Put Him Back... America!

Front Cover thumbnail
Back Cover thumbnail

Put Him Back…
America!
(Limited Edition)
Godfrey E. McAllister, Ph.D
Click on Arrow to go to Contents
CCCCCCCCC
ii
Put Him Back… America! by Godfrey McAllister
Published by Godwill Publishers, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Kingdom Investments Unlimited International Inc.
Email: Godwill.Publishers@gmail.com; Tel: 786 375-8075
Edited by Angel Editing - www.angelediting.com
Printed by BookMasters Inc. in the United States of America
Copyright © 2008 Kingdom Investments Unlimited International,

Inc. & Godwill Publishers
All rights reserved by the copyright owners. No part of this

publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the copyright owners or their authorized author,
Godfrey E. McAllister, Ph.D.
The copyright owners and/or author may be contacted at
PutHimBackAmerica@gmail.com
Tel: 786 375-8075
Unless otherwise stated, Scripture taken from the New King James
Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by
permission. All rights reserved."
Where (NIV) appears, Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW
INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984
International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All
rights reserved.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2008908796
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

McAllister, Godfrey
Put Him Back… America! / Godfrey McAllister
ISBN: 978-0-9765781-0-9 (soft cover)
Christianity & Culture; Christian Foundation of America; Separation of
Church & State -United States; Religion; Judiciary; Supreme Court;
American Constitutional History
Dedication
Put Him Back…America! is dedicated to all elected members of
the executive and legislative branches of government who have dared
to transfer their Christian faith from the theory of Biblical doctrine to
the daily challenge of applying and implementing its principles and
instructions in the national life of America. It is dedicated to those
members of the judiciary who consciously take a stand against the
insidious cancer of judicial tyranny with all its symptoms, including
legislating from the bench, and who are committed to preserving the
Christian Foundations on which America is built.
Put Him Back…America! is dedicated to the thousands of
individuals and institutions that God is using to ensure that the
witness of His Name remains alive and well in the United States of
America. The following are just a few of these individuals and
institutions.
*********************
• 3ABN TV, J.D. Quinn – Department Head

• American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), Jay Sekulow -
Chief Counsel
• AD 2000 Business Executives Consultation, J. Gunnar Olson –
Chairman and Founder
• American Baptist Church, A. Roy Medley – General Secretary
• Answers In Action, Bob and Gretchen Passantin – Directors
• Assemblies of God Church (USA), Dr. George O. Wood –
General Superintendent
• Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Mr. Paul Bell –
Executive Director
• Association for International Missions Services (AIMS), Pat Robertson
– Founder and chairman
• Back to The Bible, Dr. Woodrow Kroll – President
iv
• Baptist Bible Fellowship International, Gary Grey – President
• Baptist Missions to Forgotten Peoples, Dr. Gene Burge –
President/Executive Director
• Barnabas International, Perry Bradford – Interim Director
• Benny Hinn Ministries - Pastor Benny Hinn – Founder & Evangelist
• Bible Literature International (BLI), Cris Doornbos – President & CEO
• Bible Society of Maine, Sally B. Trice – Administrator
• Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Franklin Graham – President
• Calvary Chapel, Charles W. Smith – Pastor
• Calvary Chapel (Ft. Lauderdale), Pastor Bob Coy – Senior Pastor
• Calvary Chapel (Costa Mesa, CA), Chuck Smith – Pastor
• Campus Crusade for Christ, Steve Douglass – President
• Catholic Church in America, Bishop Raymond Kelly – Bishop
• Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Dr. Pat Robertson – Founder
• Child Evangelism Fellowship, Reese R. Kauffman – President
• Christian Businessmen Canada, Paul Richardson – President
• Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Rev Dr Sharon E Watkins –
General Minister and President
• Christian Coalition, Roberta Combs – President
• Christian Community Development Association, Dr. John Perkins –
Chairman
• Christian Cultural Center, Pastor A. R. Bernard – Chief Executive
Officer
• Christian Educators' Association Intl., Finn Laursen – Executive
Director
• Christian Legal Society, Samuel B. Casey – Executive Director & CEO
• Christian Military Fellowship, Bob Flynn – President/CEO
• Christian Reformed Church in N America, Jerry Dykstra – Exec.
Director
• Christian Research Institute, Hank Hanegraaff – President
• Church of Christ, Scientist, Thomas Black, Walter Jones, Margaret
Rogers, Nathan Talbot, May Tramell – Board of Directors
• Church of God (Anderson, Ind.), Ronald V. Duncan D. Min. D.D. –
General Director
v
• Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), Dr. Raymond F. Culpepper –
General Overseer
• Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Henry B. Eyring – President
• Annual Conference Office of the Church of the Brethren, Lerry Fogle –
Executive Director
• CMF International, Doug Priest – Executive Director
• Conservative Congregational Christian Conference, Rev. Dr. Stephen A.
Gammon – Conference Minister
• Coral Ridge Ministries, F Brian E. Fisher – Executive Vice President
• Crenshaw Christian Center, Dr. Frederick K Price – Pastor and Founder
• Crosswalk.com of Salem Web Network of Salem Communications -
Edward G. Atsinger III - CEO - Salem Communications
• Crystal Cathedral , Dr. Robert H. Schuller – Founder & Senior Pastor
• Cumberland Presbyterian Church, Michael Sharpe – Executive Director
• Endemeo Industries – Dr. Alan Lindsey - President & CEO
• Episcopal Church, Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori – Presiding Bishop
• Evangelical Free Church of America, Dr. William J. Hamel – President
• Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Bishop Hanson – Bishop
• Evangelical Press Association, Lamar Keener – Director
• Fellowship Church, Ed Young – Founder & Senior Pastor
• Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Les Steckel – President/CEO
• Francis A. Schaeffer Institute, Bryan Chapell – President
• Free Methodist Church of N. America, Bishop David Kendall – Bishop
• Fresh Fire Ministries, K. Greter, M. Bullet & V. Andres - Directors
• Friends General Conference, Bruce Birchard – General Secretary
• Friends United Meeting, Sylvia Graves – General Secretary
• General Convention of Episcopal Churches, The Most Rev. Katharine
Jefferts Schori – Presiding Bishop
• Grace to You Ministries, John MacArthur – President
• Greek Orthodox Archdiocese (N & S America), Alice Keurian –
Director
• Harvest Crusade, Greg Laurie – Founder
• In Touch Ministries, Dr. Charles Stanley – Founder/pastor
• Independent Fundamental Churches of America, Dr. Les Lofquist –
vi
Director
• International Christian Chamber of Commerce, Dale W. Neill –
President
• International Christian Ministries, Donovan Case – President
• InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IV), Alec Hill – President
• Jesse Duplantis Ministries, Dr. Jesse & Rev Cathy Duplantis - Directors
• Jews for Jesus, Rick Ruiz – Church Relations Director
• John Hagee Ministries, John Hagee – Founder
• Joyce Meyer Ministries, Joyce Meyer – Founder
• Jubilee Christian Center (CA), Pastor Dick Bernal – Founder
• Kenneth Copeland Ministries, John Copeland – CEO
• Lakewood church, Joel Osteen – Pastor
• Life Church, Craig Groeschel – Senior Pastor
• Lifeway Covenant Fellowship, David Kirschke – Founder
• Light of the World Churches, Greg Beutel – Pastor
• Living Proof Ministries, Beth Moore – Founder
• Los Angeles Archdiocese of The Catholic Church, His Eminence Roger
Cardinal Mahony – Archbishop
• Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), Dr. B. Kieschnick –
President
• Moravian Church in North America, David Bennett –
Eastern District President
• Nazarene Church , John Calhoun – District Superintendent
• New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, Eddie Long – Bishop
• New Light Christian Center Church, Drs. Ira & Bridget Hillard -
Founders
• North Point Community Church – Andy Stanley – Senior Pastor
• North American Division of Seventh Day Adventists, Don Schneider –
President
• North Ridge Church, Brad Powell – Senior Pastor
• Old Roman Catholic Church of North America, The Most Rev. Francis
P. Facione – Presiding Bishop
• Pentecostal/Charismatic Churches of North America, Bishop Jerry
Macklin – Chairman
• Power to Change Ministries, Bill Bright – Founder
vii
• Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Rev. Mark A. Tammen – Director
• Prestonwood Baptist Church, Dr. Jack Graham - Pastor
• RBC Ministries, Mart De Haan – President
• Reasoning From the Scriptures, Ken Rhodes – President
• Reformed church in the United states, Ken Armbruster – Primarius Elder
• Roloff Evangelistic Enterprises, Lester Roloff – Founder
• Saddleback Church, Dr. Rick Warren – Senior Pastor
• Second Baptist Church, Dr. Ed Young, Pastor
• Serving in Mission, Steve & Ann Lutz – Regional director
• Solid Gospel, Greg Goodman – Mid Day Air Personality
• Southeast Christian Church, Dave Stone - Senior Minister
• Southern Baptist Convention, Morris H Chapman – President and CEO
• Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Johnny M. Hunt – President
• Stand to Reason, Gregory Kouki / Melinda Penner – Founders
• The Association of Christian Schools Intl., Ken Smitherman – President
• The Coastlands Aptos Foursquare Church, Todd Millikan – Senior
Pastor
• The Evangelical Covenant Church, Rev. Gary Walter – President
• The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., William E. Sutter –
Executive Director
• The Intl. Conference of Reformed Churches, Rev. C. Van Spronsen
• The MacLaurin Institute, Robert Osburn – Executive Director
• The National Catholic Church of America, The Most Reverend Richard
G. Roy OSJD – Archbishop
• The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Alan D. Strange – Moderator
• The Potter's House, Bishop T D Jakes – Senior Pastor
• The Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead – Founder and President
• The World, the Word, and you, Dennis L Finnan – Speaker
• Thomas Road Baptist Church, Rev. Jonathan Falwell – Senior Pastor
• Trans World Radio, Dr. Thomas J. Lowell – Chairman of the Board
• Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), Dr. Paul & Jan Crouch -
Founders
• Tyndale House Publishers, Mark D Taylor – President
• United Church of Christ, Rev. John H. Thomas – President
viii
• United Methodist Church, Janice Riggle Huie – President
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Reverend Monsignor
David J. Malloy – General Secretariat
• Wall Builders, David Barton – President & CEO
• WDA Disciple Building, Robert Dukes – President
• Wesleyan Church, Drs.. T.E. Armige, J. G. Pence & J. Lyon – Directors
• Willow Creek Community Church, Bill Hybels – Senior Pastor
• World Changers Church International, Dr. Creflo Dollar – Senior Pastor
• World Harvest Church, Rod Parsley – Pastor
• World Vision, Richard Stearns – President
• Youth For Christ, Daniel Wolgemoth – National Director
America owes you a debt of gratitude!
Thank You!
I am grateful to God for the vision that motivated the authoring of
this book and for His provision that made completion possible. I
also thank Him for His patience with my many delays which
spanned a period of three years. I pray that this book will bring
honor and glory to His Name.
I am also grateful to my 95-year-old mother Maude and to my

recently deceased 97-year-old father for the investments they have
made in my life to the honor and glory of God.
To all others, including my immediate family, Dr. William Hall, Dr.

Alan Lindsey and Basil Davis who have made sterling contributions
to the success of this project, I say, Thank You!
ix
O
Click on hyperlinked text to jump to Chapter
Click onCCCCCCCCCto jump back to Contents
Contents
Preface............................................................................................1
Chapter One:
The People’s God..........................................................................4
Chapter Two:
The People’s Government – The Executive, Judiciary, and
Legislature...................................................................................16
Chapter Three:
Understanding Our Limitations................................................51
Chapter Four:
America’s Heritage – Christian and Otherwise!..............62
Chapter Five:
America, God, and Abortion......................................................75
Chapter Six:
Separation of Church & State in Perspective!........................104
Chapter Seven:
Constructing a Christian Model..............................................129
Chapter Eight:
Christian American Controversy.............................................141
x
Chapter Nine:
The Truth About the Treaty of Tripoli.....................................176
Chapter Ten:
The Mobilized Church of Jesus Christ....................................184
Chapter Eleven:
The Danbury Baptists and Jefferson in Depth........................203
Chapter Twelve:
Jefferson’s ‘Wall’......................................................................236
Chapter Thirteen:
The Wall – Supreme Court’s Reconstruction.........................248
Chapter Fourteen:
Prognosis....................................................................................269
The Star Spangled Banner.......................................................272
Bibliography..............................................................................273
What Others Say…
xi
xii
America the Beautiful
O beautiful for spacious skies,

O’er amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
O beautiful for pilgrim feet,

Whose stern impassion’d stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!
O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,

Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev’ry gain divine!
O Beautiful for patriot dream

That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
xiii
xiv
Put Him Back…America!
Preface
E xactly who is the ‘HIM’ in Put Him Back…America? That Him

is the God who provides the only logical answers to the complex
questions of ‘Who?’ and ‘How?’ of creation. That God has chosen to
reveal himself to mankind through his mind-boggling creation of the
universe and of living things. That God has chosen to reveal Himself
through His inspired, prophecy-validated Bible, the world’s all-time
bestseller, translated into more languages and dialects than any other
book ever printed. That God reveals Himself at the personal level
through His Holy Spirit to whosoever He wishes, and contractually to
those who voluntarily accept Him as Lord and Savior of their lives.
Let us take a peep at God’s revelation of His greatness, grandeur
and bigness through the creation of the universe. Look at the little sun
in the sky. How big is it in fact? The sun is approximately ninety-
three million miles away from the earth. The diameter of the earth is
approximately 8,000 miles. Traveling in a Concord aircraft at a speed
of 1,565 miles per hour (or 22.3 times faster than the speed limit on a
USA highway), it would take approximately five hours to travel
across the earth. However, if you tried to travel to the sun in the same
Concord, it would be equal to taking more than 11,625 trips across
the earth and would take approximately 58,125 hours or 6.6 years to
complete the journey. According to Dr. Tracy Gray, research scientist
and director of the National Center for Technology Innovation:
Our sun is so big that if you hollowed it out, it would hold
1 million, 300 thousand of our earths. There is a star called
‘Antares’ that is so big that if you hollowed it out, it would
hold 64 million of our suns. A star in the constellation
Hercules is so big that, if hollowed out, could hold 100
million ‘Antares’ stars. And the largest known star – Epsilon
– is so big that, if hollowed out, would hold several million
Hercules stars or 27 billion of our suns.
1
Preface
But why talk stars when a galaxy is a large-scale combination of

millions of stars interlaced with gas and dust? Louie Giglio’s
inspiring, scientifically supported and humbling How Great is Our
God video can easily be found on the Internet and should be watched.
In his video he draws on at least two phenomena of God’s awesome
creation, the whirlpool galaxy and laminin.
In 2005 NASA/ESA celebrated the 15th anniversary of the
deployment of its Hubble telescope into space. Hubble’s retrofitted
advanced camera for surveys returned the best and most detailed
pictures of the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51). The Whirlpool Galaxy is
one of more than 125 billion other galaxies in the known universe and
is described on NASA’s website as “one of astronomy's galactic
darlings… The graceful, winding arms of the majestic spiral galaxy
M51 appear like a grand spiral staircase sweeping through space.”
The whirlpool galaxy is 31 million light years from the earth. Since a
light year is 5,880,000,000,000 miles (5.88 trillion), you and I would
have to travel 182,280,000,000,000,000 (one hundred and eighty-two
quintillion, two hundred and eighty quadrillion) miles in order to
reach that galaxy.
If it were possible in our Concord to travel the Whirlpool Galaxy,
it would take us 166,086,076, or 166.1 million, lifetimes to get there.
As a matter of fact, scientists have finally got it right when they now
describe the universe as ‘infinite’ and immeasurable in size. That’s
closer to the size and greatness and magnitude of the Creator of the
universe, and of the ‘HIM’ in Put Him Back…America! In Psalm 33:6
(NIV) we are told: “By the word of the LORD were the heavens
made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.” He is the God
who controls the tornadoes and hurricanes and the God who says to
them: “Peace, be still!” And they obey His will. (Mark 4:39) No
wonder the Psalmist concluded rhetorically in Chapter 8:3-4: “When I
consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the
stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of
him, And the son of man that You visit him?”
The great and exciting news is that the awesome God of
Creation, and the ‘HIM’ in Put Him Back…America! was at His best
2
when He said: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our

likeness…” as recorded in Genesis 1:26. And having made man, and
even after man rebelled against God in disobedience, God is today
reminding us of how important we are to Him. In Matthew 10:29-31
we read: “Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one
of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very
hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of
more value than many sparrows.”
Finally, we remain the centerpieces of God’s creation and before
the fall, all of creation was at our command and God gave to man
complete dominion over all living things. However, the Omnipotent
God of creation was also the omniscient or all-knowing God of the
future… and so He made a plan to redeem man after man’s rebellion.
The centerpiece of that plan was the sacrificial death, burial and
resurrection of an incarnate God in the person of Jesus Christ on the
cross of Calvary, as an acceptable sacrifice to God for the sins of the
world. Is it then a mere coincidence that the shape of the cross shows
up in our laminin, the base-membrane, scaffolding tissue that
prevents our bodies from falling apart? Is it a coincidence that the
shape of the cross shows up repeatedly in creation, including the
center of the Whirlpool Galaxy?
God is already at the beginning, at the end and at the center of
creation. All it takes is a Hurricane Katrina or a Hurricane Ike to
remind us of how strong and powerful we are not. Put Him Back…
America! is an appeal to Americans to put the God of creation back
into the center of the ‘public square’…not for God’s sake…but for
America’s sake! I join with Stuart K. Hine and proclaim,
O Lord my God! When I in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds Thy hands have made,
I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed:
Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee

How great Thou art! How great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee
How great Thou art! How great Thou art!
3
Preface
4
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER ONE
The People’s God
I t was appreciation of the breathtaking view from Pikes Peak,

Colorado in 1893 that inspired English professor Katharine Lee
Bates to write America the Beautiful. However, it took the people of
America, their faith in God, their appreciation for His creation, and
their confidence in His divine providence to make Katharine’s song
their own. Moreover, until today, the overwhelming majority of
Americans sing these words with pride and gratitude to God.
The Supreme Court’s Opinion
Just one year earlier, in 1892, the Supreme Court of America
handed down a landmark decision in “Church of the Holy Trinity v.
the United States.”
The court stated:
Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based
upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of
mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in
this sense and to this extent our civilization and our
institutions are emphatically Christian.
This is a religious people. This is historically true
from the discovery of this continent to the present
hour, there is a single voice making this
affirmation…These are not individual sayings,
declarations of private persons; they are organic
utterances; they speak the voice of the entire
people… These and many other matters which
might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial
5
The People’s God
declarations to the mass of organic utterances

that this is a Christian nation.
My Country ’Tis of Thee
Neither Katharine Bates nor the 1892 Supreme Court could have
claimed to start a trend. Harvard graduate, modern language
professor, and Baptist minister Samuel F. Smith somewhere around
1832 added My Country (’Tis of Thee) to his collection of writings.
For him, it spoke of personal faith, love of liberty and pride to be
American. It spoke of the inalienable association between his great
God and King on the one hand, and the physically beautiful land of
freedom that will forever be the Pilgrims’ pride.
However, after living to a ripe old age, and having long died and
gone since 1895, Samuel Smith can take little credit for the longevity
of his song. It is the people of America who listened to it, who
identified with it, who keep on singing it and talking about it that
have made it truly great. A poet’s inspiration, Samuel Smith, like
Katharine Lee Bates, captured the soul of a people and helped to
enshrine relevance of God to this country forever.
My country,’ tis of thee,

Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,
Land of the pilgrims’ pride,
From every mountainside let freedom ring!
My native country, thee,

Land of the noble free, thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,
Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills, like that above.
Let music swell the breeze,

And ring from all the trees sweet freedom’s song;
Let mortal tongues awake;
Let all that breathe partake;
6
Let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.
Our fathers’ God, to thee,

Author of liberty, to thee we sing;
Long may our land be bright
With freedom’s holy light;
Protect us by thy might, great God, our King.
A President’s Opinion
President Calvin Coolidge joined almost every president before
him in honoring the God of the fathers and mothers of America.
During his time in office from 1923 to 1929, he conducted his affairs
with the conviction that he was accountable to the God of the
Universe. Perhaps the best way to represent him is through his own
words.
The foundations of our society and our government rest so
much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult
to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be
practically universal in our country.
God Bless America
Often described as America’s unofficial anthem, God Bless
America was composed in 1918 by Irving Berlin (1888-1989). But it
was not until 1938, as war was again threatening Europe, that Berlin
revived his God Bless America of twenty years before and revised it
as his contribution to the quest for peace. He gave the revised version
to singer Kate Smith, who sang it on her popular radio broadcast.
However, it was not Irving Berlin or Kate Smith that made this song
the unofficial anthem of America. It was the people of America who
heard it and listened to it... and adapted the words to themselves. It is
millions of Americans like you, who until this day, holding your head
up high, and with pride and gratitude in your hearts and a repressed
tear in your eye, sing:
God bless America,
7
The People’s God
Land that I love,

Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans white with foam
God bless America,
My home sweet home.
Moreover, up until today, throughout the United States of

America in pockets of Christian resistance, there can be heard the
distinct voice of faith and trust in Jehovah God through his Son, Jesus
Christ.
But listen… there are other sounds that we hear. Millions of
Americans are marching to the beat of another drum altogether. The
gloom and tragedy of war has again engulfed us, and though no date
can be agreed on, a war against God, declared or undeclared, is being
fought by those who are committed to uprooting His very memory
from the public square. The sirens may not be blowing, or perhaps
their distinct sounds are misinterpreted, but intelligent bombs are
being leveled at the foundations on which this great nation was built,
and they are rapidly taking their toll.
Those who are waging the war for the ‘de-Christianization’ of
America are in the minority, but they are a powerful and influential
minority. In many cases, they have succeeded in strategically
leveraging the weight of the Constitution of America in the waging of
their war. Their victory trophies can be seen everywhere as God,
Jesus Christ, the Bible and every other reference to, or symbol of,
Christianity is systematically discredited as having no relevance in
the public life of America.
Effective Guerrilla Warfare
A strategically placed minority is what guerrilla warfare is all
about. When the enemy is so disguised as to resemble your friend,
there can be no higher achievement accredited to any strategist. Isn’t
it therefore a perfect score when the enemies of America’s God can
align themselves with at least five of the nine justices of the Supreme
8
Court, and through that means, enshrine their diabolical evil in law?
This is exactly what has too often happened in America. More and
more, the Church of Jesus Christ continues to give its opinion based
on the Word of God, while the laws of America are being manipulated
and changed to say the opposite of the Word of God, and with all the
trappings of alleged constitutional support.
Nevertheless, nature abhors a vacuum. – it always has and it
always will. It is therefore no surprise that as the enemies of God
attempt to remove Him from the structures of the public square, what
used to be ‘Godly’ is systematically being replaced with ‘Godless’.
Message to Nominal Christian Americans
Put Him Back…America! is a message to nominal Christians in
America. A nominal Christian is a Christian in name only, but when it
comes to Christianity, it is meaningless to wear the name and not play
the game. There can be nothing nominal about a relationship with the
God of the Universe. He cannot be fooled into believing any practical
lie that we might choose to live. He has no need that He himself
cannot satisfy, except for voluntary worship and praise by those He
created to worship Him. This is the only thing that we can do to
‘impress’ God – we either do it, or we do not.
The narrow road that leads to the heart of God is so constricted
that it only allows one-way traffic of praise and worship committed to
sticking to the center. A truly nominal Christian is going to hell at the
same velocity as an avowed atheist or a perverted, twisted criminal.
The words of Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23 sends chills up and down my
spine:
Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter
the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My
Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, `Lord,
Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons
in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And
then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from
Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
9
The People’s God
Message to Non-Christian Americans

Put Him Back…America! is written to Americans who declare
there is no God, to those who consistently say ‘No!’ to God, and to
those who have not as yet said ‘Yes!’ to God. By any standards, this
country is a blessed country. It is no coincidence that the
overwhelming majority of its traditions and foundations are firmly
rooted in the Bible and on the Christian faith. Nevertheless, from the
planting of the nation, the Devil has made his presence felt, and today
he has succeeded in setting up an empire that effectively challenges
Christian values on every level.
How many non-Christian people are happy with the exponential
expansion of the visible evidences of the domain of darkness? How
many are happy with the crime and violence that daily characterizes
contemporary American life? How many are happy that alcohol
consumption levels are such as to guarantee the death or
dismemberment of thousands of our loved ones each year? How
many are happy that the spread of Aids and other sexually transmitted
diseases is ravaging the families of friends we know and is knocking
dangerously close to our own door? How many are happy with the
addiction of our young people to destructive drugs? How many are
happy with the specter of homosexuals and lesbians, who, if faithful
to their partners, have effectively vowed to make the human race
extinct?
No… I didn’t think so. There are not very many! You see, those
who say they do not want Jesus Christ and the message of
Christianity would really like to have all the benefits and rewards that
accompany both. Well, get with the program! The God of the
Universe is not about to be used by his created beings as an object of
convenience. You have to make a choice, and the choice has been
simplified for you.
We are now in the final lap and the end is in sight. For the World
Trade Center victims it is already over. For those dying on our roads
every day, it is already too late. For you, however, there is still time. I
just do not know how much time.
10
Devil v. God
From the moment you are born until a split second before you
die, there are only two contenders in the race for your soul – one is
the Devil, and the other is God. By now, you have a good idea of
what both stand for, and in case you did not realize it, both are very
interested in your soul. Moreover, in case you have doubts, let me be
the first to assure you that one of them will get your soul. However,
until the final bell rings, you get to choose who that will be. I pray
that with the help of God’s Holy Spirit, you will make the choice that
Joshua made. When faced with the options of serving the Devil or
serving God, he acknowledged that there was a choice. Therefore, he
declared: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!” Joshua
24:15
Message to Practicing Christian Americans
Put Him Back…America! is a message to Christians who are
considered by God to be His children, members of His body, and
many of whom in some circles may rightly be referred to as ‘born
again’. Those people humbly boast of a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ and, admittedly with a wide range of vernacular
variation, rely on God’s Holy Spirit for daily guidance, direction, and
empowerment. Unfortunately, within this very select, though not
exclusive group of people, there is a wide spectrum of possibilities on
the scale of ‘yieldedness’ and commitment to the will of God. To
those persons the message of Put Him Back! is clear. The time has
arrived to stand up and be counted. The forces of darkness and
righteousness are pitted against each other, and a primary battlefield
is the United States of America.
Peace… If Possible
Christians who avoid persecution by being so pacific that they
cannot be recognized must remember that their mandate to live
peaceably with all men is conditional upon two things. The first is ‘if
it be possible’; and the second is “as much as depends on you”
(Romans 12:18). Put another way, the time has come for Christians to
understand that living at peace with all men ought not to be at the
11
The People’s God
expense of a militant stand for Jesus and an effectively forceful

presentation of the claim of Jesus Christ on the lives of all men.
Islam’s Commitments
After all the public relations rhetoric is over, supporters of Islam,
alleged to be the fastest-growing religion on earth, are obligated to
several commitments. Not only are they committed to praying five
times a day, but also to jihad, which is described in the Encyclopedia
Britannica as: “a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam
by waging war; jihad has come to denote any conflict waged for
principle or belief and is often translated to mean ‘holy war’.”
Britannica identifies four ways by which the Islamic duty of Jihad can
be fulfilled:
These are by the heart, the tongue, the hand, and the
sword. The fourth way to fulfill one’s duty is to wage war
physically against unbelievers and enemies of the Islamic
faith. Those who professed belief in a divine revelation—
Christians and Jews in particular—were given special
consideration. They could either embrace Islam or at least
submit themselves to Islamic rule and pay a poll and land tax.
If both options were rejected, jihad was declared.
Christians can learn a lot from faithful Muslims. Their
commitment to systematic, frequent, scheduled prayer is most
commendable, although the required Muslim’s prayer is ritualistic
and does not consist of conversational intimacy with Allah. Ideally,
the Christian’s mandate is to prayerfully commune with Jehovah God
without ceasing. However, many of us would do well to begin by
praying at least five times a day.
The second of a very short list of admirable qualities of the
recent public relations version of Islam is the commitment of its
faithful to non-violent jihad. Regardless of the proven, documented
reality of how Muslims have systematically fulfilled jihad through
violent, vicious and organized attacks on the ‘infidels’, including
millions in Sudan and other parts of the world and thousands of
people trapped in New York’s World Trade Center, the professed non-
12
violent forms of jihad are admirable.

Christianity & Violence
Judaism will find it very difficult to objectively and rationally
posit its own legacy as being inherently inconsistent with the so-
called ‘Holy Wars’ of jihad as practiced by Muslims. Established state
Christianity as embodied in the historically infamous Crusades will
forever stand accused as being as guilty in many respects as the
Muslim religion in its attempt to conquer through physical violence.
Perhaps the only redeeming aspect of the Crusades is that they are of
the past and will never be repeated. Muslim-sponsored aggression and
terrorism is with us today, and escalating.
On the other hand, Christianity as practiced by faithful followers
of the instructions of Jesus Christ and comprising the defined Body of
Jesus Christ stands aloft as being totally opposed to acts of
aggressive, physical violence against avowed enemies. The principles
of Jesus even occasionally stand against defensive physical violence.
The Christian faith subscribes to the belief that vengeance belongs to
God alone, and for the Christian’s part, hungry enemies are to be fed
and thirsty enemies are to be given water, and all are to be loved.
However, any deficiency in physical violence of which the
Christian mandate is guilty is more than adequately compensated for
by a required aggressiveness in introducing Jesus Christ to a lost and
dying race of humanity in the shortest possible time, and as
effectively as possible. Hence the Christian, both as he or she goes
about daily activities as well as when he or she embarks on
missionary journeys, is to aggressively engage in preaching, teaching
and baptizing in the name of God the Father, God the Son, God the
Holy Spirit and in the name of Jesus.
God’s Commitment to Followers
Jesus Christ says in Matthew 10:32-39,:
Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will
also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But
whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before
My Father who is in heaven. Do not think that I came to
13
The People’s God
bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a

sword. For I have come to `set a man against his father, a
daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against
her mother-in-law.' And `a man's foes will be those of his
own household.' He who loves father or mother more than
Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter
more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take
his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who
finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My
sake will find it.
Without prejudice to the outcome of the debate as to how
‘Christian’ the Founding Fathers were, the evidence is conclusive that
God gave Christians a head start in the building of the United States
of America. In the 21st century, President Bush is having a hard time
convincing the Senate that there is a fundamental God-given
difference between males and females, and that the presence of both
are required for a marriage; this is a good sounding board to show
how much influence Christians have lost in America. To the credit of
many less powerful nations, including Jamaica, the lawmakers of
these countries are prepared to enshrine into law the definition of
marriage as being between a man and a woman. Yet America’s
practical claim to be arguably the most powerful nation on earth, and
definitely the most influential, places on her a huge responsibility to
lead by example. It is therefore sad to see a powerless, economically
dependent but beautiful God-blessed country like Jamaica feeling that
it is necessary not only to create legislation that emulates Roe v.
Wade, but to exceed it in harshness. After all, little dependent
countries cannot afford not to impress the United States of America.
The time has come to play ‘catch-up’, and in this game of
recovery of lost ground, the Christian has no choice but to become
aggressive. The Christian might even find that in the execution of his
or her God-appointed obligation to storm the kingdom of darkness
and rescue souls for the kingdom of heaven, some of the questionable
anti-God ‘laws’ of America and the ACLU could be offended. Then
the Christian will have to decide whether it is better to offend the
ACLU, and even the laws of America, or offend God. I pray that the
14
day will never come when Christians will have to choose between the
laws of a nation that claims ‘In God We Trust’ on the one hand, and
on the other hand the declared will of God expressed in the Word of
God, the Bible – the very book on which the nation was built.
Message to Political Leaders of America
Finally, Put Him Back…America! is written to the president of
the United States of America, to every congressman, to every senator,
state and locally elected leader. Each of you distinguished ladies and
gentlemen have already been accommodated in the categories
addressed. Nevertheless, there is more to your situation. You are
leaders of America, and God places special privileges and equally
special responsibilities on the shoulders of leaders.
In the critical transition stage when Israel demanded a monarchy,
and in so doing, rejected their theocratic status, we read in 2 Samuel
23:3 a clear prescription.
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me:
`He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of
God. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the
sun rises, a morning without clouds, Like the tender grass
springing out of the earth, by clear shining after rain.'
The Apostle Paul would later remind slave masters to remember
that both slave and master are accountable to God.
Appointed by and Accountable to God
First, God identifies you as obtaining your appointments from
Him. This fact places a duty on Christians and non-Christians alike to
obey you in the name of God. However, equally true is the fact that if
you cause one of these ‘minions’ who are obliged to obey you to go
astray, it would be better that a huge stone be hung around your neck,
and that you be thrown to the bottom of the sea. That would be better
than having to face the wrath of God for the abuse of your God-given
power. You will have to give account to God for the constitution and
laws you make, and for the interpretations you allow.
Separate the branches of government as much as you want, but
15
The People’s God
only two are accountable to the people. For although members of the
judiciary are elected at the lower levels, at the highest level, where it
matters most, they are not accountable to the people. This means that
since the essence of a democracy is that ultimate power resides at the
bottom and is delegated upwards by the periodically expressed will of
the majority, those who exercise power for indefinite periods without
reference to the will of the people are operating outside of the
democratic process.
You therefore have a critical choice to make. It is either that
America must relinquish its claim to being the world’s greatest
democracy, republican or parliamentary, and allow elected politicians
to hide behind rulings of the Supreme Court, or elected officials must
accept ultimate responsibility for all decisions and for everything that is
done in America by those in authority with the help of the Supreme
Court.
The Court’s Opinions & Congress’ Rulings
The implication of this is simple. If the Supreme Court in its
interpretation of the Constitution and laws of the United States of
America makes rulings that are offensive to the direction in which the
elected leaders of America desire to take the nation, then the leaders
must address the flaws in the Constitution that allowed the Supreme
Court to commit the travesty. In short, judges must interpret the law
and apply the law to disputes and controversies between parties before
the court, not make the law.
By extension, elected legislators must make the law and do so in
such a way that there will be a precisely prescribed and limited role for
interpretation. As has been the case and will continue to be the case,
where judges fill the gaps left by legislatures and expand the details of
the law, it must be left to those with the responsibility to have initially
made the law to endorse or alter the work of the courts.
16
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER TWO
The People’s Government – The Executive,

Judiciary, and Legislature
Congress Founded First
T he courts have a clear role to play in the government of

America, and the Supreme Court represents the third arm of the
federal government. Nevertheless, its elevation to the status of a
critical branch of government is as important as its relegation to the
third most important branch. It is no coincidence that it was the third
to be identified in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers rightly
identified the Congress in the first article, the president in the second
article and the judiciary in the third article. Immediately after the
ratification of the Constitution was completed on June 21, 1788, the
United States of America had form, but no life. Then the first
Congress met on Wednesday, March 4, 1789 in the city of New York
and breathed into the structure of the government and it sprung to life.
Executive Second… Judiciary Third
It was then the duty of the Congress to interpret the Constitution
and create the executive. Piece by piece it put the executive branch
together, until finally on April 30, 1789 the president, having been
duly elected under the guidance of Congress, became a reality.
It was not until after the legislature and the executive arms were
securely in place that together they created the judiciary as they
interpreted the Constitution. Long before the judiciary began
interpreting the Constitution, the legislature was charged with that
responsibility and satisfactorily and effectively executed its duties.
17
The People’s Government – The Executive, Judiciary, and Legislature
Judiciary Perceived as Third

Not only was the judiciary conceived in third position and
received in third position, but it was also perceived in third position.
Alexander Hamilton, who is a respectable Founding Father and who
helped frame the Constitution and marketed it throughout the states
through the Federalist Papers, ought to have an accurate perception
of the judiciary. In Federalist 78 he writes:
The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either
the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or
of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution
whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor
WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend
upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its
judgments.
Judiciary – Conceived Weakest
This simple view of the matter suggests several important
consequences. It proves incontestably that the judiciary is beyond
comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can
never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible
care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It
equally proves that though individual oppression may now and then
proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people
can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the
judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the
executive. It was crystal clear in Hamilton’s mind that legislating
from the bench was inconceivable and certainly not intended.
The bottom-line is that the buck stops not with the judges and
especially with the Supreme Court justices, but with the elected
legislature, and of course the elected president. Where the buck stops,
there responsibility rests. And where there is disagreement between
the elected president and the elected Congress, it is always the elected
Congress that has the final say.
Mr. President
18
The American system of government elevates one person above

all. That is all right! That person, who for the immediate future will
continue to be a man, is elected by the people, albeit not directly. That
person is normally allowed to serve for four years, and if he is
perceived to have done well, and/or if not challenged by one who is
assumed to be able to do better, will be re-elected for an additional
four years. Regardless of how good a job he has done, at the end of
eight years, he must go. That person we respectfully refer to as ‘Mr.
President’.
Remember Nebuchadnezzar!
Mr. President, without prejudice to the checks and balances that
fetter you, you occupy the position closest to God in your country, but
let me hasten to warn you that the associated illusions could cost you
your sanity and even your life. There was once one who was
politically even more powerful than you are – his name was
Nebuchadnezzar, and he was the king of Babylon.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Crime
At the height of his successful and powerful reign, he looked
around and patted himself on his back as he pompously declared:
Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for a royal
dwelling by my mighty power and for the honor of my
majesty?
Nebuchadnezzar’s Trial & Sentence
Verses 31 to 32 of Daniel 4 tell us what happened.
While the word was still in the king's mouth, a voice fell
from heaven: "King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: the
kingdom has departed from you! And they shall drive you
from men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the
field. They shall make you eat grass like oxen; and seven
times shall pass over you, until you know that the Most High
rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomever He
chooses.
Nebuchadnezzar Does Time
19
What had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was immediately

fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle.
His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew
like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Restoration
And at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my
eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I
blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who
lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the
inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does
according to His will in the army of heaven and among the
inhabitants of the earth. no one can restrain His hand or say to
Him, "What have You done?
Nebuchadnezzar Glorifies God
At the same time my reason [sanity] returned to me, and
for the glory of my kingdom, my honor and splendor returned
to me. My counselors and nobles resorted to me, I was
restored to my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added to
me. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the
King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and His ways
justice. And those who walk in pride He is able to abase
[humble].
Sennacherib Not so Lucky
Mr. President, Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, was not that
lucky. He disrespected the God of Heaven and railed against Him.
God humiliated him and as a result, a member of his own family
murdered him.
The World’s Most Powerful Man
Having put the authority of the world’s most powerful
commander-in-chief in perspective, the president of the United States
of America must ultimately take responsibility for all that happens in
America. Where in the president’s opinion the direction in which the
20
legislature or the judiciary is taking the country is inconsistent with

his desire as the senior representative of God, he must use all the
power legally available to him to thwart the overtures of the Devil.
When he finds that his hands are legally tied, he must ensure that his
mouth is used to send a very clear signal that the country is being
taken in a direction that is displeasing to God.
President Andrew Johnson’s Example
Andrew Johnson may not be viewed by many as one of
America’s most illustrious presidents, and arguably, was it not for the
assassination of President Lincoln, he could never have been elected
president. However, the facts are that at a time when the highly
controversial actions of the congressional radical Republicans were
bent on enslaving fellow Americans of the South who had failed in
their bid to secede from the northern dominated Union, President
Johnson was not lacking in making his opposition to the majority
known. His presidential vetoes were routinely overridden by
Congress, but at least he vetoed. Finally, knowing that Congress had
deliberately set a trap for him in the form of the 1867 ‘Tenure of
Office Act’, Johnson proceeded to act on principle and fired his
secretary of war in defense of the integrity of the executive branch.
As was expected, he was impeached by Congress, and was saved
from conviction and removal by the Senate by the narrowest of
margins… one vote. I have no evidence of his relationship with God
except a brief statement in a personal note discovered shortly after his
death in which he said:
I have performed my duty to God, my country and my
family. I have nothing to fear in approaching death… To me
it is the mere shadow of God’s protecting wing.
In the context of the American constitution, I do not recommend
that a Christian president resign if he fails to persuade Congress
and/or the Senate to make Godly decisions. However, he must daily
announce his own objections, identify the fact that the people’s
elected representatives have tied his hands, and in that condition,
appeal to God and the people of God for help.
21
The Judiciary
And what about the Supreme Court, which has a constitutional
role to play in the United States of America as the third, even if
arguably equal, branch of government? For as long as the president
and Congress are in harmony with the positions taken by the Supreme
Court, then all is well and the co-equal concept prevails unchallenged.
Nevertheless, the minute there is a difference in positions, it is
manifest either that the co-equal principle was at all times flawed, or
that at that point in time it is no longer operative. At that point, one of
the branches must take the lead. It cannot be the judiciary. It must be
the executive.
The Great Chief’s Flip-Flop
Chief Justice Marshall was no fool. He knew that in a showdown
with President Jefferson he would fall flat on his face. Today, as it
relates to Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall is revered not
just because of what he did in laying the foundation for what many
call ‘judicial review’, but what I call the ‘consummation of judicial
review’, but equally because of what he did not do in the first widely
celebrated case of his career.
However, as his career came to a close in 1832 in Worcester v.
Georgia, ‘the Great Chief Justice’ Marshall either abandoned his
earlier caution, grew complacent or confident, felt he had no option,
or did not see the ‘train’ coming, but certainly he ran headlong into
President Andrew Jackson and ruled against him. Without prejudice
to the rightness of the judiciary or the executive in this matter, the
president of the United States of America said of the Supreme Court’s
ruling: “Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
He could not! The president enforced his.
Clearly, in this or any other matter, the position taken by the
executive could be as wrong, if not more evidently wrong, than any
taken by the judiciary. Put another way, it is clear that the judiciary
can be right, and the executive, or the legislature for that matter, be
wrong. Humans staff all three, and none is infallible.
22
Madison on Men and Angels

Madison had no illusions about the difference between angels
and men. In Federalist Paper #51, he wrote:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If
angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal
controls on government would be necessary. In framing a
government which is to be administered by men over men,
the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place
oblige it to control itself.
Notwithstanding this, if a wrong is to be committed, the
principles on which the American Government are built determines
that it must either be initiated, and/or endorsed by the legislature and/
or the executive, but never by the judiciary.
“Ultimately Supreme Constitutional Court”
In the final analysis, when in the opinion of the ultimately
Supreme Court of the people of America, a wrong is initiated and/or
endorsed by their legislature or executive, there is immediate
recourse. A telephone call, an organized lobby, a picket protest or
demonstration are all effective methods of communicating with the
‘offenders’. If in the opinion of the ‘Supreme Court of the People’ the
wrong is not remedied, then the case is determined, a verdict is
handed down, sentence is reserved and eventually executed at a
scheduled or specially convened poll within a relatively short period
of time.
However, when that wrong in the opinion of the people is
committed by the Federal Judiciary, there is no direct recourse against
the justices of either the Federal or Supreme Courts. Paradoxically, if
the people understand their responsibility under the Constitution, they
will then hold their executive and legislature responsible for the
travesty of the Federal Judiciary and inflict on them the ultimate
punishment provided by the Constitution.
The Constitution, in providing a delicate balance of power
between the three branches of government, clearly reserves to the
23
people the ultimate power. Through the 14th Amendment, Congress

may have succeeded in usurping much of the power reserved to the
states, but nothing will ever be able to finally usurp the powers
inalienably assigned to the people. In placing the judiciary, and
specifically the federal judges and Supreme Court justices outside the
direct reach of the people, the Constitution placed the whole weight
of responsibility for controlling the judiciary on the shoulders of the
elected representatives of the people. By so doing, it exposed the
elected representatives of the people to the sanctions or approval of
the people they represent.
The elected representatives comprising the legislature and the
executive are therefore exposed to a form of double jeopardy. If on
the one hand, either arm or both arms overrule the judiciary, and in
the opinion of the people do so wrongly, they are exposed to the
reprimand and sanctions of the people. On the other hand, if the
legislature and/or the executive fail to restrain and overrule the
judiciary in a wrong decision, or in a series of wrong decisions, the
people, when informed as to their constitutional rights, will lay the
blame for the judiciary’s wrong at the feet of the legislature and/or the
executive and act accordingly.
Life Tenure Because of Weakness
Alexander Hamilton’s arguments in the Federalist Papers
indicate that a major justification for the lifetime security of tenure
for federal judges was predicated on the obvious weakness of the
judiciary relative to the other two branches of government. The
Founding Fathers in Philadelphia deliberately prescribed lifetime
tenure for federal judges as a means of balancing the power between
the branches of government, and for this reason I do not support the
‘popularist’ moves to remove this facility by constitutional
amendment. Sure, I agree with the motivation behind the
recommendation. Sure, I agree that many judges need to be
restrained. On the other hand, I also believe that ‘if it ain’t broke…
don’t fix it.’ The problem with the judiciary is not to be solved by
meddling with the Constitution in this instance.
First, the Founding Fathers were very aware of the potential for
24
judicial abuse, and so has been the judiciary itself. From time to time,
and especially in the early years of the judiciary, judicial restraint has
been a recurring theme. Cautions from within and without have
served to remind the judiciary that theirs is not an obligation to
legislate from the bench.
The 1777 New York Constitutional Model
The framers of the 1777 Constitution of New York, no doubt
cognizant of the tremors that could be unnecessarily caused by
judicial review of bills being passed by the state legislature and even
signed by the governor, placed a very interesting provision into their
fundamental law. Article 3 states in part:
And whereas laws inconsistent with the spirit of this
constitution, or with the public good, may be hastily and
unadvisedly passed: Be it ordained, that the governor for the
time being, the chancellor, and the judges of the supreme
court, or any two of them, together with the governor, shall
be, and hereby are, constituted a council to revise all bills
about to be passed into laws by the legislature; and for that
purpose shall assemble themselves from time to time, when
the legislature shall be convened; for which, nevertheless
they shall not receive any salary or consideration, under any
pretence whatever. And that all bills which have passed the
senate and assembly shall, before they become laws, be
presented to the said council for their revisal and
consideration; and if, upon such revision and consideration, it
should appear improper to the said council, or a majority of
them, that the said bill should become a law of this State, that
they return the same, together with their objections thereto in
writing, to the senate or house of assembly (in which so ever
the same shall have originated) who shall enter the objection
sent down by the council at large in their minutes, and
proceed to reconsider the said bill.
Article 3 requires that the objections be considered by both
houses, but also permits the bill to become law if after reconsideration
it still satisfies the wishes of two-thirds of the members present in
25
both houses. Noticeably, this provision is absent in the 1821

Constitution of New York and no doubt reflected the model that had
been adopted by the Federal Constitution over thirty years prior.
The fact is that when drafting the Federal Constitution the
Founding Fathers were very conscious of the 1777 New York model.
Nevertheless, they opted to ignore it. They wanted the branches to be
separate and distinct, and for good reason. On the other hand, it must
be noted that the New York model was not censored by the Founding
Fathers in Philadelphia at the time of its consideration and rejection,
and for equally good reason. Had it been censored, it may not have
lasted for almost half a century.
Potential for Judicial Abuse
The Fathers were also very aware of the potential for human
abuse of what could appear as an opportunity for the development of
judicial dictatorial tendencies. This is Hamilton’s response to that
consideration in Federalist Papers #78 and #81. In Federalist #78, as
already quoted in part, he says:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments
of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they
are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature
of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the
political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in
a capacity to annoy or injure them. The executive not only
dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.
The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes
the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to
be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence
over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the
strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no
active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have
neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must
ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for
the efficacy of its judgments.
Judiciary Punishable by Legislature
26
In Federalist #81, Hamilton warns that any recognized attempt by

the judiciary to frustrate the constitutional rights of the people can be
punished by the legislature.
It may in the last place be observed that the supposed
danger of judiciary encroachments on the legislative
authority, which has been upon many occasions reiterated, is
in reality a phantom. Particular misconstructions and
contraventions of the will of the legislature may now and
then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to amount
to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the
order of the political system. This may be inferred with
certainty, from the general nature of the judicial power, from
the objects to which it relates, from the manner in which it is
exercised, from its comparative weakness, and from its total
incapacity to support its usurpations by force.
Hamilton continues his defense of the Constitution in Federalist
#81:
And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration
of the important constitutional check which the power of
instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body,
and of determining upon them in the other, would give to that
body upon the members of the judicial department. This is
alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the
judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority
of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the
body entrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the
means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them
from their stations. While this ought to remove all
apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a
cogent argument for constituting the Senate a court for the
trial of impeachments.
History of Impeachment in the USA
Unfortunately, relatively little use of the power and responsibility
of impeachment has been made by Congress, which is a body directly
27
accountable to the people. Between 1799 and 2005, eighteen federal

officials, including three presidents, one senator, one secretary of war,
one Supreme Court justice and twelve federal judges have been
impeached. Seven of these have been removed from office as a direct
result of a conviction. President Johnson provides a clear instance of
political lynching of a Democrat by a predominantly Republican
Congress. He escaped by one deliberate Republican vote. President
Nixon resigned, and as such left the possibility of a conviction a
distinct speculated possibility. President Clinton, though acquitted, on
his last full day in office conceded to accusations of wrongdoing and
accepted the prescribed punishment, which included a five-year
disbarment from practicing law in his home state of Arkansas.
Regardless of the technicalities, history shows that in every
instance that impeachment has resulted in a conviction, it has been a
federal judge convicted. More than sixty federal judges have been
investigated for impeachment, of whom at least twelve have been
impeached and seven convicted. Convicted federal judges have been
removed from office for a range of offences associated with the
execution of their duties to the people of America and the handling of
their sacred trust. In 1804, District Judge John Pickering was
convicted. District Judge West H. Humphreys was convicted in 1862.
In 1913, Robert W. Archibald, judge of the Court of Commerce was
convicted. In 1936 District Judge Halstead L. Ritter was convicted. In
1986, District Judge Harry E. Claiborne was convicted. In 1988,
District Judge Alcee L. Hastings was convicted. District Judge Walter
L. Nixon was convicted in 1989. Only one Supreme Court justice has
ever been impeached. He is Associate Justice Samuel Chase. He was
served with eight Articles of Impeachment in late 1804. All of these
related to his blatantly partisan and unfair treatment of defendants and
their counsel as a trial judge in lower circuit courts – a practice that
did not outlast the 19th century. In March 1805, Chase was acquitted
of all the charges. It is quite possible that his acquittal sent a message
that Supreme Court justices are beyond impeachment, much less
conviction.
The Constitution allows for impeachment of an official who is
found guilty of “treason, bribery and other high crimes and
28
misdemeanors.” Nevertheless, this classification of grounds for

impeachment is not nearly as exclusive and foreboding as it sounds. It
is not designed to target murderers, thieves and rapists or even ‘white-
collar’ criminals, except perhaps in as far as bribery is the offence.
There is an abundance of other provisions and laws for perpetrators of
those crimes.
By deduction, it would appear that the impeachment provision
was designed to capture those offences that on the surface do not
appear to be otherwise indictable. Yet, because of their nature, these
offences are potentially even more dangerous to the people of
America as a whole and to the particular state. The Constitution
makes provision for standard criminal proceedings to be subsequently
brought against a convicted official. It also makes provision for
depriving such a person of the president’s prerogative of mercy. In
light of the foregoing, it would appear that impeachment was
designed to be a relatively tidy way of removing an official from
office in as short a time as possible so as not to additionally impede
the prosecution of the nation’s business.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
I agree with Neil Kinkopf, who after the impeachment of
President Clinton wrote in his Journal an article captioned The Scope
of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” in vol. 63, 2000 of Law and
Contemporary Problems. Referring to The Lessons of Impeachment
History by Michael Gerhardt. Kinkopf wrote:
I agree with Professor Michael Gerhardt that the classic
case for impeachment involves official misconduct, and it is
not surprising that most impeachments have been predicated
upon misconduct involving the exercise of official power.
I, however, disagree with Kinkopf’s choice of construction that
allows him to link ‘misdemeanors’ with ‘other’ in the text of the
constitutional provision for impeachment. According to Kinkopf,
‘other’ qualifies both ‘high crimes’ and ‘misdemeanors’ and
accordingly classifies them along with ‘treason’ and ‘bribery’.
Though both ‘high crimes’ and ‘misdemeanor’ would have had
29
an illustrious English heritage with which many of the Constitution’s

framers would have been familiar, ‘misdemeanor’ would have already
undergone enough change in meaning as to at least suggest its
contemporary usage to the framers. Noah Webster compiled his
famous dictionary of the English language in 1806 and expanded it in
1828. The following is his definition of ‘misdemeanor’:
MISDEME’ANOR, n. Ill behavior; evil conduct; fault;
mismanagement.
1. In law, an offense of a less atrocious nature than a
crime. Crimes and misdemeanors are mere synonymous
terms; but in common usage, the word crime is made to
denote offenses of a deeper and more atrocious dye, while
small faults and omissions of less consequence are comprised
under the gentler name of misdemeanors.
‘High crimes’ has enjoyed no such evolution. The English legal
luminary Sir William Blackstone generally understood ‘high crimes’
to be crimes against royalty, not necessarily against their person but
essentially against their office. High crimes were therefore crimes
against the crown.
It is felt among some legal scholars that the term ‘High Crimes
and Misdemeanors’ was deliberately imported cart blanche from
English law by the framers of the Constitution and together mean
serious offenses. Several related facts seem to suggest that though the
framers would have been familiar with the term, they were not
attempting a wholesale importation of its English contextual meaning.
First, the phraseology as we have it today evolved through
several submissions and alterations. Jack N. Rakove, Coe professor of
History and American Studies, Stanford University at his November
9, 1998 ‘Hearing on the Background and History of Impeachment’
before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, reminds us of several facts.
The evolution of the discussion of the impeachment clause began
with a submission by the delegates from North Carolina, Hugh
Williamson and William Davie. They proposed the terms ‘mal-
30
practice or neglect of duty’, but not without arousing Madison’s

concerns that their ambit was far too vague. This proposal was
replaced with the term ‘treason, bribery, or corruption’. Next, the
proposal was reduced to ‘treason or bribery’. Mason insisted that
there were other potential reasons for wanting to impeach a public
official and recommended adding ‘maladministration’ to the list. This
again earned the displeasure of Madison, before Mason countered
with ‘other high Crimes and Misdemeanors against the State’. There
was a technical substitution of ‘United States’ for ‘State’ before the
Committee of Style dropped the entire phrase and resorted to ‘other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors’.
Secondly, if Madison had his way, ‘misdemeanor’ would have
been replaced by a different word, and that would hardly have been
an appropriate treatment for a hallowed transplanted phrase from
English law. Coe reminds us that: “Madison still worried that
‘misdemeanor’ was too expansive a term, but his effort to delete it
failed.” Less significantly, if there was a strong deliberate reliance on
English law, then ‘against the State’ is unlikely to have been admitted,
only to be dropped by the Committee of Style since it would have
been self-evident that high crimes in the US context could only be
against the state.
It would seem to me that because of the clear legal distinction in
th
18 century American law between ‘high crimes’ and
‘misdemeanors’, the more appropriate construction would be
‘treason, bribery and other high crimes and [also] misdemeanors’.
The justification for including ‘misdemeanors’ was to ensure that
there is as broad a net as possible to prevent any targeted official from
escaping on grounds of limited inclusivity. At the same time, the
framers maintained a high enough bar for qualification to be
impeached by restricting the victim of the injury to the state, or more
specifically, the United States. A very clear intention was that for an
impeachment to be justified, the state must be injured, and manifestly
so. In the case of any of the ‘high crimes’, the state is obviously
injured. However, in the case of a misdemeanor, it must be
established that the state is injured. If the state is injured, then the
official is impeachable.
31
Understandably, the mix of specific and non-specific grounds for

impeachment places much of the onus of responsibility on the
agencies responsible for both the impeachment and conviction. In this
regard, no one says it better than Representative Gerald Ford did in
1970. “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House
of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” If
a House majority thinks it is impeachable and two-thirds of the
Senate agree, then a conviction takes place and the official is removed
from office, liable for subsequent indictment and prosecution in a
Court of Law, and beyond the reach of the president’s pardon.
A quick perusal of the grounds for impeachment of most of the
persons convicted and removed from office readily suggests that the
magnitude of their crime or misdemeanor was magnified because it
was against the state. Federal officials are placed under a severe
burden to ensure that their actions do not injure the corporate interests
of the USA. Tinkering with the Constitution, except through the
means prescribed in the Constitution, must be one such ‘high crime’
that constitutes grounds for impeachment. If those charged with the
responsibility of employing this provision fail to do so, then they
become conspirators with those accused of judicial tyranny.
However, the reality is that a successful impeachment is easier
attempted than achieved. When the Congress is as delicately balanced
along party lines as it has been for a long time, it is even more
difficult to secure an impeachment because representatives display
fierce loyalty to party considerations. Where an official commits an
indictable offence, the facts of the allegation become self-evident and
the onus squarely rests on the House to impeach and the Senate to
convict. However, given the confused and contradictory majority,
minority and dissenting opinions that have become the standard
signature of the Supreme Court and that consequently influence the
lower courts, substantiating an allegation of judicial tyranny,
usurpation or Constitution tampering on the basis of a judge’s
treatment of a matter is, at best, extremely difficult.
Nevertheless, it remains the duty of an educated and informed
electorate to ensure that their representatives carry out their wishes in
32
Congress, or face the political consequences at the polls. A conviction

is not the only threat that is inherent in an impeachment. The mere
attempt at a conviction, with or without a prior investigation, carries
with it its own deterrent value. Jefferson frequently referred to
impeachment as a scarecrow, although in perhaps his most famous
quote on the subject, he said in a letter to Spenser Roane in 1819:
“For experience has already shown that the impeachment it [the
Constitution] has provided is not even a scarecrow.”
Judicial tyranny by definition is difficult to substantiate. The
challenge is complicated further when we consider that, in the words
of William Shakespeare: “he would not be a wolf, if we were not
sheep!” On the defensive, a judge may very well ask, ‘how tyrannical
can the judiciary be with control of neither purse nor sword?’
However, if a large enough cross-section of the people believe
that a judge is:
• guilty of judicial tyranny, or
• guilty of usurping the prerogative of the legislature by
legislating from the bench, or
• guilty of rendering unconstitutional opinions, or
• guilty of any other form of legal misrepresentation, or
• guilty of any corruption by virtue of acts of omission and/or
commission
Then an impeachment investigation should be launched without
prejudice to the likelihood of securing the vote of 66.66% of sitting
senators necessary for conviction.
Weakest and Most Dangerous
Not only is the judiciary by far the weakest of the three important
branches of the government, but paradoxically it is potentially the
most dangerous of the three for the following reasons. The first is its
right to interpret the Constitution. The second is its power to overturn
legislation. The third is the elevation of nine men and women to a
position of legal supremacy in a context in which 300 million people
33
subscribe to the rule of law.

First, it is the branch that enjoys the greatest legitimacy to
interpret the Constitution, which in turn is the backbone of the
nation’s legal system. The United States of America boasts that it is a
government of laws, not of men. The Constitution is the fundamental
law of the country and by extrapolation, the highest law. The judiciary
interprets law in the context of alleged breaches of it to determine
whether the allegation of breach is accurate. However, it is not good
enough to establish that an accused has breached a law. That may be a
matter of fact. Because the defendant possesses certain protected,
inalienable rights, the prior question to be answered must be whether
the law has breached any of the rights of the defendant. If the law
committed the first breach, then the defendant can almost literally
claim that his breach of the offending law was done in self-defense of
his protected rights. In testing the law, the judiciary must therefore
determine whether it is in line with the Constitution or supreme law
of the land. However, in assessing the constitutionality of a law, it is
necessary that the judiciary first interpret the Constitution itself.
Secondly, the judiciary has the power to overturn legislation.
This power follows hard upon the first provision. It would be
meaningless for the judiciary to have the power to test a law against
the Constitution, and having found the law to be in breach of the
Constitution not have the power to declare the law unconstitutional.
When it is established that a defendant breaches a law that is proven
to be valid, that defendant is found guilty and is exposed to the
punishment prescribed by the law. The law is left standing.
If on the other hand it is found that the law is in breach, then the
law must fall, and the defendant must be left standing. Similarly, if
the law on which the plaintiff relies should fall under the
constitutional test, then it follows that the plaintiff must also fall and
lose his action in court. The falling of the plaintiff usually implies that
the defendant is allowed to stand. Of course, it is as possible for a
plaintiff to wrongly rely on a right law as it is for him to rightly rely
on a wrong law. In either case, the plaintiff falls. In the latter instance,
the plaintiff and the law fall.
34
Therefore, since it is a duty of the judiciary to examine laws in

the context of an allegation of a breach of these laws, it follows that
the judiciary must examine the Constitution in the context of an
alleged or suspected breach of the Constitution by the law. In so
doing, the judiciary is obliged to judge the validity of the law against
the infallibility of the Constitution. It may appear to be nothing more
than semantics, but one thing cannot be judged without reference to
something else. A six-foot-tall racehorse jockey might be a pigmy in
an all-star basketball league. The judgment of being tall is therefore
made in reference to the expectations of racehorse jockeys. When that
reference point changes, a new judgment has to be entered. In the
case of the declared ‘tall’ racehorse jockey, the judgment is
completely reversed when the all-star basketball league becomes the
reference point.
When a law is being tested or judged, it must be against the
reference point of the Constitution. However, remember that when
testing or trying a law, the supporters of the law can be expected to
defend the law, and by so doing defend their understanding of the
constitutionality of the law. Consistent with the justice model of
prosecutor, defense and judge, or judge and jury, the ensuing scenario
in which the Constitution is being tested results in the need for a
defense team for the Constitution.
Is There Anyone to Defend the Constitution?
Does the model collapses at this stage? Is there anyone to defend
the Constitution other than the ones responsible for judging between
the Constitution and the law? Based on contemporary and recent
practice, it would appear that there is no one to defend the
Constitution, but only because we have concluded by assumption that
the judiciary has the exclusive right and/or responsibility to interpret
the Constitution. Therefore, what happens is that the judges who did
not write the Constitution and who were not physically present at the
time of the writing must first interpret it before evaluating the
questionable law. This means that the questionable law is not being
evaluated against the Constitution but against an interpretation of the
Constitution – an interpretation that could change from day to day
35
and certainly from court composition to court composition. This

means that a law that is right today could be wrong tomorrow,
depending entirely on the composition of the court. This is not merely
in terms of who sits on the bench, but also in terms of how a sitting
member is persuaded on one occasion as against another. An
interesting example is found in the Supreme Court’s treatment of the
flag of the United States of America.
Salute… Don’t Salute… Burn the flag!
In 1940, the Supreme Court ruled that children [anyone] at public
schools must salute the flag of the United States of America at the
appropriate time. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that children
[anyone] do not have to salute the flag. In 1989 the Supreme Court
ruled that it was okay for anyone [children] to publicly burn the flag
of the United States, although they could be guilty of other offenses
that generally prohibit burning in public.
Fortunately, the 1989 Supreme Court ruling was not unanimous.
It was a 5–4 ruling in which Justices Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and
Kennedy joined Brennan. Justices White and O’Connor joined Chief
Justice Rehnquist in dissent, and Stevens filed an independent dissent.
In a tightly-coordinated sequence of arguments that links the burning
of the flag to a First Amendment right, Brennan exhorts:
We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning
a flag than waving one’s own, no better way to counter a flag
burner’s message than by saluting the flag that burns, no
surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that
burned than by – as one witness here did – according its
remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by
punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the
freedom that this cherished emblem represents.
In justifying the majority ruling, Brennan draws a parallel
between disrespect for the flag of the USA and disrespect for the flag
of England during the revolutionary period.
…we would not be surprised to learn that the persons who
framed our Constitution and wrote the amendment that we
36
now construe were not known for their reverence for the
Union Jack.
How unfortunate! For is it not true that the disrespect for the
Union Jack and the Revolutionary War were inextricably linked?
Does that not now suggest that the Supreme Court, having associated
flag desecration with revolution, is implying that flag burning is a
revolutionary activity? If this were so, would President Jefferson not
remind us: “…that the legitimate powers of government reach actions
only, and not opinions…” Would this not mean that whereas the
Supreme Court’s reliance on the First Amendment justifies a desire to
burn the flag and an opinion that the flag should be burned, it also
empowers the government to legitimately act if the flag is burned?
Clearly, the Supreme Court has reduced the Constitution to little
more than an ideological weather vane. Instead of being the compass,
unaffected by the vagaries of weather and steadfastly providing
consistently accurate directions to those who wish to be guided
thereby, the Constitution has become little more than a mirror that
reflects the whims and fancies of an evolving Supreme Court that has
developed an insatiable appetite for consolidating its own supremacy.
Stare Decisis
The situation is further complicated when, genuinely or
otherwise, the judiciary inconsistently applies its half-baked doctrine
of ‘stare decisis’. The English translation of the Latin ‘stare decisis’ is
‘to stand on decisions’. It refers to the established legal tradition that
the decision of courts ought to be guided by decisions made by courts
in the past. Unfortunately, this faithfulness to precedence is all too
often at the expense of justice and truth. Too often it is used as a cloak
to perpetuate wrong and to violate citizens’ rights that are manifestly
evident.
Then, as if all of this were not bad enough, ‘stare decisis’ is
subjectively and inconsistently invoked. This means that a court may
or may not choose to overturn a flawed judgment of a previous court.
The opposite is also true; a court may or may not choose to uphold
what ‘we the people’ of America consider to be a correct decision.
37
None of us as potential defendants can be sure that the laws that are
legislated from the bench today will protect us tomorrow.
Yet, ‘stare decisis’ is not without merit. Its merits benefit the
judiciary. The doctrine of ‘stare decisis’ helps to give the court an
identity that is potentially larger than its present reality. A larger-than-
life sense of continuity and even immortality is enshrined in the
minds of lesser mortals. The judicial lords and ladies facilitate the
illusion by referring to decisions made a hundred years ago as having
been made by ‘this court’.
Doctrine of ‘Original Intent’
Answer.com quotes the Merriam Webster Dictionary’s treatment
of ‘Original Intent’ as follows.
The actual aim or purpose esp. of the framers of the U.S.
Constitution.
A conservative theory in constitutional law: only those
guarantees intended by the framers and set forth in the text of
the Constitution are valid.
As defined above, there is limited value in the doctrine of
‘Original Intent” in today’s judicial circles. The Constitution is fondly
thought of as the document signed by the Founding Fathers in 1787
and ratified in 1789. That document represented and still represents
the original ‘Original Intent’ that can be objectively identified in
written form. However, the framers of the Constitution placed in that
document all the necessary provisions for the legal changing of the
Constitution; not to reflect what the framers intended, but to reflect
the will of the people as reflected by the majority vote in 75% of the
states.
The Option to Enshrine
There is at least one compelling piece of evidence proving that
the framers acted deliberately in making the Constitution vulnerable
to change for reasons that they thought to be valid. Article V of the
Constitution authorizes both the permissibility of change and the
method by which the Constitution may be changed. However, Article
38
V also stipulates two sections of the Constitution that cannot be

changed.
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to
the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth
Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The first prohibition directly affected the institution of slavery,
which the majority of the Founding Fathers wanted abolished.
However, their hands were tied by a minority of powerful Southern
States, without whose vote the Constitution would not have been
ratified. Reluctantly, the Founding Fathers settled for second best and
enshrined in the Constitution a provision for the end to the slave trade
no later than 1808. The Fathers considered the matter of the gradual
abolition of slavery to be so critical as to remove the power to
frustrate their wishes from future legislators. Not only could no law
be passed that would frustrate the 1808 end to the slave trade, but no
law could be passed that would reduce the tax liability of slave states
for the slaves they owned.
Their decision to enshrine the provisions for the gradual abolition
of slavery could easily have been applied to any other issue about
which they felt strongly enough. However, they chose to do
otherwise. And by so doing, they made it very clear that it was their
intention that the rest of the Constitution should evolve according to
the wishes of the people.
Clearly, the framers deliberately freed ‘we the people’ from the
shackles of perceived constitutional irrelevance by allowing us to
keep our Constitution relevant through the amendment process set out
in Article V.
Not only did the Founding Fathers enshrine the right to change in
the Constitution, but they themselves tested this right less than two
years after the ratification of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was
the result, and although we conveniently view it as a part of the
original Constitution because of its proximity in time, the fact is that
39
it represented the first change to the Constitution. Seventeen changes

were to follow over a period of 203 years.
Amendment by Addition… Not Deletion
Now, here is the technicality. The framers decided that instead of
changing the actual wording of the original document, amendments
were to be added to the Constitution. However, in many instances,
these amendments were designed to change existing provisions within
the Constitution. Whatever that change was became part of the
Constitution after ratification, although we call it an ‘Amendment to
the Constitution’. The Constitution was therefore designed to be an
evolving document, which by definition would change from time to
time. Consequently, the doctrine of ‘Original Intent’ may be construed
at two levels, both of which enjoy validity but varying degrees of
relevance.
Primary and Secondary ‘Original Intent’
First, the doctrine reaches back to the 1787 document that is still
preserved today as the Constitution of the United States of America.
This may be referred to as ‘Primary Original Intent’. Secondly, the
doctrine reaches back to each of the eighteen occasions on which
amendments were ratified and the Constitution was changed. This
may be referred to as ‘Secondary Original Intent’.
The second construction is by far the more relevant of the two
and ought to be a consideration powerful enough to bind under oath
every member of the judiciary, and especially the justices of the
Supreme Court. Any activity beyond the construction or
reconstruction of the ‘Original Intent’ of the framers of the 1787
Constitution, as well as the ‘Original Intent’ of the subsequent
amenders of the Constitution at the time of the relative amendments,
is properly defined as legislating from the bench. Legislating from the
bench is a blatant form of judicial tyranny and, where established,
should at the very least attract the commencement of impeachment
proceedings.
Judicial Allegiance to ‘Original Intent’
If even the semblance of respectability is to be maintained by the
40
judiciary, then the least that must be demanded is a sworn allegiance,

not just to the Constitution but also to the doctrine of ‘Original
Intent’. Naturally, the quest for ‘Original Intent’ itself is fraught with
many dangers, but the main value lies not in the subjective destination
but in the objective journey.
The Constitution, and at least some of its amendments, was
written more than two centuries ago. The Founding Fathers and
framers made allowances for future generations to amend the
Constitution. Two centuries later, the judiciary is obliged to interpret
the amended Constitution. To agree or not to agree with the
Constitution is not an option available to judges at any level in the
judiciary. In such an environment, primary and/or secondary ‘Original
Intent’ remains the only remaining backbone for stability and the only
accurate, yet illusive, reference point.
‘Original Intent’ was intentionally made subject to amendment
by the people, so that what becomes more important is
‘Contemporary Intent’ as reflected in the amended Constitution.
Notwithstanding, there is an inherent superiority in the ‘Primary
Original Intent’ that cannot be duplicated in any ‘Secondary Original
Intent’.
Despite its illusiveness, ‘Original Intent’, whether primary or
secondary, remains the closest approximation to the equivalent of a
judicial nautical compass in the turbulent seas of legal and cultural
turmoil. When the society is operating optimally and the
socioeconomic indices are positive, there is no need for retrospective
analysis. However, when significant segments of the society are in
social turmoil, there is need for reflection and retrospective analysis.
In an attempt to return to basics, the Constitution must always be the
lighthouse to which the nation turns. Moreover, since the Constitution
permits itself to be interpreted, it is only a faithful commitment to
‘Original Intent’ that will prove to be of any objective value.
Whether or not the ship and its crew will find their way back
home depends on the immutable locations of east, west, north and
south, and the unfailing ability of the compass to accurately represent
them. To the extent that America is legally, morally, socially and
41
spiritually adrift, ‘Original Intent’ provides the best reference point

for present evaluation and future determination.
Flawed…but Fully Functional
Unfortunately, I am obliged to concede that as inadequate as our
judicial structure appears to be, it is the best that can be contrived.
Judicial review is enshrined in the Constitution and was so intended
by the Founding Fathers to be exactly what it is. Chief Justice
Marshall was not responsible for its composition, merely for its
consummation. Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Papers spends
less time arguing for it than he spends arguing in support of lifetime
tenure for federal judges.
However, judicial review does not and indeed could not have
escaped his attention. This is what he says, inter alia, in Federalist
#78:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is
peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited
Constitution, I understand one which contains certain
specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for
instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-
facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be
preserved in practice no other way than through the medium
of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts
contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Some
perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce
legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has
arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a
superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power…. There
is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that
every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the
commission under which it is exercised, is void. No
legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be
valid.
Hamilton is unequivocally assertive that the judiciary could
never usurp the power of the legislature and in Fed #78, he succinctly
42
states:
Whoever attentively considers the different departments
of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they
are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature
of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the
political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in
a capacity to annoy or injure them.
Hamilton is clearly concerned only with the protection of the
judiciary from the assaults of the executive and legislature. Clearly, in
the minds of the Founding Fathers, only the latter was even remotely
possible. Yet in 2008, the concept of ‘Judicial Tyranny’ is firmly
entrenched in our vocabulary. Some judicial actions are blatantly
tyrannical. Judge Phyllis Hamilton’s legacy is likely to be that she
took tyranny to a new height. Yet judicial tyranny is not new. Chief
Justice Taney’s Dred Scot decision was widely viewed as being so
tyrannical that it is credited in part as being responsible for the
American Civil War.
Does this mean that Alexander Hamilton was wrong in his
assessment of the judiciary? Was he wrong to conclude that the
judiciary would be least in a capacity to annoy or injure the political
rights of the Constitution? Alexander knew what he was saying and
was perfectly correct. The judiciary is the least able to annoy or injure
the political rights of the Constitution. Whenever it does injure those
rights, the results reflect the malfunctioning of one or both of the two
other branches of government. Yet, make no mistake, the judiciary
does have within itself the potential to be the most dangerous, and we
have already identified two reasons for this.
Dictatorship of Nine Controlled by One
Thirdly, the judiciary is potentially the most dangerous of the
three branches of government because inherent in its power of
judicial review is the elevation of nine men and women to a position
of legal supremacy in a context in which 300 million people subscribe
to the rule of law. It gets worse when you consider the fact that the
nine men and women, full of human frailties and limitations like any
43
other American, are considerably brighter than most, and are

therefore better able to manipulate their knowledge consistent with
their human frailties and limitations.
It gets even worse when you take into account that the greatest
protection against tyranny in a democracy is the ballot, consisting not
only of its periodic exercise at an election, but also its restraining
influence on the behavior of men who anticipate its exercise, and that
these nine men and women are essentially untouchable by the ballot.
The cancerous catastrophe reaches critical proportions when the
number of people who determine the course of this nation with
impunity is effectively reduced from nine to one. For that is the
reality of a 5–4 ruling of the Supreme Court of America.
This is where the problem arises. How can nine men and women
be allowed to wield such awesome power in the absence of
accountability? However, before we fall for the trap and attempt to
answer this question, let us identify the question in itself as being
invalid. For it was never intended that nine men and women, or any
other similar insignificant number, be left with the kind of power that
the Supreme Court now wields.
Earlier, we glanced at the assumption that the judiciary has the
sole right and/or responsibility to interpret the Constitution, and that
as such the Constitution has no one to defend it when it is being
interpreted by the judiciary. This assumption is false, and it is
precisely upon this falsehood that of the inaction of our legislature
and executive branches rest. Fortunately for us, this is not a novel
concern; it is one that occupied the minds of the Founding Fathers,
and so it is imperative to investigate what they had to say on the
subject.
In a letter to W. H. Torrrance in 1815, Thomas Jefferson wrote:
The question whether the judges are invested with
exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law
has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the
exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the
Constitution which has given that power to them more than
44
to the executive or legislative branches.

The prolific writer and Founding Father President Thomas
Jefferson wrote to William Johnson in 1823:
But the Chief Justice says, ‘There must be an ultimate
arbiter somewhere.’ True, there must; but does that prove it is
either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union,
assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of
Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to
which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their
organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of
our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal,
where that of other nations is at once to force.
And to Abigail Adams in 1804, Jefferson wrote:
The Constitution…meant that its coordinate branches
should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives
to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional
and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of
action but for the legislature and executive also in their
spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.
To William C. Jarvis in 1820, Jefferson wrote: “To consider the
judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a
very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under
the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men
and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party,
for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni
judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad
jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office
for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the
elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal,
knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of
time and party, its members would become despots. It has more
wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within
themselves.”
So strong were Jefferson’s reactions to any insinuation of judicial
45
sovereignty over the legislature and the executive branches that he

described the Constitution as an ‘Act of Suicide’ were it to be true
that it so empowered the judiciary. “For intending to establish three
departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and
balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of
them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the
others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of
the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it
has provided is not even a scare-crow…The Constitution on this
hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which
they may twist and shape into any form they please…” said Jefferson
to Spencer Roane in 1819.
President James Madison, who was secretary of state during
Thomas Jefferson’s presidency and who was a key player in Marbury
v. Madison, shares Jefferson’s sentiments. According to Madison:
Nothing has yet been offered to invalidate the doctrine
that the meaning of the Constitution may as well be
ascertained by the legislative as by the judicial authority.
Unfortunately, neither Jefferson nor Madison made law, although
both were influential in the framing of the Constitution. Chief Justice
Marshall, however, was singularly influential in laying the foundation
for today’s usurped power of the judiciary. And yet, in itself the
judiciary does not constitute a crisis. We ought not to be overly
concerned about the judiciary’s predisposition to despotism. We ought
not to be worried by the judiciary’s readiness to legislate from the
bench. Whatever undelegated territory of government the judiciary
has captured has been voluntary ceded by the legislature and/or the
executive. Thank God for a legislature and an executive that felt
compelled to bring about the end of slavery despite the objection of
the judiciary. Ultimately, it must be, and it is, the people of America
who are the final arbiters of all matters in America. The people of
America have been blessed with a constitutional structure that
guarantees them the right and the structure through which to exercise
their collective power as final arbiter of their own affairs. Failing to
use this power will result in losing this power. But thanks to it being
46
constitutionally vested, it can, with some difficulty, be repossessed.

Battle or Tea Party?
Does that sound like a battle? If it does, that means you get the
picture. Millions of gallons of shed blood have fertilized the soil out
of which has grown the prosperity that America enjoys today. History
might be kind to America, and may conclude that most of the wars
fought by Americans, and definitely the War of Independence, were
entirely justified. Yet, whether justified or unjustified, they are now an
inextricable part of America’s history.
The war of which I now speak, and in which call every American
to get involved, is a war between good and evil, between right and
wrong, and between righteousness and unrighteousness in the public
profile of the United States of America. This is essentially not unlike
any of the other wars that have been fought. The Civil War stands out
as being the most unfortunate war ever fought by America. This was
perhaps the greatest opportunity for America to have fought a war
where the issues were clearly good and evil. Had the abolition and
eradication of slavery been the major cause of the Civil War, then
history could have been kinder to America. As it stands, and as we
shall see, the Civil War was not fought with the major objective being
the abolition and eradication of slavery.
Battle Between Good and Evil
Now, yet again, America is faced with the option of going to
‘war’ in a battle between good and evil. In its broadest sense, good is
represented by God, His commandments and teachings and the moral
principles that emanate from the application of His standards. Evil, on
the other hand, is represented by the Devil, and is essentially
everything and anything that is not of, and is opposed to, God. Every
citizen of America must choose sides and be prepared to defend their
position. This applies to the president, every congressman, senator,
Supreme Court justice, Judge, and elected official in every state,
county and borough. For those on the side of evil have begun to fight,
just in case you have not noticed. Nothing will suit them better than
for the other side either to refuse to fight or pretend that they do not
47
know that the war has begun.

America Adrift!
Put Him Back…America! is not a message of gloom. Put Him
Back…America! does not even presume that America is on the brink
of an unspecified disaster. “Put Him Back… America!” is not
eschatological in its orientation. It does not factor in any of the
exciting events of end-time events as clearly presented in the Word of
God. It does not attempt to address the painful question of America’s
role or lack of a role in the final battle of the nations in which God
Himself will intervene and bring to an end the system as we know it
today.
However, it does seek to establish that though the drift has been
gradual, America’s spiritual compass now points in a direction that is
noticeably different from the course that was originally charted by
those who founded the nation. This different course is as bad for
America as the original course was good for America.
Signs of Potential Implosion
Signs of internal moral decay have begun to clearly raise their
ugly heads. The Devil has abandoned diplomacy and has managed to
have the Constitution protect Satan-worship in America’s institutions
under the disguise of religious freedom. The writing is on the wall
and needs no interpretation.
The First Amendment has become the playground for criminal
justice activity. It has been hauled, pulled, twisted, and bent into
every conceivable configuration, and even into some configurations
that were originally inconceivable. When the First Amendment is
used to legitimize the same thing for which Sodom and Gomorrah
were destroyed by God, something is wrong. When the First
Amendment is used to justify homosexual marriages, the very depth
of hell has been sounded. For not only does God’s word clearly
identify homosexuality as being sinful and abominable, but it also
identifies marriage between a man and a woman as being of God and
ultimately honorable.
Under the guise of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court of
48
the United States of America has legitimized the act of slapping God
in His face by combining what He probably hates most with what he
probably loves best. This act is referred to as ‘homosexual marriage’.
The Supreme Court has used the First Amendment to attempt to
deprive America of its monotheistic religious identity under the
disguise of religious plurality. In its place, it has enshrined a
philosophy that could easily be associated with polytheism with one
innovation. Whereas on Mars Hill, the Apostle Paul encountered an
altar erected to the ‘unknown god’, the Supreme Court has erected a
national altar to the ‘no god’. For the government to represent the
view of the majority of Americans and state that the Lord God is one
God; that there is none beside Him and that He is God all by Himself
is considered religious intolerance. To accept that God has revealed
His will for mankind through His divinely inspired Holy Word as well
as through His Son Jesus Christ is considered intolerant. America’s
religious tolerance prevents it from declaring that it is a Christian
nation, even though most of the major indices still point to a majority
of its citizens embracing Christianity in its broadest terms.
Cynical as it may sound, the June 27, 2005 ruling of the Supreme
Court on the public display of the Ten Commandments could actually
be viewed as having been influenced by the prominence that the Ten
Commandments enjoys on its own building. After all, a total ban on
public display of the Ten Commandments would have meant major
reconstruction of its own building. America’s recently promoted
religious and non-religious inclusivity has robbed it of its own
indigenous religious identity.
America in Crisis of Identity
Instead of being a Christian country that facilitates the voluntary
and free practice of all religions and even no religion, America has
become a country without a religion, run by a government that is
allegedly constitutionally predetermined to be so opposed to any one
and so supportive of all, as to be under the guidance of none.
Moreover, even that generous description would find opposition from
radical church and state separationists.
49
In all of this, the Christian majority sits quietly by and fails to

properly respond to the ominous shadows of doom to come. Instead,
many church leaders and their congregations are content to play
church on their preferred day of worship with little consideration of
their irrelevance to a nation in crisis. Many are content to sell their
birthright of aggressive representation of the kingdom of God on
earth for a mess of 501C3 IRS pottage.
On Guard!
In 2004, as Hurricanes Bonnie and Charley menacingly and
sinisterly churned their way along a deadly path of confrontation with
Florida, Governor Jeb Bush placed preparations into high gear. At the
time he began preparing for them, they had not yet hit the State of
Florida with what was being predicted as a rare back-to-back double
whammy. Nevertheless, the fact that they had not yet arrived did not
stop Governor Bush from declaring a state emergency. On the
contrary, it was precisely because they were on track to hit the state
that a proactive governor took the forward action in preparation for
what we all believed then, and now know, was the inevitable. The
physical damage was tremendous…but without the state’s proactive
work, it would have been worse.
Contrast the proactive response of Governor Bush in 2004 to
Hurricanes Charley and Bonnie on the one hand with that of
Governor Kathleen Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin’s response to
Hurricane Katrina in 2005. When all the huffing and puffing is over,
in addition to all other secondary reasons, the deaths of 800 people,
even if not the near destruction of a city, will be blamed on the lack of
adequate preventative activity by Blanco and Nagin.
The hurricane of immorality, degeneration, social depravity, and
inevitable associated negative economic repercussions is on track to
consume not just a state, but the entire country. Like Hurricanes
Charley and Bonnie, we might be spared its full force. However,
since the ‘hurricane’ is already on track and predicted to make
landfall shortly, control of the force of the ‘hurricane’ may be out of
our hands. Therefore, the next best thing that we can do is to prepare
for it, take defensive action, and protect ourselves as best as we can.
50
There is no war that is won by defensive strategy alone. As soon

as we consolidate our position, we must shift into aggressive posture.
We must take the fight to the enemy. For that, the Commander-in-
Chief of the Body of Jesus Christ has well equipped His army.
Not Too Late to Put Him Back
The message of “Put Him Back… America!” is that it is not too
late to put Him back on to center stage in our individual lives and in
our national life. We must put Him back now before it is too late. If
we do not put Him back in the center of our very national
determination, we shall continue to create a vacuum that will be filled
by the Muslims who are committed to making America an Islamic
nation, by the atheists and agnostics whose philosophy of government
is similar to a crude untested ’ ‘autopilot’ mechanism, and to the
ACLU who will work to make sure that every victory won for the
Devil will be enshrined by a Supreme Court-created precedent that
effectively blocks the recovery of ground lost by Christians. Put Him
back before the implosion of the United States of America makes the
collapse of the Roman Empire look like a timid, poorly
choreographed dress rehearsal.
51
Understanding Our Limitations
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER THREE
Y ou and I are members of that group of God’s creations called

humans. We have manystrengths, but we also have a few
weaknesses, or perhaps I should say limitations. Now it might be
obvious to you that your neighbor has some serious limitations.
However, it may not be equally obvious to you that you have some of
your own. But guess what… when I speak to your neighbor, he tells
me that it is obvious to him that you have limitations, but it is not that
obvious to him that he has any of his own.
So let’s do the math. If everybody is aware of everybody else’s
limitations except their own, then everybody, to the last person, has
limitations of their own. The only real problem is that nobody may be
willing to admit their own limitations, and the tragedy of that scenario
is that nothing might be done about any of our limitations because the
only ones that we can effectively address are our own. If you are not
yet feeling giddy, it simply means that you have not been following
me.
National Short Memory
One such limitation is ‘short memory’. We forget very quickly –
at least we forget some things very quickly. It may therefore be more
practical to say that most of us suffer from ‘selective short-term
memory syndrome (SSTMS).
Because short-memory is such a national phenomenon, it is quite
possible that our national leaders could have a short memory. Quite
often a nation can have a short memory, and one sure symptom of a
national short memory is when a country keeps on making mistake
after mistake that have undesirable results.
52
Short Memory Abused

