following one. If an incumbent officer, Congressmen alike, looks for another term that is permissible by law for the same office, and if the institution finds satisfaction from his working record, this institution should be able to ask the legislature to provide fund for him to launch election campaign. This power is provided on the assumption, as mentioned in section 6, that each elected government employee has taken oath to have himself dissociated with any nongovernmental organization. However, this institution


cannot suggest new candidate to any office. Because of the absence of an institution similar to what is hereby suggested, the US government just has gotten used to a free will not to listen to its owner, the Christian Founding Fathers posterity. Instead, the government has more and more listened to outcry of flesh desire. The poll has been more and more bought out by groups of special interest. So many people have complained about the influence of lobbyists. No one can effectively curb the influence of lobbyists until the posterity have their own institution and are able to force the oath to dissociate every government employee from non-governmental organization. Who can form such institution? Believers of Christianity, of course! Each member of this institution may be voted into the office by a population of Christians or be drafted to enter this institution similar to jury duty. All members forming such institution can only serve one term in a life time; each term must have year limit. All members forming this institution must also take oath to dissociate themselves from any political party, organization, club, but only to retain his/her Christian identity and the privilege going to church on Sunday. How will this institution attain the power? Frankly, the documents for such an institution to form and to attain such power have been in our law for full 234 years. It is up to how much the posterity of this generation is willing to flex their muscle. On any piece of land owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the American governments of all level, the free exercise of Christianity should face no legal confrontation but full escort of law. It is so pledged by the Constitution. The formation of the institution may involve with the drafting of a new amendment and takes some time. But the following issues should deserve immediate attention from the government. 1. All legal decisions infringing the free exercise of Christianity should be re-valuated according to the pledge found in the first clause of Article VI of the Constitution. Among all these re-evaluations, restoring the right of free exercise of Christianity in the public schools should have top priority. Even up to today, the public schools are still supported by tax money mostly from Christians. 2. No legal decision on any allegation about religion discrimination over other belief should be and can be made against the teaching of Christianity. Any such decision but against Christianity is a religion attack that is intolerable by the pledge made by the Constitution. Other than that, however, when an actual crime is committed, no one can have preference from law regardless of his religious background. Of course, it must be unimaginable that no one would place obstacle in front of the followers of Christianity in the course of restoring their dignity in this nation. If the Christians continue to stay divided, they just continue to allow their ownership of the government as well as this country to be usurped. They either let Gods teaching prevail or let other teaching prevail over the teaching of their God, there is no third choice. Unfortunately to the Christians, allowing other teaching to prevail only means the ultimate loss of their country. The Founding Fathers created a magnificent country for their posterity. It is the sacred responsibility of this generation to relay the same to the future posterity of their own as well as the Founding Fathers. We must feel heartbroken if we ever know that any of our future generation in this land, while biting lips with tear held back in eyes, needs to stare the following statues getting scrapped into museum of


history, or worse, trash dump: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Ronald Reaganand finally, Statue of Liberty!


8. Matter of Reverence

Respect is the key for any law to have truly any weight of law; without respect, no law is law. In many superstitious rituals, a piece of stone, or a tree stump, or an animal can be read with unlimited law messages by people who are faithful to a particular superstition, casting their respect to the object they consider sacred. Communist Manifesto has not been taken as law in any country. However, openly denouncing it is a punishable crime in any Socialist country. All power to the Soviet is only one sentence from Lenin. However, this sentence towered over any law in Russia in those days that Communism pounded on that land. Every word from Chairman Mao is truth; One sentence from Chairman Mao weighs more than one myriad of sentences (from others). Objecting to these claims or objecting to what Chairman Mao said could easily lead one to death penalty in the red land of China when he was alive. Without one word changed, but with respect being washed away, beginning Dec. 25, 1991, the same law body of the Soviet Union was in the trash dump. The same law body, however, once backed a small group of people to devout tens of millions of lives at will since Nov 7, 1917. Freedom of speech, rally, press, and peaceful assembly is recorded as all citizens right to be guaranteed in every Socialist countrys constitution. Without backing power from anywhere, anyone insisting such right in any of these countries is committing a crime, which can be easily associated with treason in some cases. Law just ironically works in opposite direction when respect is also displayed in opposite direction. The power that puts up such stipulated rights is only to make the promise a trap door to entrap its prospective enemies. No document should have been more venerated than Declaration of Independence of the United States in America. Without the support of the firm reliance on the protection of divine providence she provides, no one can hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal Unfortunately, some people of special ambition have been able to manipulate this document to be regarded as only a personal letter. Together with the contortion of the First Amendment, the act of degrading the Declaration gradually chips away the ideological prominence of Christianity in this country. More and more Americans have developed a delusion that everything they enjoy comes from the Constitution and Constitution only. Not only those ambitious people have reversed the seniority between a mother document and a daughter document in law sequence, but they also sham in their lies in the name of defending the Constitution. Their lie portrays that the Constitution has destined this country with no nature of Christianity. If their lie can further succeed, they would eventually realize their conspiracy of complete purge of the reverence that Christianity deserves according to law. Reverence of