Because short memory is such a universal phenomenon, many
people have come to rely on it to achieve their own evil ends. It is like
drug addiction. The way our bodies are composed causes us to
develop an addiction to certain things if we expose our bodies and/or
minds to them with enough regularity.
Though not as socially outrageous, and perhaps not even socially
discernible, are those who prey on our short memories. They depend
on us forgetting certain things so that we can make the same mistakes
repeatedly. Of course, when we make the same mistake or similar
mistakes frequently, these evil people benefit at our expense.
One way to induce our ‘short memory syndrome’ is to distract us
from our history. There are times when you do not want to remember
certain things. So what do you do? You try not to think about them.
Of course, it is one thing for you not to want to think about
something, but then quite often the enemy backs you into a corner
where you are left with no choice but to think about it repeatedly.
There are other times when you want to remember the good that
you have done or an experience that you enjoyed. Then you wish
everybody else would remember as well and keep on reminding you.
Of course, that is the time when very few people and only good
spouses and loyal children seem to have long memories. Therefore, if
you are smart, you will create little reminders of your own to ensure
that you service your own self-worth.
Happy Birthday to Me
Possibly like yours, my life is replete with incidents where I
decided to do for myself what no one else would do for me simply
because I was determined not to allow myself to be robbed of the
memory.
Like so many Americans, I was not born in the country in which
I have lived most of my life. I was born in Guyana and migrated to
Jamaica at the age twenty-one to further my studies and to read for
my bachelor’s degree in Theology and Psychology. I distinctly
remember the night of my twenty-second birthday. The rain was
53
falling, the roads were flooded, and I was stuck in a long line of
traffic in my old dry-weather motorcar that I had bought on a student
income. A journey that would normally take me fifteen minutes had
escalated into over three hours, and except for the thousands of other
motorists who were similarly trapped in the privacy of their own
vehicles I was all alone.
I began to feel sorry for myself. I was away from home and
family. I was separated from my newly acquired friends on campus. I
was hungry. I was fearful that my car, which had many times escaped
the junkyard, could shut off at any time in the deepening improvised
river that now freely flowed above what used to be the road. As the
tears in my eyes competed with the pellets of rain on my windshield, I
wiped them away with my hand in what appeared to be a sympathetic
response to the futile movements of the one working windshield
wiper.
Then about a hundred yards away, I spotted a petrol station that
should provide me with a temporary respite from my misery. What
seemed like an hour later I pulled into the one available space on the
crammed petrol station compound and alighted from my car. Partly
soaked because of the limited protection from the elements my car
afforded me, I asked for something hot to drink. Nothing hot was
available, so I asked for a cup of ice cream. Armed with my
consolation prize, I got into my car, ignored the missing birthday
cake, and decided to forgo the candles and the party friends. Spoon by
spoon of vanilla ice cream, flavored by the distinctly tacky taste of
tears, I celebrated my birthday to the mournful strains of… “Happy
birthday to me… happy birthday to me… happy birthday, dear
Godfrey, happy birthday to me.”
I only managed one verse before I burst into a fit of
uncontrollable crying, complete with the accompanying rhythmic
shaking of shoulders that seemed to be a fitting replacement for what
would normally have been the applause of my friends as they
genuinely, or otherwise, wished me ‘many more’. To my credit, I had
ensured that I would never forget that birthday.
Selective Memory
54
The truth is that for whatever reasons, we usually only remember

the things that are important to us. We usually remember the things on
which our survival depends. The basic instincts of self-preservation
ensure that we remember them. If we fail to remember to look left
and right before we cross the street, we could lose our lives. So we
remember, or at least most of us alive today remembered. If we forget
to eat our food, the pain that comes with hunger reminds us. If we
forget to drive within the speed limit, the cops remind us.
Fortunately or unfortunately, for many important things in our
lives there are prescribed penalties for forgetting. A significant chunk
of the money that runs our towns and cities is derived from traffic
fines. Therefore. the not-so-smart ones among us do not wear our
seatbelts because it could save our lives but because it could cost us
our hard-earned cash.
Americans Allowed to Forget
Unfortunately, Americans have been allowed to forget critical
aspects of their history while being unaware of the penalty for their
short memory. Make no mistake about it, for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction. It is just that sometimes we are more
conscious of the reactions that are caused by our actions or lack of
action. At other times, we cannot even identify the reaction or
consequence of our action.
Think about it, some deaths are instant. When two motorcars
traveling in opposite directions at combined speed of 170 miles an
hour collide, you begin thinking of the undertaker and not the doctor,
even if the passengers were wearing seatbelts. A bullet finds its way
into the head of a person from close range and instant death is
assumed. There is acute, sustained cardiac arrest in a non-medical-
care environment and, well, it is too late to say goodbye.
However, other deaths are not so dramatic. Lead poisoning
through a contaminated central water supply could result in death
after a very long period of a gradually reducing quality of life. The
dreaded HIV disease can take a decade to kill you, depending on the
amounts of medication to which you have access or choose to use,
55
again with the gradually reducing quality of life associated with a

slow death. The surgeon general’s warning on every box of cigarettes
is there for a reason, although many of us take it as a joke. It is there
to tell us that smoking is bad for our health, not because of its
admittedly nasty social consequences, but mainly because it will most
likely result in a premature death at worst and serious medical
complications at best. There do appear to be exceptions to this rule,
however.
Roots Must Be Remembered
Just as a good government makes it a duty to help its citizens
remember their obligations and duties in an ordered society, and also
reminds them of the penalty for forgetting or being disobedient, so a
truly progressive society will ensure that its people are aware of their
historical roots and foundations. It will help successive generations
identify the strengths and weaknesses of their historical foundation
and will accordingly encourage each successive generation to build
on the strengths of the past and dilute the effects of the associated
weaknesses and failures.
Core Value Loyalty
Now let us be clear on this point. There is no law that states that
a nation must remain faithful to the inherent strengths of its roots and
its foundations. However, there is a law that states that if you do the
same thing, the same way every time in similar circumstances, then
there is a high likelihood that you will get the same results.
If you decide to depart from what has proven to be a winning
formula, then one of three things will happen. Either you will achieve
the same results, you will achieve worse results, or you will achieve
better results. The difficulty with this is that until a reasonable amount
of time has elapsed, you will not know which result has played out.
Now, when something has failed, there is ample justification in
searching for something else to replace it. If you succeed in finding
something that works, more power to you. If you do not, then at worst
you are no worse off than you were before. However, when
something has worked, it becomes a risky gamble to abandon it for
56
something else in the wishful hope that it will work better. If you
succeed, then you are a hero, but if you fail, then you are a fool. In the
event that you fail, the good thing about the process is that quite often
the results are not repetitive. If you realize that you made a fool of
yourself, you can remember what used to be. You can repent and turn
around, and you can return to the original formula.
America’s Historical Foundation
America is undoubtedly a nation that has been founded on
Christian principles, or at least in part. I wish I could agree with those
that would describe America as being a Christian nation
constitutionally and legally. As I began researching, the pendulum of
my opinion has swung from side to side of the ‘Christian America’
controversy. My conclusion is most instructive and will be given very
specific treatment a little later. For the time being, however, it is
undeniable that God and trust in God played a leading role in the lives
of the early settlers of the United States of America. It is undeniable
that the desire to be able to worship God freely was the overwhelming
driving force behind the Pilgrims and the Puritans. It is equally
undeniable that shortly after the settlement of America by Europeans,
Christianity was not only the pervasive religion, but it was also the
official faith to the point where several of the colonial states required
faith in God to be a prerequisite for public office.
Today, in the 21st century, it has become politically correct to
deny our unequivocal Christian heritage only because the Devil, the
Supreme Court, and the ACLU have been so successful in making us
forget. However, at this stage I am not commenting on what America
has become, I am commenting on what she was. For it is in our
history and not in a crystal ball where we must look to find our roots.
The strength and resilience of any tree is inextricably entangled with
its roots. Regardless of how impressive the trunk, limbs and branches
of a tree may appear, it is after the passage of a category-three
hurricane that you are able to evaluate the strength of its roots. Very
simply put, trees with a strong network of roots planted in firm soil
will withstand the hurricane. Trees with roots that are weak, rotten,
dying, or planted in sandy, erosive soil will fall.
57
It is a matter of opinion as to how strong America really is today.

Nevertheless, as the hurricanes of domestic, economic, social, and
political turmoil attack this country, it is the strength and resilience of
its roots that will determine whether it dies, like so many other great
empires, or whether it lives, even though it may take a battering.
Undeniable Christian Roots
Whether we like it or not, there is no leader in America so
mentally retarded as to deny the raw facts about the history of
America, and that this history has been overwhelmingly influenced by
considerations of God, the Bible and Christianity, not by Deism. Let’s
not waste any time here. A cursory reading of the Constitution does
not appear to reflect this fact. Admittedly, the words ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, or
‘Bible’ do not appear in it. Yet their influence was inevitable because
of the line that linked its framers to the history of the nation.
The earliest settlers arrived in the early 1600s, and the
Constitution was written in 1787. Those who argue against America
being conceived as a Christian country do so by employing sleight of
hand techniques that can readily be deciphered. They conveniently
begin their argument in 1776, and even then they ignore all state
establishments of the Christian religion and fast-forward directly to
the building of the Constitution with its noticeable absence of
Christian references. If this were a valid approach, even I could have
been initially influenced by them.
Birth of America
However, how valid is this? Did America begin in 1776 with a
population of eight million people? Alternatively, did America begin
when the first boatloads of settlers landed in 1607, 1620 and shortly
thereafter? Is it not true that nothing is born in an adult stage? The
nation of the thirteen United States of America was born on July 4,
1776 while on its way to winning a major war against the most
powerful country on earth at that time. So difficult was that war that it
was not finally won until five years after the declaration of
independence. That sounds like a very adult performance to me. What
would you do if your baby was born in nine months’ time with fully
58
grown teeth, a callous or two on his feet, rippling muscles in his arms
and legs, and, having cut the umbilical cord himself, grabs a beer,
devours a portion of lamb chops, slings his assault rifle over his
shoulder and says he is heading to Iraq?
Christian Parents of America
So, if detractors from America’s Christian heritage want to play
games, let us concede that the framers of the Constitution did not
consider Americans’ identification with God and the Bible’s Christian
philosophy something to be enshrined in the Constitution, for no
other reason than that it considered religious freedom to be its ideal.
And let us concede that were it the 1620 Pilgrims who wrote the
Constitution, there would have been recorded in that national
document a clear, unequivocal and biased allegiance to the God of the
Bible.
The case then has to move to the parents of the United States of
America. Who gave birth to this USA baby in 1776? Most certainly
all chronologies will take you back to the Pilgrims, to the Puritans,
and to all the settlers in the 17th century.
It is therefore the parents of the United States of America that we
must look to for its roots. Once you agree with this obvious logic,
then history will again kick in and the indisputable verdict will be that
the roots of America are inextricably entangled in the God of the Holy
Bible and in Christianity.
Now, no more games. Was it that in 1787 America was less of a
Christian country than it was a century earlier, or was it that she
religiously matured to the point that the framers of the Constitution,
committed as they were to religious freedom, reserved religious
matters to the states, where they were already very influential?
Despite the definite roar of the apparent Tripoli denial, could it be that
the omission of a positive and insertion of a negative religious
reference point in the Constitution, though well intentioned, was
exploited by the Devil to provide the springboard for today’s
threatening apostasy?
Nevertheless, do not just take my word for it, check it out for
59
yourself. In contracted form, we shall again see the clear thread of

direct Christian heritage that links the history of America. We shall
again see the fact that this Christian heritage was not only
acknowledged but quite often taken for granted. We shall see that the
wording of the Federal Constitution as it relates to matters of God and
Christianity or even religion stands in sharp contrast to everything
else for which America and Americans officially stood. We shall see
that among other things, ‘religious tests’ were part of the heritage of
the American people, albeit a test which was polluted and abused in
its application, and as such, one which became discredited.
God and the Devil in America’s History
What we may not see is what is not readily seen by human eyes,
and that is the players in the spiritual realm. These players are God
and the Devil, and though not popular, all the evidence begs a serious
consideration of this reality. It is impossible to read the Bible or
consider Christianity without coming face to face with the reality of
both God and the Devil.
Birth of a Child
We see God in so much that is good, beginning with the miracle
of birth. For how else can an illiterate mother and father with almost
zero claim to academic relevance, with the investment of just a single
act of sexual intercourse, produce a child who becomes a Harvard
scholar and a shaker of the world? When learned scientists who have
spent decades studying and researching their specialties fail to repair
a broken body that was made by a couple who could neither read nor
write, commonsense kicks in and discredits the presumption that
parents make children. Then it takes less effort and far less faith to
credit the creation of a child to God than it does to credit anyone or
anything else with that miracle.
How do Children Learn Evil?
So the child is born. He represents all that is innocent, sweet,
loving, and pure. He is morally incubated from all that is wrong. Care
is taken to ensure that only good values are inculcated in the child.
Then all of a sudden, totally inconsistent with his ‘ideal’
60
surroundings, the child tells his first lie, displays his first act of envy,
or throws his first temper tantrum. The question that many loving and
caring parents have asked under those circumstances is: “Where on
earth did that come from?”
Meet the Devil
It is at this point that I say: “Ladies and gentlemen, may I
introduce to you…the Devil!” Of course, the Bible does not leave us
guessing. In Psalm 51:5 we read: “Behold, I was brought forth in
iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” Once introduced and
acknowledged at that early stage, we all know that thereafter there is
never a shortage of instances of the personal presence of the Devil in
our lives. The struggle between good and evil, both in us and all
around us, remains a living testimony to the reality of both God and
the Devil.
The good news is that every member of the Body of Jesus Christ
has a built-in advantage. 1 John 4:4 reminds us:
“You are of God, little children, and have overcome them,
because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”
Dress for Battle
So, as we seek to reclaim lost ground in the battle to remove the
mention of God from the public square in America, let us pay close
attention to the physical symptoms, but even more so to the spiritual
realities. The first requirement of an excellent strategist is
‘intelligence’. Intelligent, reliable information about the enemy is
critical to every successful battle plan. As we focus on the
identifiable, physical enemies of the cross of Jesus, let us not fail to
reserve center stage in our considerations for God and the Devil.
Then our battle dress will match our battle plans and will be
consistent with the enjoinder in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 and Ephesians
6:10-18. (NIV)
For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as
the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the
weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine
61
power to demolish strongholds.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put
on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand
against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against
flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities,
against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual
forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the
full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you
may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done
everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth
buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of
righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the
readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to
all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can
extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the
helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the
word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all
kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and
always keep on praying for all the saints.
62
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER FOUR
America’s Heritage – Christian and Otherwise!
I n every significant discussion, there are at least two distinct

categories into which presentations and arguments fall. One is the
objective, which hopefully amasses the greatest amount of factual
content, and the other is the subjective, which consists of
interpretations and perspective, and, of course, opinion.
There is a case to be made today for the content and character of
America’s heritage, simply because of the contrast created between
the official face of today’s America and all the evidence we can amass
of its early profile. The situation is further complicated by one of our
major limitations, discussed in Chapter Two. Our heritage is
inextricably intertwined with our history. If our history is hidden from
us or distorted, then our concept of our heritage will be inaccurate at
best.
It is therefore imperative that we investigate our history as
accurately as possible and let the chips fall where they may. After
identifying our history and analyzing its content, then we are left with
little option but to extract an appreciation of our heritage. Against that
background, we can objectively evaluate the present reality, make a
comparison, and determine that we are either satisfied or dissatisfied
with what happens today.
For the Supreme Court, the ACLU and the numerically small but
influential group of Americans dedicated to the moral and spiritual
impoverishment of America to try to pass their God-less preferences
on to an unsuspecting majority in the name of national heritage is
dishonest to say the least. An alternative approach that satisfies the
dictates of intellectual honesty is to present the facts and let the
63
constituency choose for itself.

Perhaps some will choose the Devil and all his deceptions,
perversions and eternal damnation; so let it be. On the other hand,
there will be those who will choose God and eternal life with Him; so
let it be. At least those affected would have the ability the exercise of
their inalienable constitutional right to choose based on accurate
information.
Against that background, let us take a look at America’s heritage.
Since this is not meant to be a historical textbook, it will not be able
to analyze all of the components of America’s history in any specific
detail. Equally true, since the issue is whether or not America enjoys a
Christian heritage, the information selected will be skewed towards
that which can assist with a resolution of the issue.
Credit Christopher Columbus
On August 3, 1492 Columbus sailed from Palos with three ships,
the Santa Maria, the Pinta and the Nina. In a letter to King Ferdinand
and Queen Isabella of Spain, Columbus provides us with an insight
into his own thinking and what motivated him to make his historic
journey.
“The Holy Trinity moved Your Highnesses to this enterprise of
the Indies, and of his infinite he made me the messenger thereof…as
being the most exalted of Christian princes and so ardently devoted to
the faith and to its increase. On this matter I spent six or seven years
of deep anxiety, expounding…how great service might in this be
rendered to the Lord…And I told you of the peoples whom I have
seen, among whom and from whom many souls may be saved.”
Columbus was not just a nominal Christian but one who
repeatedly gave credit to God and the Holy Spirit for all that he did
and accomplished. To date almost all of Columbus’ writings have
been thoroughly researched and exposed except his Libro de las
profecias, or ‘Prophecies of Columbus’. This book, previously
considered to be irrelevant and circumstantially accredited by some
scholars to depression when Columbus lost favor with the king’s
court, squarely places the spotlight on the spiritual side of the man. In
64
defense of those who have perpetuated this disservice, Columbus’

image as a navigator could not normally be enhanced either by
clerical or spiritual abilities. So why push the image of Christopher
Columbus as a devoted Christian? Nevertheless, the facts speak for
themselves. I suggest that it is his spiritual motivation that gives
credence to any attempted explanation of Columbus’ resilience in the
face of repeated discouragement. He had to be motivated beyond
ordinary levels in order to absorb the rejection of King John of
Portugal, King Henry of England, and King Charles of France and yet
retain enough determination to court the support of Queen Isabella
and King Ferdinand of Spain. Moreover, is an association between
Christopher Columbus and his divine motivation so far fetched when
we consider the literal meaning of his name? Christopher means
‘Christ bearer’.1
In the introduction to his book of prophecies, he writes:
It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel his
hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from
here to the Indies….
There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy
Spirit.
…Our Lord Jesus Christ desired to perform a very
obvious miracle in the voyage to the Indies, to confront me
and the whole people of God.
On page 79 of Libro de las profecias he wrote:
Who doubts that this light was from the Holy Spirit…
whom with rays of marvelous clarity it consoled…with forty-
four books of the Old Testament and four Evangelists, with
twenty-three epistles of those blessed apostles, encouraging
me to proceed, and continuously, without stopping a moment,
they encouraged me with great haste.
1
Thanks to the University of Florida Press in association with Delno C. West and
August Kling, this neglected work of Columbus has now been translated and is
available on the market under the title The Libro de las profecias of Christopher
Columbus.
65
There is no doubt that Columbus’ major motivation was to make

a contribution to the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ
throughout the world; firstly in every place that he discovered, and
then, through the wealth of the newfound world, in every other corner
of the globe. To the extent that America has spent more on the work
of missionaries worldwide than any other country, Columbus’
prophecy and desire has come true.
When considering the heritage of the United States of America, it
is impossible to overlook, or for that matter to overestimate, the
contribution of Christopher Columbus. And although we do not
consciously remind ourselves of his Christian convictions and divine
motivation, it is as much a part of our heritage as the 1620 landing of
the Pilgrims, which incidentally would not have been possible were it
not for Christopher Columbus. It is therefore fitting that his name
adorns the major cities and towns of almost every state in the USA
and in Canada.
Hernando De Soto
According to Alliance for Life’s America’s Christian Heritage:
Hernando De Soto, discoverer of Florida in 1539, wrote to
the Justice and Board of Magistrates of Santiago, Cuba,
‘Glory to God, who has directed all, through His bounteous
goodness, in such a way, that He appears to have this
enterprise altogether under His special care, that it should be
for His service.’
When merchants from the London Company determined that
America, and Virginia in particular, was a good place to come for
wealth, they sought and obtained a charter from King James II. This
charter was issued to them on April 10, 1606, and in part it read:
Wee, greately commending and graciously accepting of
theire desires to the furtherance of soe noble a worke which
may, by the providence of Almightie God, hereafter tende to
the glorie of His Divine Majestie in propagating of Christian
religion to suche people as yet live in darkenesse and
miserable ignorance of the true knoweledge and worshippe of
66
God and may in tyme bring the infidels and salvages living in
those parts to humane civilitie and to a setled and quiet
govermente, doe by theise our lettres patents graciously
accepte of and agree to theire humble and well intended
desires.
Pilgrims’ Landing in 1620
When the Pilgrims landed in 1620, having not come directly
from England, and with so many of them being rebels against the
form of established religion in England, they had no charter from the
king of England. They therefore drafted their own charter which
became known as the ‘Mayflower Compact’ and is frequently referred
to as America’s first written ‘constitution’.
This compact in part read:
In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are
underwritten, 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, e&.
Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and
Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our
King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the
northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and
mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant
and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for
our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the
Ends aforesaid.
Constitution of Delaware
Fast forward to the late 18th century. Twelve other colonies in
addition to Virginia had been planted, and all had constitutions of one
sort or another. They all affirmed the Christian religion in one form or
another in varying degrees of intensity. Perhaps the most extreme in
its religious tests for occupants of public office was Delaware. Its
1776 Constitution in Article 22 prescribed that:
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either
67
house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before

taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office,
shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if
conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:
‘I, A B, will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State,
submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly
whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced.’
‘And also make and subscribe the following declaration,
to wit:
‘I, A B, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus
Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed
for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the
Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.’
Do not for one minute think that Delaware was a ‘sore thumb’.
Nine of the thirteen colonies had established versions of the Christian
religion in their Constitutions, and Delaware was not one of them.
If Not Christianity…Then What?
Proving that America was established as a Christian country built
on Christian values is not the major purpose of this book. There are
many before me who have made an excellent job of this, and I am
sure that there will be many after me who will also excel. However,
before moving on to weightier matters, let me leave you with a
thought. All countries from the beginning of time have been
established on some sort of theistic, atheistic or anti-theistic belief
system. The laws that must govern any country that survives more
than a decade must be based on one religious value system or another
that seeks to address the ever-present questions of ‘Who am I?’ ‘From
whence did I come?’ ‘To where am I going?’ and ‘What is my
purpose for being here?’
Some countries have opted to build on Judaism, others on
Christianity, others on Hinduism, some on Confucianism, some on
Islam, and yet others on Atheism. Some civilizations and countries
that we refer to as ‘pagan’ have chosen polytheistic religions, and
others have opted to be pantheistic. However, so critical is religious
68
belief to every country and society that religion is forever entrenched

as a major index of culture. So here is my question to my creative
friends who try to deny America’s Christian heritage: If America was
not founded on the Christian religion, on what was it founded?
Patrick Henry’s Perspective
For Patrick Henry, the man credited with igniting the decision to
go to war with Great Britain in the successful bid for independence,
America was founded as a Christian country. In his words, as
reproduced in Steve Dawson’s God’s Providence in America’s
History: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this
great nation was founded, not by religionists, but on the gospel of
Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been
afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Baron Charles Montesquieu
Most scholars believe that through The Spirit of the Laws, author
Baron Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat Montesquieu greatly
influenced the formation of the American system of government.
However, scholars including Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman
in their book The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late
Eighteenth Century Political Thought make a doubly powerful point.
In reviewing nearly 15,000 items written by the Founding Fathers −
including newspaper articles, monographs, books, and pamphlets −
Baron Charles Montesquieu was the most frequently quoted source
next to the Bible. William J Federer’s America’s God and Country
Encyclopedia of Quotations states: “Montesquieu’s philosophy
promulgated the idea that powers of government should be separated
to allow power to check power. His concept of three branches of
government: judicial, legislative and executive, was based on Isaiah
33:22, which says, “For the Lord is our Judge, the Lord is our
Lawgiver, the Lord is our king…”
He emphasized the importance of separating the powers of
government as he understood men to be inherently selfish and,
opportunity provided, they would accumulate more and more power
unto themselves, eventually becoming despots. He based this
understanding on Jeremiah 17:9, which states: “The heart is deceitful
69
above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?”
Paine’s Reason & Common Sense
By way of interest, American historical revisionists are more
comfortable with accrediting influential status to the man whose
Common Sense was published on December 23, 1776 and was
mandated to be read to the embattled American troops by General
Washington. His name was Thomas Paine and he was born an
Englishman, became a citizen of France and was adopted by America.
However, it was for his Age of Reason and its French rationalism that
many American historical revisionists revere him. In that volume,
Paine went to great lengths to distance his views from all that is
associated with Christianity and the Bible.
However, two things must be noticed. Paine was a self-styled
deist who distanced himself from the God of revealed Christianity. If
his influence in this regard had been significant on American values,
then the revealed Will of God through the Bible would not have been
nearly as popular as it was and still is. Paine was undoubtedly very
influential and played a positive role during the War of Independence,
but his popularity waned after he wrote Age of Reason.
However, perhaps even more definitive is what Paine himself

wrote in his later years. Benjamin Hart in his Faith & Freedom – The
Christian Roots of the American Liberty records these words of Paine:
“I would give worlds, if I had them, if Age of Reason had never been
published. O Lord, help! Stay with me. It is hell to be left alone.”
What Influenced Montesquieu?
Let us return to Baron Montesquieu for a moment. The evidence
strongly suggests that the American system of government was
heavily influenced by Baron Montesquieu. Therefore, the next
question is: What influenced him?
In 1748 he wrote in his Spirit of the Laws: “The Christian
religion, which orders men to love one another…no doubt wants the
best political laws and the best civil laws for each people, because
70
those laws are, after the Christian religion, the greatest good that men
can give and receive…” George Bancroft in Bancroft’s History of the
United States quotes Baron Montesquieu in Book XXIV of The Spirit
of the Laws as having said:
I have always respected religion; the morality of the
gospel is the noblest gift ever bestowed by God on man. We
shall see that we owe to Christianity, in government, a certain
political law, and in war a certain law of nations – benefits
which human nature can never sufficiently acknowledge.
The principles of Christianity, deeply engaged on the
heart, would be infinitely more powerful than the false honor
of monarchies, than the human virtues of republics, or the
servile fear of despotic states.
It is the Christian religion that, in spite of the extent of
empire and the influence of climate, has hindered despotic
power from being established in Ethiopia, and has carried
into the heart of Africa the manners and laws of Europe. The
Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The
mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is
incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince
punishes his subjects and exercises himself in cruelty.
Society must repose on principles that do not change.
Founding Fathers’ Flexibility
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were very
aware of the need for flexibility in its Constitution. They were
conscious that in a dynamic world, change is constant. And where
there is change, there will either be adaptations, modifications or
exterminations. However, they were also very conscious of the need
for America’s core values to remain rooted in morality, and they
understood that morality was rooted in Christianity. Could it be that
for all the right reasons and with all honorable intentions, they made
it too easy for America’s future leaders to tamper with the moral
foundation of the nation?
The question has been asked, ‘If America was not founded on the
71
Christian religion, on what was she founded?’ Scores of other

scholars have supplied what appears to be an almost exhaustive list of
evidence in support of the proposition that America was founded on
Christian values and on the God of the Bible. On the other hand,
Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, as reported by Joel Barlow − a
strong admirer of Thomas Paine − and the absence of certain
Christian key words from the Constitution are the only serious
challenges to the proposition, and the latter has been easily explained.
The truth is that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is as
potentially troublesome for proponents of a Christian America as it is
conveniently gratifying for the opponents of a Christian America. I
will be the first to confess that for several months after I started to
write this book, I had great difficulty in honestly fitting the Tripoli
denial into an otherwise intact construct of a Christian America. Even
the absence of Christian words and sentiments in the Constitution
exposes itself to clarification. At one point I abandoned all hope of
being able to truthfully resolve Tripoli. My premature and reluctant
conclusion was that there are a thousand evidences of a Christian
America, but there is only one piece of evidence against. Then in the
review stages of the book, I got my breakthrough. So critical is this to
me that I invite you to read the short chapter devoted to the ‘Truth in
the Treaty of Tripoli’.
So far, the incontrovertible verdict therefore seems to be that
America was founded on Christian values, on Christianity, and on the
Bible. However, let us look at two more historical realities and then
rest our case.
Alexander Hamilton
Except for his fatal folly on July 12, 1804, when he was mortally
wounded at the age of forty-seven in a duel with Aaron Burr,
someone who was by most standards a ‘lesser mortal’, Alexander
Hamilton left a great legacy behind. Hamilton served with distinction
in the War of Independence, moving from captain to lieutenant-
colonel. He was also a brilliant and sought-after lawyer and actually
served General Washington as his aide-de-camp and staff lawyer.
Hamilton played a pivotal role in the Constitutional Convention and
72
an even more critical role in the ratification of the Constitution.

The Federalist Papers, which appeared in newspapers
throughout the colonies after the Constitutional Convention signed off
on its offer, were written by three men. They were Alexander
Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Of the eighty-five
Federalist Papers, Hamilton wrote fifty-one, thereby earning himself
the name ‘Mr. Federalist’. It is virtually undeniable that the
Constitution may never have been ratified were it not for the public
relations blitz offered it by the Federalist Papers. And don’t forget,
the Federalist Papers were matched by the less prolific but equally
influential sixteen Anti-Federalist Papers. Most scholars believe that
the author, who hid behind the pseudonym ‘Brutus’, was in fact
Robert Yates, a New York judge and delegate to the Federal
Convention. Both sets of papers appeared in the New York
newspapers and were widely reprinted throughout the thirteen
colonies. However, it was clearly the Federalist Papers, written under
the pseudonym ‘Publius’, that won the day. So now, let us hear what
Alexander Hamilton had to say about America and her association
with Christianity.
Hamilton’s Perspective
Christine F. Hart in her One Nation Under God reminds us that
shortly after the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention,
Hamilton said: “For my part, I sincerely esteem it a system which
without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and
agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.”
Alan Hamilton in his The Intimate Life of Alexander Hamilton
records a portion of a letter from Alexander Hamilton to his friend
James Bayard in April 1802:
In my opinion, the present Constitution is the standard to
which we are to cling. Under its banner bona fide must we
combat our political foes, rejecting all changes but through
the channel itself provided for amendments. By these general
views of the subject have my reflections been guided. I now
offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an
73
association be formed to be denominated ‘The Christian

Constitutional Society’, its object to be first: The Support of
the Christian Religion; second: The Support of the United
States.
And among others, it was Sarah K. Boulton in her Famous
American Statesmen who reminds us that Alexander Hamilton the
legal luminary said:
I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian
Religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity, I
would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove
its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the
mind of man.
Congress Members Meditation
In his excellent resource manual America’s God and Country
Encyclopedia of Quotations, and drawing on Robert Flood’s The
Rebirth of America and Gary DeMar’s The Untold Story, William J.
Federer reminds us that in 1954, the Congress of the United States of
America approved in both the Senate and House of Representatives a
joint resolution calling for the establishment of a room with facilities
for prayer and meditation for the use of the members of the Senate
and the House of Representatives.
This small room in the Capitol, just off the rotunda, is always
open when Congress is in session. It is for the private prayer and
meditation of members, but it is not open to the public. An open Bible
is upon an altar, and located above it is the focal point of the room − a
stained glass window showing George Washington kneeling in prayer.
Behind him are etched these words from Psalm 16:1, “Preserve me, O
God, for in You I put my trust..”
Christian Evidences
A few factors of note are that every session of the House and the
Senate begins with prayer; each house has its own chaplain; each
president also concludes his oath of office with his hand on a Bible
and the words, “so help me God!”
74
Inside the rotunda is the figure of the crucified Christ, as well as

a picture of the Pilgrims about to embark from Holland on the sister
ship of the Mayflower, the Speedwell. The ship’s revered chaplain,
Brewster, who later joined the Mayflower, has open on his lap The
Bible. Very clearly on the walls of the Capitol dome are the words:
“The New Testament according to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
On the sail is the motto of the Pilgrims, “In God We Trust, God With
Us”.
The phrase ‘In God We Trust appears opposite the president of
the Senate, who is the vice-president of the United States. The same
phrase, in large words inscribed in the marble, backdrops the speaker
of the House of Representatives. Catherine Millard in several of her
books offers an almost exhaustive account of inscriptions and designs
on public buildings in America that make it literally impossible for
any rational person to deny the strong, dominant Christian heritage of
the United States.2
2
One such book is The Rewriting of America’s History.
75
America, God, and Abortion
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER FIVE
W hat I am about to share with you in this chapter highlights the

fact that satanic forces are at work in the highest levels of the
government of the United States as a handful of the demonically
inspired are allowed too much success in their declared mission to
strip the United States of all the spiritual values and benefits
associated with her heritage. In this work, and in other places, the
time of insanity of the judiciary clearly came of age in the last half of
the 20th century. Following on the lead of Kenneth W. Starr in his
First Among Equals, I concur and permanently entrench the view that
the ‘judicial bug’ first surfaced with the Supreme Court’s reversal of
its 1940 ruling in Minersville v. Gobitis through its 1943 ruling in
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. At this juncture of
our history, we saw the Supreme Court move from ‘Salute the Flag of
the United States of America’ to ‘Do not salute the flag of the United
States of America’, and eventually in Texas v. Johnson (1989) to
‘Burn the flag of the United States of America’.
However, it did not stop there. When the people’s elected
representatives, on the instruction of the overwhelming majority of
Americans, tried to pass a specific law making flag-burning a crime,
the infected Supreme Court ruled the efforts of the legislature and the
executive branches unconstitutional in the United States v. Eichman
(1990) and struck down the law. The fact that only five of the nine
justices were infected on this occasion is irrelevant because the
flawed Constitution requires 100% agreement among jurors for a
single citizen to be killed by the state, but it allows millions to be
assaulted, traumatized, and even killed by the state in the case of
abortion by a majority of just one.
76
President Reagan’s Year of the Bible

The following consists of excerpts from the text of a joint
resolution of the 97th Congress of the United States of America,
signed by President Regan on October 4, 1982:
Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique
contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and
blessed nation and people;
Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from
the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil
government that are contained in our Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas many of our great national leaders − among
them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson −
paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our
country’s development, as the words of President Jackson
that the Bible is “the rock on which our Republic rests”;
Whereas the history of our nation clearly illustrates the
value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures
in the lives of individuals, families, and societies;
Whereas this nation now faces great challenges that will
test it as it has never been tested before; and
Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God
through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a
people: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the
President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a
national ‘Year of the Bible’ in recognition of both the
formative influence the Bible has been for our nation, and
our national need to study and apply the teachings of the
Holy Scriptures.
77
One year later, President Regan was addressing the 1984 Annual
Convention of Religious Broadcasters. He had this to say: “I was
pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the Year of the Bible. But, you
know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for doing that.
Well I wear their indictment like a badge of honor.” The sustained
applause seemed to have lasted an eternity!
Abortion and the People’s Legal Impotency
As I write this section, tears come to my eyes again and again. It
is most obvious that the battle for the soul of America is not being
waged only or mainly by the ACLU, or even by the Supreme Court.
The strategist and the commander-in-chief is the Devil himself, and
the ACLU, the Supreme Court and others are mere pawns, even if
willing pawns. However, what is really pathetic is the fact that this
great Constitution of ours has been so interpreted and so executed as
to strangle the voice and the collective will of the people as expressed
through their elected representatives.
The heart of democracy is that the people, or at least a majority
of the people, have the final say in how they are governed. What
occurs in America is a dubious principle which when applied in an
attempt to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minority
facilitates the tyranny of the minority over the majority. When the
most powerful elected man in the world is made to look like a
pathetic wimp, something is wrong. When the president of the United
States can commit hundreds of thousands of sons and daughters of
America to war at the cost of billions of dollars, and thereby place
their lives on the line, but cannot save millions of living prenatal
infants from murder at the hands of their parents and physicians,
something is wrong. However, even greater than this perceived
symbolic tragedy is the inability of the elected representatives of the
people in both Houses of Congress to reflect the views of the millions
that elected them.
Reagan and the Right to Life
I listened to President Regan’s presentation to the National
78
Religious Broadcasters.3 The entire speech is excellent and merits

review by every American. However, there is one section to which I
would now like to draw your attention. This is what the president
said: “I know what I’m about to say now is controversial, but I have
to say it. This nation cannot continue turning a blind eye and a deaf
ear to the taking of some 4,000 unborn children’s lives every day.
That’s one every 21 seconds.”
We cannot pretend that America is preserving her first and
highest ideal – the belief that each life is sacred – when we’ve
permitted the deaths of fifty million helpless innocents since the Roe
v. Wade decision – fifty million children who will never laugh, never
sing, never know the joy of human love, will never strive to heal the
sick or feed the poor or make peace among nations. Abortion has
denied them the first and most basic of human rights. We are all
infinitely poorer for their loss.
There is another grim truth we should face up to: Doctors
confirm that when the lives of the unborn are snuffed out, they often
feel pain – pain that is long and agonizing.
This nation fought a terrible war so that Black Americans would
be guaranteed their God-given rights. Abraham Lincoln recognized
that we could not survive as a free land when some could decide
whether others should live free or as slaves. Today another question
begs to be asked: How can we survive as a free nation when some
decide that others are not fit to live and should be done away with?
Like pro-choice advocates, I support a woman’s right to choose
whether or not to bring a child into this world. I suspect, however,
that there might be a fundamental difference between us. I support
every woman’s right to choose whether or not to have sex, and
whether or not to have sex with the maximum medically endorsed
birth-control techniques and devices. I am even prepared to
reluctantly consider conceding to every woman her right to choose
whether or not to destroy a living fetus that she is 100% certain will
destroy her life and possibly its own if allowed to come to term.
3
Compliments of Joseph Slife, Athens, GA on the website
www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/
79
However, there is absolutely no moral or spiritual grounds on which a

woman and/or a man can stand when either or both of them decide to
murder a living fetus that resulted from the exercise of their choice to
have sex and/or unprotected sex. Though I am more sympathetic, I
am equally satisfied that to abort an unborn child because that child
was conceived as a result of incest and/or rape is no less murder
because of the circumstances of conception, and is totally
unjustifiable.
President Ronald Reagan concluded:
I believe no challenge is more important to the character
of America than restoring the right to life to all human
beings. Without that right, no other rights have meaning.
‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them
not, for such is the kingdom of God.’
I will continue to support every effort to restore that
protection including the Hyde-Jepsen respect life bill. I’ve
asked for your all-out commitment, for the mighty power of
your prayers, so that together we can convince our fellow
countrymen that America should, can, and will preserve
God’s greatest gift.
Millions Murdered – President Helpless
Twenty-four years later, the de facto rulers of America still
approve the murder of young helpless Americans every day by a
variety of medical procedures. In 2003, the elected representatives of
the people and their elected president passed a law banning the
barbaric and horrific practice of partial birth abortion, although the
law did not attempt to overthrow Roe v. Wade. The law provided for
physicians to perform the abortions where “necessary to save the life
of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical
illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical
condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.” A handful
of unelected maverick judges, one at a time, was all it took to have
halted the ban and to frustrate the will of the people for several years.
80
Integrity of Democracy Compromised

Of course, the issue under discussion at this point is not the
desirability or undesirability of Roe v. Wade. What is at stake is the
integrity of the process. It is the overwhelming majority, or at least a
bare majority of citizens, that ought to be able to have the final say
through their elected representatives. Arguably, the majority could be
wrong, and possibly the majority that are against Roe v. Wade might
even be wrong. But then the Supreme Court’s track record leaves no
doubt in our minds that it is quite usual for it to be wrong. Not only
do we see decisions being skewed on a five-to-four and six-to-three
split, but we also very frequently see the court reversing its own
decisions, sometimes within periods as short as three years.
Democracy Fosters Opposition
In any democracy it is highly unlikely that you will find all the
people in support of, or against, any decision made by its elected
leaders. That is one of the socially and politically acceptable side
effects of democracy. If you don’t like this option, just consider the
alternatives. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand that wherever
there are antiabortionist demonstrators, there usually are pro-
abortionist demonstrators. It can very easily be argued that Roe v.
Wade did not create a problem out of nothing.
Abortion was ‘Law’
The historical facts indicate that during the formative years of
this nation, between the landing of the Jamestown settlers in 1607 and
the birth of the nation in 1776, abortion was the ‘law’. There was no
code that commanded it or allowed it, but there was also no code that
prevented it. It was one of the many importations from Great Britain.
However, let us go even further into the annals history.
In the 13th century, Henry Bracton, considered by many to be the
father of English common law, gave very clear indications that
abortion after the sixth week was a felony and as such, attracted the
penalty of hanging. As time rolled on, the concept of ‘quickening’,
also used in the King James version of the Bible, became very
popular in distinguishing categories of abortion. The fetus was
81
considered to have been ‘quickened’ or to have become viable after

its first perceptible movement. Under normal conditions, this usually
occurs in the 13th or subsequent weeks. Thus English common law
entertained distinctions between ‘pre-quickening’ and ‘post-
quickening’ abortions. The latter attracted a non-capital penalty and
the former gradually slid into a commonly acceptable practice.
Against this background, in 1803 Lord Ellenborough’s Act was
passed. This omnibus act, among other things, addressed the issue of
abortion. This is what the relevant section said:
…Be it therefore enacted by the King’s most Excellent
Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords
Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, That
if any Person or Persons, from and after the first Day of July
in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and
three, shall, either in England or Ireland, willfully,
maliciously, and unlawfully administer to, or cause to be
administered to or taken by any of his Majesty’s Subjects,
any deadly Poison, or other noxious and destructive
Substance or Thing, with Intent such of his Majesty’s Subject
or Subjects thereby to murder, or thereby to cause and
procure the Miscarriage of any Woman then being quick with
Child; that then and in every such Case the Person or Persons
so offending, their Counsellors, Aiders, and Abettors,
knowing of and privy to such Offence, shall be and are
hereby declared to be Felons, and shall suffer Death as in
Cases of Felony without Benefit of Clergy: be it therefore
further enacted, That if any Person or Persons shall willfully
and maliciously administer to, or cause to be administered to,
or taken by any Woman, any Medicines, Drug, or other
Substance or Thing whatsoever, or shall use or employ, or
cause or procure to be used or employed, any Instrument or
other Means whatsoever, with Intent thereby to cause or
procure the Miscarriage of any Woman not being, or not
being proved to be, quick with Child at the Time of
administering such Things or using such Means, that then
82
and in every such Case the Person or Persons so offending,

their Counsellors, Aiders, and Abettors, knowing of and privy
to such Offence, shall be and are hereby declared to be guilty
of Felony, and shall be liable to be fined, imprisoned, set in
and upon the Pillory, publickly or privately whipped, or to
suffer one or more of the said Punishments, or to be
transported beyond the Seas for any Term not exceeding
fourteen Years, at the Discretion of the Court before which
such Offender shall be tried and convicted.
The American courts quickly followed suit. Connecticut was the
first off the mark in 1821, and seven years later was followed by New
York. The New York legislation made post-quickening abortion a
felony and pre-quickening abortion a misdemeanor. Almost all other
states followed in the next three decades with the noticeable trend of
increasingly generalized prohibition and harsher and harsher
penalties. By the 1860s both in Great Britain and in America, with the
exception of situations in which the life of the mother was clearly
threatened, abortion was prohibited.
Penal Code Revisited
On May 24, 1962 after many years of study, the American Law
Institute signed off on its Model Penal Code, which was designed to
present to lawmakers in America a basis for revising their criminal
law so as to facilitate more humanitarian dealings with offenders.
Scores of civic and religious organizations across the country
endorsed it and in 1967 Colorado revised its laws based on the Model
Penal Code. Other states followed and this time competed in reverse
for the relaxing of their abortion laws. By the time Roe v. Wade was
handed down, seventeen states had already substantially deregulated
abortion, especially in the pre-quickening phase.
What is significant is that during the meandering of the laws or
lack thereof on abortion, women who wanted abortions continued to
have them. Prohibition resulted neither in chastity nor in an increased
birth rate due to full-term births. What happened though, is that a
thriving back-room industry evolved that placed the lives and health
of hundreds of thousands of women at risk. As usual, the rich fared
83
better, as they could travel long distances to other states where

abortion was legal, and in some cases they even traveled to other
countries. The poor, on the other hand, were obliged to use the limited
opportunities available to them and in the process frequently placed
their lives at risk.
Roe v. Wade to the Rescue?
Roe v. Wade made it illegal for any state to regulate abortion
during the first trimester. States would be allowed to regulate abortion
based on considerations of the mother’s mental health during the
second trimester. Regulation of abortions after week twenty-six
would be subject to the mental and physical health exceptions set out
in the companion case Doe v. Bolton.
The Bible and Abortion
The Bible makes it clear that abortion is wrong, and there is
absolutely nothing from a theological perspective to suggest that it is
not viewed by God in the same as murder. This position is established
very simply because it is concluded that the willful taking of another
person’s life is wrong, except in self-defense. If it can be established
that the unborn fetus is in fact a person, then the willful taking of the
life of a fetus is wrong, with the possible exception of circumstances
such as may be comparable to self-defense. One such readily
identifiable circumstance could be the defense or preservation of the
life of the mother. And just for the record, the Biblical synonym for
‘wrong’ is ‘sin’.
Living Entity?
Therefore, the question that begs to be answered is at what point
is the fetus considered alive? When is the fetus a person? According
to a BMA (May 2005) publication entitled Abortion time limits: A
briefing paper from the British Medical Association: “The term
‘abortion’ is used throughout this paper to refer to the induced
termination of an established pregnancy (i.e. after implantation).”
However, not all hold to this simple and straightforward view. There
are some who have tried to establish a point at which life, or
personhood, begins. One of the more outstanding contributors was
84
Ernst Haeckel. Paul R. Boehlke in a paper delivered at the Christian

Life Resources National Convention meeting at the Mayo Civic
Center in Rochester, MN, October 12-13, 2001 has this to say:
According to Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), the human
embryo was genetically compelled to briefly repeat the entire
process of its evolutionary history. “Ontogeny recapitulates
phylogeny” was his bold catch phase. He meant that
development reveals the evolutionary history of the
organism. He believed that the embryo moved from a single
cell through various animal stages until it reached a level that
was distinctly human. Haeckel supported his hypothesis with
drawings showing the similarities among various embryos
and fetuses. These drawings took many liberties to make
their point. Amazingly, Haeckel’s drawings appear without
any cautions to the reader in the current edition of Molecular
Biology of the Cell, a standard reference for today’s biology
students.
Relying on macro-evolutionist John A. Moore and Harvard’s
Professor Stephen Jay Gould, Boehlke goes on to point out that
Haeckel has been completely discredited. By the end of the 1920s, the
theory of recapitulation had completely collapsed, and Haeckel’s
drawings with it. Yet as we have come to expect, American educators
would have no difficulty in retaining his text in public schools
because it helps to erode the case against abortion. According to
Boehlke:
Observations of human development done from 1930 to
1972 revealed a homogeneous, continuous process without
such stages [according to Haeckel]. Human development is
uninterrupted. There is not a break or an event at which one
can say, now the fetus is human; before this point, it was not.
The implication of this is simple. If there is no identifiable
categories into which the development of the human fetus can be
placed, then whatever it began as at fertilization and subsequent
implantation, must be directly linked to what it ends up as at birth.
Moreover, since there is a homogeneous unbroken thread of
85
development from fertilization to birth, then the fetus must have been
alive at implantation, even if at that stage we refer to it as an embryo.
Consider this from another perspective. I have not come across a
single evolutionist or pseudo-scientist who does not accept that the
basic form of animal life is the amoeba. According to Answers.com,
an amoeba is: “Any of various one-celled aquatic or parasitic
protozoans of the genus Amoeba or related genera, having no definite
form and consisting of a mass of protoplasm containing one or more
nuclei surrounded by a flexible outer membrane. It moves by means
of pseudopods.” Put another way, the amoeba is alive, and even our
radical, liberal educators accept that. The amoeba does not grow into
anything else. It is born an amoeba and it dies an amoeba. Therefore,
if a single-celled creature that spends its entire life at that stage can be
accorded the status of ‘living’, then why is it so difficult to accord life
to the human embryo which at fertilization consists of a single cell,
six days later at implantation has grown to between sixty to 120 cells,
and thereafter, rapidly, consistently, and in a homogenous sequence,
multiplies that number into billions of cells at birth?
Look at this from another angle. A man and a woman engage in
sexual intercourse. The woman brings to the ‘bed’ a single cell egg
which is, in itself and by itself, useless. It has a twenty-three-
chromosome potential, but that potential in itself and by itself does
not give it the ability to grow and to become anything beyond what it
presently is. In a very real sense, the egg was not born for the ultimate
purpose of being an egg. The egg was born and lives for the purpose
of contributing to the birth of a brand-new, individual human being.
Its life cycle is extremely short. If it is not rescued and made complete
by the living sperm of a male human, it dies a natural death,
unfulfilled, and is discharged from the woman’s body at the time of
next menstruation.
The man brings to the ‘bed’ a single-cell sperm packing a twenty-
three-chromosome potential. That sperm shows more signs of life
than does the egg, but only because it is the ‘hunter’. However, just
like the egg, it was not born a sperm for the ultimate purpose of being
a sperm. Its purpose for living is to find an egg of a female human
86
and contribute to the life of a brand-new human individual. If it finds

no egg to attach to itself, then it too dies, unfulfilled, after a very short
time.
But then, either on the first or a subsequent occasion, one sperm
and one egg gets ‘lucky’ – even though the mother and/or father may
describe it as unlucky for them. The sperm and the egg meet in the
fallopian tube. The single cell egg offers her twenty-three
chromosomes. The single cell sperm offers his twenty-three
chromosomes. Then something mysterious happens – all known laws
of mathematical logic are defied as one and one becomes, not two,
but one. A third, distinct, single-celled entity is formed. This entity
represents a blend of the two contributors, and it is so unique and so
different that you will have to exhaust seventy trillion entities like
itself in order to find a duplicate. And so reliable is the identifiable
difference between a new-born baby and all others formed before and
or after it that modern criminology swears that there are no two
people alive or dead with the same DNA. And guess what? Even
evolutionists who try to deny the authority of the Bible are forced to
confess that all the DNA characteristics of a newborn baby are
present at time of fertilization. Put another way, hands grow, and feet
grow, and the head takes shape, and for that matter, so does every
other part of the anatomy of the child between fertilization and birth.
However, the DNA characteristics which stay with that child for life
are all present at the exact moment of fertilization. This is beyond any
shadow of a doubt irrefutable proof that every abortionist must face –
the fetus at every stage is not only alive, but is in a very identifiable
way the same person that is born forty weeks after its conception.
However, that’s not the end of it. This new entity has become one
cell and not two. In other words, what has taken place is neither
addition nor subtraction nor multiplication; it is fusion. The single-
cell egg and the single-cell sperm have fused into a single cell
‘something’ – I call it a human being. In addition, not only did the
sperm and the egg each contribute their chromosomes, but they
managed to produce a new entity with the built-in capacity to
reproduce its own cells, to grow and to develop inside and outside of
the womb and with the ability to live for seventy to eighty years. This
87
phenomenon is so distinct, so destiny-oriented, so directionally

focused that it has to count for something special. There is no other
time during a full-term pregnancy that anything nearly as dramatic
and inexplicable takes place. Everything after conception can be
explained as growth and development, or continuing and extending
that which has already begun. But conception is the beginning of
something new... something different, something that was not there
before and something that is infinitely greater than the total of its
contributing factors. Conception, therefore, is a new beginning... and
the beginning of something new. Conception represents the miracle of
the origin of the life of a brand-new entity. To kill a conceived entity
is to take a life. In the case of the byproduct of a man and a woman,
to kill that conceived entity is murder.
For those pro-choice abortionists who grudgingly concede ‘life’
but ‘no form’ at conception, I have a question. In what area of animal
life has it ever been observed that a male and female of the same
species have sex with each other and produce an offspring of another
species? Put crudely, has it ever been observed that a donkey and a
donkey have produced a horse? Or has a monkey and a monkey ever
produced a donkey? If the 100% predictable outcome of sex between
a dog and a dog is a dog, and that between a cat and a cat is a cat,
then why do we claim doubt as to what would be the predictable
outcome of sex between a male and a female human? Why do we
have to wait and see? Has it been ever recorded or observed to be
anything other than a human? It follows, therefore, that if we are
satisfied that it takes a living thing to reproduce and form more living
things, and if we accept that sex between a male human and a female
human could produce only a baby human, then at fertilization the
product must be a single-cell living baby human, even though its form
does not resemble that of a newborn child.
What about the opinion of the God of creation, who made it
possible for the miracle of conception though to birth to take place in
the womb of an illiterate woman who never went to school? What
does He say about the fetus, and even the pre-fetal stage of the unborn
child?
88
In several Scriptures, the fetus or unborn child is identified

specifically as having personality, purpose and predestination. In
Genesis 25:23-24 we read:
And the Lord said to her: "Two nations are in your
womb, two peoples shall be separated from your body; one
people shall be stronger than the other, and the older shall
serve the younger. So when her days were fulfilled for her to
give birth, indeed there were twins in her womb.
In Judges 13:5 we read:
For behold, you shall conceive and bear a son. And no
razor shall come upon his head, for the child shall be a
Nazirite to God from the womb; and he shall begin to deliver
Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
The Psalmist in 139:13 (NIV) says:
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my
mother's womb.”
Isaiah 49:1 says:
Listen, O coastlands, to Me, and take heed, you peoples
from afar! The Lord has called Me from the womb; from the
matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.
And although unidentifiable, is their ‘personhood’ before the
womb? God says yes.
Jeremiah 1:5 declares:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you
were born I sanctified you; and I ordained you a prophet to
the nations.
Luke 1:15, speaking of John the Baptist says:
For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall
drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled
with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.
In Luke 1:44, referring to the fetus of John the Baptist, Elizabeth
89
his mother said:

For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded
in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Ephesians 1:4 says:
Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the
world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him
in love.
Is Abortion Ever Not Murder?
There are many, even among conservative Christians, including
myself, who at one time or another have compromised our
unequivocal stand against abortion to allow for abortion under certain
conditions. These conditions typically include rape, incest, and what
is medically considered to be a fetus with a disability. Before I go on,
let me confess that what I am about to write represents a last-minute
change to my manuscript, after it had been sent for editing. God
clearly convinced me that I was about to commit a cardinal sin and
that all along I was making a fatal mistake in believing that there are
justifiable exceptions to the prohibition against abortion. I make this
confession because I wish to identify with the millions of people
around the world who are still at the place where I was just days
before this book was published.
Let us go back to basics. Every post-fertilization embryo and/or
fetus is a distinctly identifiable individual living human being. The
laws of every civilized country have enshrined the willful killing of
another human being as murder. Even when the killing is accidental,
there is still a penalty under the lesser charge of manslaughter. For
there to be total exoneration, self-defense must both be pleaded and
fully established. In the case of abortion, as distinct from a
miscarriage, we are talking about the willful killing by one parent or
both parents of a human being with the direct or indirect aid of a
conspirator or an assassin who may or may not be a medical doctor.
None of the foregoing facts is in anyway affected by the
circumstances of conception. It does not matter whether the man was
on top or whether the woman was on top during sexual intercourse. It
90
does not matter whether they had sex in the middle of a desert, or
whether they had sex in the shower. It does not matter whether the
man and woman knew each other from childhood, or whether it was a
one-night stand. It does not matter whether sex was intentional or not,
or whether it was the first time or the hundredth time. It does not
matter whether it was consensual or whether it was violent or non-
violent rape. It does not matter whether it was between a rich man and
a poor woman. It odes not matter whether it was between a father and
his daughter or between a mother and her son. As long as that living
sperm from the male makes contact with the living egg from the
female and fertilization takes place, a new living human being is
formed, and the killing of that living human is called murder.
Put another way, abortion is not justified, and is no less murder
because conception was as a result of rape, or as a result of incest, or
as a result of a mistake. Responsible human beings need to do all in
their power to protect themselves from the possibility of making a
mistake and from having an unwanted pregnancy. Having done all in
our power to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, if that conception takes
place, there is an automatic upgrade of the status quo by the addition
of a new life to the equation. Similarly, if the pregnancy results from
our carelessness or recklessness or from our mistake, we have no
viable option but to live with the consequences of our actions without
adding murder to the list.
Let us look at it from another perspective. We have established
that even more miraculous than the miracle of birth is the miracle of
conception when one single male cell and one single female cell
become one single human entity with a unique DNA pattern. The
question, is who made that child? We know that the male father and
female mother each contributed twenty-three chromosomes.
However, what does even the most educated medical practitioner
really know about making a child? After seven years of study, a bright
youngster becomes a general practitioner who knows very little about
the human body. Then he or she spends several more years of study
and even more years of practice to become an inexperienced
specialist in a very, very small area of medical practice. By the time
he or she becomes a consultant physician, he or she knows almost
91
everything about arguably no more than five percent of the intricacies

of the human anatomy. Even then, being able to repair a car is seen as
a very different discipline from being able to make that car. Similarly,
being able to repair a human being is a much different discipline from
being able to create one. So even if two consulting physicians came
together for the purpose of making a baby, their combined expertise
would possibly qualify them in no more than 10% of all the areas of
specialization necessary for the repairing of a baby, and significantly
less for actually making a baby. Now if two highly qualified medical
doctors do not have enough expertise to make a baby, how could we
even begin to think that two ordinary average people can make a
baby?
Therefore, if the parents cannot take credit for making this
unique, individual new human, then who can? And let us say that the
human body has been set on autopilot so as to ensure that if two
specific causes coincide at the right time, there is a sequence of built-
in consequences and reactions which instantly convert into a self-
sustaining chain reaction of causes and consequences that eventually
lead to the birth of a brand-new child. The critical question would still
be ‘who wrote the program?’ Any way you take it, the only plausible
answer is that it is God who makes babies... just like He made every
other creation.
I know I have taken the long route to arrive at this conclusion,
and for good reason. You see, if it is not the parents who make
children, then it does not matter who or what the parents are. And
what this means is that even in a case of rape or incest, it is not the
rapist father or incestuous parent that makes the child; it is God.
Therefore, since it is God who makes the child when a married man
and woman come together to make a baby, and it is God who makes
the child when a rapist abuses a woman’s body and impregnates her,
then neither of the conditions of impregnation make a difference,
since in both cases it is God who makes the baby. Neither rape nor
incest can therefore be pleaded as justifiable reason for murdering a
living human embryo or fetus.
History is replete with the stories of thousands of children who
92
have survived botched abortions. We also now have access to

information about children whose parents for reasons of rape, incest
and/or simple inconvenience wanted to abort them, but for some
reason did not go through with it. There is a growing number of
documented testimonies of ‘should-have-been’ aborted children who
have grown up to make a significant impact on the lives of large
numbers of people they have encountered. John Cox, who has served
as president of the Chicago Cook County Republican Party, is a CPA
and registered investment advisor, and unsuccessfully ran for
president of the United States in 2008. Allison Shoup, who was born
to a mentally handicapped mother, is today a prominent public
speaker in her field. Bethany Tessitore is a medical doctor and travels
internationally as she works with AIDS patients in African and other
continents. Rebecca Kiessling is an attorney-at-law and an avid
advocate of the unborn child. In this area Rebecca has featured in
several cases of national importance. Faith Daniels was the youngest
television anchor when she joined CBS at the age of twenty-seven.
Pam Stenzl is a Liberty University graduate, public speaker and
founder of Enlightened Communication, an organization committed
to the betterment of children and families in America and around the
world. Russell E. Saltzman is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran
Church in Kansas City, Missouri. He testified before the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education on September 14, 2000. All these people were
conceived by rape.4 Rainbow Coalition/PUSH founder Jesse Jackson
also acknowledges that his then teenage mother, was advised by her
doctor to abort him. Obviously, she did not and the rest is history.
How justifiable is the murder of the embryo or fetus because of
the predicted certainty of a deformity or disability of a newborn
baby? And what if that disability was diagnosed to be debilitating to
the child or even terminal? Are any of these real-life scenarios
justifiable grounds for murdering a living embryo or fetus? Put
4
http://www.atcmag.com/v9n3/article10.asp
http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html
http://www.pamstenzel.com/pamsbio.asp
www.rebeccakiessling.com
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,20109911,00.html
93
another away, can the claim that it is God who makes the baby be
compatible with the possibility that a perfect God can make an
imperfect baby and even a baby that will die from a birth deformity?
My good friend Dr. Alan Lindsey dismissed me with dispatch when I
shared with him that I would not want to write anything that would
allow the skeptic or even the genuine enquirer to ask any of these
questions. He referred me to a well-known passage of Scripture... and
I instantly concurred.
In the Gospel of John chapter 9 verses 1 to 3 we read;
Now as Jesus passed by, He saw a man who was blind
from birth. And His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Rabbi,
who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’
Jesus answered, ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but
that the works of God should be revealed in him.’
There you have it. God Himself takes full credit for the
occasional deformities with which children are born. Clearly we
would all prefer that our children are born perfectly healthy and 100%
normal, but God has the final say. Unfortunately, the instance
recorded in John 9:1-3 is not the only scenario that plays itself out in
real life. There are times when lifestyle choices made by one or both
of the immediate parents of a child, or even by the grandparents of the
child, can impact development in the womb. Substance abuse by
parents, and especially the mother, can impact the development of a
child. Personality traits and a host of other hereditary conditions
influence the development of a fetus. At the same time, there are
countless testimonies of normal births of children who by all medical
predictions were supposed to be born disabled because of any of the
factors previously mentioned. So here again we have a line-up of
situations. Some children can be born deformed through no
contributory fault of their parents. Other children can be born normal,
despite the contributory factors of their parents. Yet it is undeniable
that in the overwhelming number of cases, healthy normal parents
give birth to healthy normal babies. Clearly, the God who chose not to
directly create each baby the way He created the first humans, and the
God who chose to create children through the biological process with
94
which we are familiar also chose to allow humans both the privilege
and responsibility of controlling some of the factors and the
environment that could influence the birth of a child. Yet none of this
in any way dilutes the fact that it is ultimately God who creates a
child according to His good pleasure.
If therefore it is God who creates a deformed child, that child has
as much right to live for as long as God would permit as does the
child who is born normal. Abortion of a physically defective fetus is
therefore as much murder as is the abortion of a healthy, normal fetus.
Sometimes, even when humans decide that their babies are not worth
saving, God works wonders in the lives they tried to abort. Gianna
Jessen survived her mother’s attempt to abort her and suffered from
cerebral palsy as a result of the failed abortion. Gianna, who was
unable to walk until she was three years old, completed her first 26.2-
mile marathon in 2005, and completed the London Marathon the
following year.5
In attempting to relate to the whole concept of God’s role in the
creation of ‘defective’ babies, it would help to appreciate a few facts.
First, God has made provision for the miscarriage of a fetus, and this
has the same end result for the fetus as a successful abortion would.
The big difference is that a miscarriage is not murder, whereas
abortion is.
Secondly, history is replete with testimonies of children who
were born with disabilities and who provided great inspiration to the
world by rising above their disabilities and going on to make
unparalleled contributions to their fellow men and women. In
addition, even where a deformed child does not make it to
prominence on the world stage, it is extremely common for children
with birth disabilities to live very normal lives and share their
moment in the sun with their peers who were born without
disabilities. Children with disabilities do not show a higher tendency
for depression and or suicide than do normal children in cases where
both are loved and wanted by their parents.
Thirdly, it is a well-documented fact that children with
5
http://www.giannajessen.com/EPK/bio.html
95
deficiencies in one of their five senses often show increased capacity

in at least one of their other senses. It is therefore common for a blind
child to have an increased capacity to hear and even to feel.
Fourthly, God quite often uses the disability of a child to bring
special blessings to those who care for that child. All children enjoy
special protection from God. It was Jesus who in Mark 10:13-16 left
no doubt as to how He feels about children:
Then they brought little children to Him, that He might
touch them; but the disciples rebuked those who brought
them. But when Jesus saw it, He was greatly displeased and
said to them, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not
forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I
say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as
a little child will by no means enter it.” And He took them up
in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.
Finally, as in the discussion of so many other areas of God’s
interaction with man, it must be remembered that the time we spend
on this earth is but a smallest micro-fraction compared to the time we
will spend in eternity. Please feel free to join me in confessing that I
do not understand, nor can I properly explain, the concept of eternity.
Suffice it to say that eternity is trillions of times longer than the
longest time that you and I can imagine... and then some. Moreover,
when you think it is about to end, it has only just begun.
God is a righteous God and nothing misses Him. His justice is
pure and nothing escapes His attention. Therefore, if a child or an
adult is given a handicap to endure during his first few years spent on
earth, you can rest assured that God will more than adequately reward
him or her for a job well done in the rest of eternity. Does this mean
that I would want my child to be born deformed? No! Does this mean
that I will be ecstatically gratified if my child were born with a
disability? Definitely not! However, it does mean that I can relax in
the knowledge that God is ultimately in control, and that He knows
all and sees all, and that He is the righteous judge of all. With this
knowledge and assurance, I can more easily accept the fact contained
in Romans 8:28:
96
And we know that in all things God works for the good of
those who love him, who have been called according to his
purpose.
Abortion to Save a Mother’s Life
Although I have not seen a Scriptural reference or direct support
for this, there are some who say they believe that God might make an
exception in cases where it literally comes down to a choice between
the life of the parent and the life of the child. Fortunately, I can only
speak for God after God has spoken to me through His Word first and
then through His Holy Spirit, reinforcing His Word. Nevertheless, I
concede that I understand the point that abortionists are trying to
make at this stage. Let me help them out. In a crude extrapolation, if
the continued carriage of a fetus threatens the life of a mother, then it
appears she can enter a plea of self-defense if she kills what is clearly
about to kill her. Even then, antiabortionists could claim that since
killing is wrong on the one hand, and on the other hand being killed is
not necessarily wrong, it may be better to err on the side of refraining
from abortion, even if the price to be paid is your likely death.
Now, having set up that straw tiger, it is time for me to destroy it.
I have good news for my brothers and sisters who are against abortion
except when it is necessary to save the mother’s life. The good news
is that even in an attempt to save the mother’s life, there is no need
for an abortion. Professional medical doctors all over the world in an
effort to save the mother’s life are often forced to deliver a child
before full term in an act referred to as ‘termination of pregnancy’. In
this procedure, the intention is that the baby should come out of its
mother’s womb alive and every medically known and available effort
is made to keep the child alive. Sometimes the baby lives, but
sometimes unfortunately the baby dies. Regrettably, many
dictionaries fail too make this distinction and as a result they
misleadingly use the terms ‘termination of pregnancy’ and ‘abortion’
synonymously.
The meaning of the word ‘abort’ is to bring something to a
premature end. ‘Abort’ means to stop something before the planned
or expected time. In the context of the birth of a human being, an
97
abortion would be the premature, deliberate stopping of the normal

development of the fetus prior to the average time of forty weeks.
There are two components to the concept of ‘abortion’ as we use the
word. The first is the ‘premature’, early stopping of the development
of the fetus in the womb. However, there is something else that is
very insidious. When we talk about ‘abortion’, we are in fact talking
about ‘killing’ the living fetus in the mother’s womb so that what is
expelled is something dead. Hence this is done by use of a variety of
poisons and other chemicals, as well as the use of a variety of
instruments which are used to murder the unborn child. The
abortionist murderers are at their best when they make use of ‘partial
birth abortion’ techniques. Here is how Stefanie B. N. Dugan, M.S.,
contributor to Answers.com, describes partial birth abortion:
Intact D&X, or partial birth abortion first involves
administration of medications to cause the cervix to dilate,
usually over the course of several days. Next, the physician
rotates the fetus to a footling breech position. The body of the
fetus is then drawn out of the uterus feet first, until only the
head remains inside the uterus. Then, the physician uses an
instrument to puncture the base of the skull, which collapses
the fetal head. Typically, the contents of the fetal head are
then partially suctioned out, which results in the death of the
fetus, and reduces the sizes of the fetal head enough to allow
it to pass through the cervix. The dead and otherwise intact
fetus is then removed from the woman’s body.
As gruesome and as uncivilized as this may sound, for several
years it was a legal procedure in the world’s leading democracy – the
United States of America. In 2003, President Bush signed a ban on
partial birth abortion, only to have the new law declared
unconstitutional by several state judiciaries. Fortunately for the USA,
President Bush has been able to place his conservative stamp on the
Supreme Court by appointing the incumbent Supreme Court Chief
Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito. Accordingly, Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales took the matter to the Supreme Court in
2006 and on April 18, 2007 by a majority of six to three, partial birth
abortions were banned throughout the USA except in cases where it is
98
necessary to save the mother’s life.

However, is it ever necessary to perform a partial birth abortion
to save a mother’s life? The partial birth abortion process is
significantly complicated as it first requires the rotating of the fetus
into an abnormal position so that the living child can be pulled out of
its mother’s womb feet first before it is murdered by the doctor. Why
would a doctor want to go to all that trouble just to ensure that the
child is born dead when he could have terminated the pregnancy by
delivering the baby with at least a very good chance of survival of the
newborn? Partial birth abortion, regardless of what the law says, is
still unjustifiable murder.
Thank God there is still a very strong witness in the United States
of America. Let me share with you the declaration of nearly 500
medical doctors licensed to practice in the USA. With a signed copy
of their statement registered at American Life League in Stafford,
Virginia, this is what 480 doctors as at August 2007 had to say:
I [we] agree that there is never a situation in the law or in
the ethical practice of medicine where a pre-born child’s life
need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the
purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do
everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients,
mother and child. He must never intend the death of either.
If these 480 doctors are right, then 100% of abortions are
unjustified and therefore constitute murder. Is it a contradiction for
the world’s leading nation to legally sanction murder of multiple
millions of the most helpless humans possible on the one hand, and
on the other hand send people to the electric chair or gas chamber
when they murder people who could have defended themselves if
given the opportunity?
Roe v. Wade Reconsidered
Having clearly established the Bible’s perspective on abortion,
there are at least three undeniable facts associated with Roe v. Wade.
The last of the three must be credited more to the unflinching work of
antiabortion groups, including the church, than it can be credited to
99
Roe v. Wade.
Firstly, according to the pro-abortionist, Alan Guttmacher
Institute, Trends in Abortion in the United States, 1973-2000, January
2003, the number of deaths from abortion has declined dramatically
since Roe v. Wade.
Secondly, a greater proportion of women who have an abortion
have done so early in pregnancy. Thirdly, on January 15, 2003 the
following statement appeared in a nationwide press release:
The U.S. abortion rate continues to decline and is now at
the lowest level since 1974 – 21.3 abortions per 1,000
women aged 15-44 in 2000 – according to new research from
the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). The abortion rate
peaked in 1980 and 1981 at 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women.
In 2000, a total of 1.31 million pregnancies ended in
abortion, down from a high of 1.61 million in 1990.
Let Sleeping Roe v. Wade Lie
Therefore, as unpalatable as this may be to the conservative right,
could it be that in the year 2008, although ‘unlawful’, it may be
‘expedient’ to let ‘sleeping Roe v. Wade’ lie? Nevertheless, a
recommended ‘standoff’ approach to Roe v. Wade must not in any
way imply a standoff approach to the sin of murder by abortion. A
proactive church and indeed a proactive American community must
continue to provide alternatives to abortion. Abstinence must be
taught as a privilege and not as a punishment… a right, and not a
responsibility. The sanctity of life must be reinforced by an enhanced
appreciation of a high quality of life. Parenthood must be planned,
and the use of contraceptives within the Biblically permissible
framework of sexual activity must at least be seriously considered by
all – including the Pope, as far as his pronouncements for the Catholic
community are concerned. Moreover, since some women will
deliberately or accidentally get pregnant and then discover that they
are either unwilling or unable to care for their child, the church and
antiabortionists must consciously increase the nation’s capacity to
facilitate adoptions. When the Christian Church fully understands the
100
true significance of adoption, and that our relationship with God is

based entirely on our having been adopted, then we would be far
more willing to open our homes and our lives to babies who
otherwise may have been murdered by their parents and their medical
accomplices.
In 2008 there is good news. Despite Roe v. Wade, American
sentiment is slowly turning towards pro-life and away from abortion.
In his LifeNews.com paper, Steven Ertelt writes on May 30, 2008:
A new Gallup poll finds just 28 percent of Americans take
a pro-abortion position on the question of when abortions
should be allowed. Another 71 percent of Americans either
want all abortions to be illegal or want them limited to
certain rare circumstances.
Sixteen months earlier, a January 2007 CBS News poll found a
majority of Americans want to prohibit abortions in all or most cases
or want greater restrictions on abortions. The poll results are
consistent with the results from 2006, when more than half of those
polled wanted to make abortion illegal all or most of the time. If the
trend continues, ‘Roe’ may have to go.
“Roe Must Go!”
It is of very great interest that the ‘guinea pig’ used in Roe v.
Wade, Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, has for several years been
heading a Texas-based Christian ministry called ‘Roe No More’. In an
interview with WorldNet Daily in 2001, Norma McCorvey stated that
her ministry strives to network pro-life speakers throughout the nation
in order to provide a base of educational and informational speakers
and presenters for organizations who wish to promote the sanctity of
human life and the message of love and forgiveness. Interestingly
enough, McCorvey, who has given birth to three out of three children,
claims that at the age of twenty-one, and with her third child on the
way without a husband to lean on, she was a readymade ‘Patsy’ for
her attorney Sarah Weddington. Weddington, fresh out of law school
and anxious to make a name for herself, recognized Norma
McCorvey as the perfect pawn for what proved to be her successful
101
attempt to make a name for herself. Little did Norma McCorvey

know at that time that Weddington herself had already aborted her
child and was in search of a pro-abortion platform. McCorvey claims
that Weddington told her she knew where she could get an abortion,
but she needed McCorvey to be pregnant throughout the trial.
McCorvey gave birth to a healthy child before the trial was finally
over. It was not until after McCorvey gave her life to Jesus Christ in
1995 that she came to understand that abortion is the deliberate
murder of an unborn child. Today, she wishes that she could reverse
the decision which was in part built on her own confessed lie about
having been raped. McCorvey has even made an attempt to do so
through the Texas court, but to date she has failed.
Whether Roe v. Wade goes or stays, abortion will remain murder.
If the Government of the United States of America and the people of
America are content to be guilty of having legislated murder, then
that must be a conscious decision and not one that can be protected by
the claim that they did not understand what they were doing. Yet we
have seen that prohibition of abortion has been as successful as the
surgeon general’s warning on every box of cigarettes. People still
smoke anyway... many medical doctors smoke, and I would not be
surprised if a surgeon general were a smoker. Furthermore, we know
from experience that when abortion was illegal, women still aborted
their children. Therefore, once again, making abortion illegal cannot
be relied on to discourage the practice of abortion, especially after so
many medical personnel now make a living from murdering innocent,
helpless babies. However, Christian witness and practice, working
alongside committed pro-life activists of whatever persuasion, have
showed remarkable success in achieving its objectives. The truth is
that the greatest enemy of darkness is light. Jesus Christ is the light
of this world and Christians are His ambassadors and
representatives. We must therefore let our lights so shine among
men that they will see our good works and glorify our father who is
in heaven.
And, by the way, abortion as we know it today is not the logical
end of the line. If it is legal today to kill a child that has been alive
for approximately forty weeks, why should it not be legal for the
102
government to legalize the murder of a two-year-old child who

doctors say cannot live a viable, independent life? Sorry... I almost
forgot... and why should we not murder the old people who have
become a socioeconomic drain on the nation’s budget? Then of
course, having legalized murder at both ends of the spectrum,
perhaps we could legalize killing people at any age if some medical
doctors conclude that their life is not viable, and that they are
incapable of independent living! And before you think that I am just
going overboard, take a look at the changing face of euthanasia,
which is described in Answers.com as: “The act or practice of
ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or
an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of
extraordinary medical treatment.”
According to The Groningen Protocol – Euthanasia in Severely
Ill Newborns, a paper by Dr. Eduard Verhagen and Dr. Pieter J.J.
Sauer in the New England Journal of Medicine’s March 2005
edition:
Of the 200,000 children born in the Netherlands every
year, about 1000 die during the first year of life. For
approximately 600 of these infants, death is preceded by a
medical decision regarding the end of life... In the
Netherlands, euthanasia for competent persons older than
16 years of age has been legally accepted since 1985. The
question under consideration now is whether deliberate life-
ending procedures are also acceptable for newborns and
infants, despite the fact that these patients cannot express
their own will.
The dark cloud of murder by abortion in the USA will recede as
Jesus Christ, the light of the world, is allowed to shine, not only
through the lives of individual Christians and Christian institutions,
but also from the elevated heights of the public square.
103
Separation of Church & State in Perspective!
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER SIX
America’s Christian Heritage
E very group of people and every nation has a history, and

consequently a heritage. There is no need to debate the fact that
America has a heritage. In the 21st century, the question surrounds the
nature of America’s heritage. The overwhelming available evidence
leaves us with no doubt that the verdict is clear – America’s heritage
is Christian.
Not only is America’s heritage Christian, but America has been
the most bullish nation on earth in the area of exporting her Christian
values. No country on earth has sponsored more Christian
missionaries to the rest of the world than has the United States of
America. Christopher Columbus’ prophecy has come true over and
over again through the missionary activities of Americans.
How then could a country whose roots have been so deeply
entrenched in the Christian faith even facilitate talk about not being
Christian? The answer is simple. The Devil has perverted a strong
point in the Constitution of the United States of America into a
pathetic excuse for a subtly heretical doctrine of separation of church
and state as interpreted by the Supreme Court of America in the last
sixty years, and foisted on the people of America by a combination of
radical, demonic activism and their own spiritual lethargy.
‘Separation of church and state’ has become a legal and political
principle derived from the Constitution of the United States of
America. In the First Amendment we find the words: “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof….” Contrary to the belief of some, the
104
phrase ‘separation of church and state’ does not appear in the

Constitution. However, it is usually attributed to President Thomas
Jefferson, who wrote a pivotal letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
In this letter, Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the
Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment. It has since been used and, of course, interpreted and
misinterpreted by the Supreme Court of America in many of its
decisions. In a later chapter, I shall fully deal with Jefferson’s ‘Wall’,
and with what the constitutional concept means for America. But for
now, let us take the words at contemporary face value and examine a
few concepts that emanate from those words, and especially as it
relates to the Church of Jesus Christ.
There has been great confusion in the United States of America
about the relationship between church and state. Heading the list of
the confused is the Supreme Court members of the second half of the
last century, and some of those surviving to the present. Fueling their
confusion is the division that exists among the people as a whole.
Unfortunately, within the very ‘church’ whose relationship with the
state is being debated, there are major differences of opinion.
Perspective Influences Perception
The further back you step, the greater your angle of vision
becomes. The further back you step, the more you can see, and the
more you can see, the greater will be your appreciation for inter-
relationships.
As to be expected, the views held by different interest groups are
determined by their interests. This is far from a compliment. It is
one’s views that ought to determine one’s interests and not the other
way around. However, the ‘is-ought’ syndrome has been with us for a
long time and will survive most debates, and therefore warrants us
offering at least equal attention to both considerations. For the time
being, we will accept the fact that views are too frequently formed by
associations and interests.
Depth of Perspective
Although they always contain a modicum of truth, views formed
105
in the absence of an adequate depth of perspective usually produce

conclusions that are skewed and distorted. Let us think of something
that we can easily experience. If you blindfold someone and take
them to within two inches of the exterior of a wooden building, when
you remove the blindfold and require that they look directly in front
of them, all they can tell you is that they are standing in front of a
piece of board, and they may be able to accurately guess the color the
wood is painted. They would be able to enjoy limited perception of
about twelve inches in each direction. That very narrow area of less
than four square feet would be the extent of the subject matter on
which they can comment, and even then with very little authority.
However, as the person steps away from the building, they are
able to see increasingly greater distances in each direction for each
incremental backward step they take.
The experience would be that as the person steps backward, they
can see more and more of the same truth of which they saw so little of
initially. Hence, the board remains a board, but now it can be
appreciated in relationship to other boards, and very soon the
description shifts from that of a ‘board’ to that of a ‘wall’. As you step
even further back, the wall comes into perspective and the description
shifts from that of a ‘wall’ to that of a ‘house’. Further backward steps
cause the definition to change from that of a ‘house’ to that of a
community of houses.
One may switch the analogy while maintaining the concept and
venture an opinion that only astronauts can really claim to have seen
the ‘world’, and that is only if you define the world to be the planet
Earth. The rest of us may have just seen a few places on Earth.
However, because we have not been far enough removed from the
focal point, we have been limited to ‘worm’s eye’ views, and at the
same time have deprived ourselves of the ‘bird’s eye’ view. Here is
the application.
Church & State Separation in Perspective
A discussion on the relationship and or the inter-relationship
between church and state will never yield good results if spawned
106
from the narrow perspective of the church. When spawned from the
even narrower perspective of a sect of the church, the disaster is even
more devastating.
Similarly, when spawned from the narrow perspective of the
state, the disaster is catastrophic. This is so regardless of the
‘department’ of the state from which you view the subject. When
viewed from the perspective of the state, all that you are likely to
really appreciate is the state’s perspective, and depending on your
level of intimacy with the state, your view is likely to be even more
restricted. Similarly, when viewed from the perspective of the church,
all that you are likely to really appreciate is the church’s perspective,
and depending on your level of intimacy with the church, your view
is likely to be even more restricted.
What is necessary is for you to take a step backward…then
another, and yet another. Eventually, as you step backward, more of
the church’s view and more of the state’s view will be brought into
perspective. The trick lies in not stopping those backward steps until
you can see all of the church’s views and all of the state’s views in
your field of vision. To be even more specific, step backward until
you can see all the views of both the Church and the State at the same
time in your perspective.
Now pardon a less than ‘academic’ stretch of the analogy and be
advised that at this moment I seek not to associate God with any
single physical geographical location, whether absolute or relative.
For communication purposes, all I am doing is borrowing the general
concept that God is in heaven ‘above’. Permission having been
granted, I shall now proceed with my analogy.
As you step back, you will find that your perspective of the
problem increases on three sides. It increases to the left and to the
right, and again, I do not seek to ascribe any significance to placing
either the state or the church in either the left or right wing of the field
of vision.
The third direction in which your field of vision will be extended
is upwards. Therefore, you end up with a very familiar scenario in
107
any organizational management structure, sometimes called a

‘pyramid’, in which the apex is constricted and the base expanded. So
that our chairman of the board or the managing director of the
company would be at the top, and under him or her would be at least
two equals, usually deputy managers or vice presidents.
Frequently true to any meaningful management structure is the
fact that under one ultimate head or authority are at least two deputies
who have responsibilities for distinct areas of the company’s
operations. Equally true is that there is a clear ‘separation’ of
responsibilities, duties, and areas of accountability. Vice president #1
is not expected or allowed to meddle in matters that come under the
jurisdiction of vice president #2. In the case of a group of companies,
the presidents of the individual entities would fall under the group
chairman. Even more clearly, there is a compete ‘separation’ between
the administration of the respective companies. But equally true of
the corporate organizational structure is the fact that the ‘equals’ at
the #2 level of the organizational structure who operate
‘independently’ of each other, are both accountable to the #1 person.
Finally, though operating independently. There is a mutual
interdependence because of an ultimate commonality of interest.
Overseeing that interest is the purview of the person in the chairman
or president’ s seat. Because of this mutual interest, co-operation is
required for the common good. Let us now make the application.
As perspective improves, we are able to get a clear picture of the
inter-relationship between the state on the left, the church on the right
and God above. So, what is that relationship? That is the easy part –
God is the chairman and under Him are his two ‘deputies’. One has
responsibility for the state and the other has responsibility for the
church. The state ‘deputy’ does not have responsibility for the church
and the church ‘deputy’ does not have responsibility for the state.
However, they are both working under the same chairman and their
activities are expected to complement each other as together they
work for the same country. So between them is interaction, but only
within a clearly defined jurisdiction. However, perhaps what is most
significant is that they are guaranteed to complement each other and
not impede each other because they both come under the authority of
108
the chairman, i.e. God!

There is more to say about this interesting and dynamic
relationship, but first, let us establish the validation for what will be
considered by many to be either simplistic and churlish on the one
hand or revolutionary on the other.
God – Head of the Church
I do not believe there will be much difficulty in accepting that
God, and specifically God the Son, Jesus Christ, is the established
head of the church. In Ephesians 1:22-23 (NIV), the Apostle Paul tells
us of Jesus:
“And God placed all things under his feet and appointed
him to be head over everything for the church, which is his
body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
He is head because he redeems the Church with His blood which
was shed on Calvary.
He is head because He has redeemed the church when He not
only died to pay the penalty for the sins of those who would believe
in Him, but also in so doing He satisfied the just demands of a
righteous God, His heavenly Father.
He is head because at the time of his resurrection, He resurrected
many of the saints who died before He died, and soon after took them
to heaven, and presented them to His Father as the first fruits of His
work on Calvary.
He is head because He ‘recruits’ the members of the church and
is intimately involved in drawing men and women to Himself in
repentance. He is head because He represents the church to His Father
and presents His righteousness as the basis for God’s acceptance of
the church.
He is the head because He will resurrect those of the church who
have died before His ‘second’ coming. He is the head because one
day He will rapture the church, at which time “the dead in Christ will
rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” (1Thes
109
4:16-17)
He is head because after that He will return, triumphantly leading
His church for the final showdown that will mark the end of the ages.
Finally, He is head because He will reward His church with the
ultimate privilege of spending all eternity with Him. And because this
is not a sectarian or denominational work, I beg of you not to cause
any possible disagreement with the details of my theology to cloud
the issue. Jesus Christ is head of the church.
Identifying the Church
Out of an abundance of caution, I must emphasize that we are not
talking about any particular denomination or Christian sect. Neither
are we necessarily talking about all the people that attend a particular
church with born-again believers and practicing Christians. We are
talking about the total of men and women throughout the ages, out of
every race and nationality who consciously have confessed their sins
and sinful nature to Jesus Christ. These men and women have asked
His