Christianity removed, the current Constitution must be threatened, risked, or even scraped for it has too many words and ideas rooting in Christianity. No matter how the liars lie, the Constitutions preamble stands firm on that every generation of posterity in this land first comes from a big Christian family before each of them comes from anywhere else. In modern days, can anyone find himself more convincing than President Abraham Lincoln? If not, then let us all be submissive to his teaching. if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoeverbut come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity, the Declaration of American Independence. (Senate contest speech on Aug. 17, 1858 in Lewistown, Illinois) If an American citizen considers him having a right guaranteed by the Constitution, Lincoln told him that the spiritual source of the right is from the Declaration of Independence of the United States. Only if the morality found in Christianity is adequately empowered to herd the politicians can the posterity expect to have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Without that, neither the voters can restrain their politicians nor will the politicians restrain themselves. All of them, voters and politicians alike, will only look for the short term satisfaction on power and interest urged by human greed, an animal instinct, leaving behind for the posterity a government of the power, by the power, and for the power. The might of a coalition aiming at crushing Christianity is mounting daily. Unless Christians are able to form a more consolidated union on time, they may eventually lose their power in resisting the attack from such a hostile coalition. Must the Christians end up disappointing their God and their Founding Fathers? The task to form a more perfect Union once called on the Founding Fathers, now it comes to a time to call on their posterity. If the Christians can gather their will aiming at restoring the dignity of Christianity in this country, no one can lay any road block in front of them. The American Constitution is on their side. The most their opponents can do is to put up some coercing that is made up by their caricatured interpretation of the First Amendment. Enough has been shown that the First Amendment can provide the opponents not even a single straw for support. At the time the opponents thought this amendment can help them to present a threat, they already oblige themselves to answer one question. Which part of the First Amendment can empower anyone to remove the Article VI in the Constitution? If they cannot find this power, Article VI must stay, boldly demanding the government to satisfy said debt and engagement.


One of the ways to see what weight such satisfaction carries is to take a look at the Oath, which the American president must take before he enters on the execution of his office. I do solemnly swear I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If an American president preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, he must do his best to defend the name and honor of this country. He thus inescapably also defends the only document that formalizes the name for the country. He must also closely guard the constitutional throne and the family integrity of the same faith that the Founding Fathers asked their posterity to follow. Failing to do these, the American president would have made his job part away from satisfying the debt and engagement that the Constitution inherits from the Confederation. No part of the Constitution would give him any leisure of ignorance of all these sacred power and responsibilities, unless Article VI is removed. The American president is not hired by the nation because of his religious background. Through the supreme law, the Founding Fathers mostly entrusted him with an assumption that he is politically their consanguineous posterity. They safeguarded this assumption with the presidents birthplace requirement. With this assumption, holding the faith of Christianity should be natural to the one swearing into the president office. However, an assumption is an assumption but not a law. The current law has a big missing for not requiring non-Christians to take legal procedure for faith conversion when taking American citizenship. If this missing continues to exist, it may lead to a chance that someone from a non-Christian faith takes the office of presidency someday. However, irrelevant to his religious background, this president is bound by the Supreme Law to satisfy the Christian posterity. The president must make the US government satisfy the debt and engagement stipulated in Article VI if he lives up to his Oath. Reading the strong religious expressions in the three most prestige documents in American history, no one can say that serving the purpose and interest of some non-Christians is the reason for them to have emerged. Anyone who intends to abduct these documents with an explanation favoring non-Christians must first have himself humiliated under the throne of Our Lord, who, also appearing as Creator and divine Providence, presides in all three documents. Logic and evidence can only allow an explanation that our Founding Fathers have reserved the ideological throne in our law to only one faith: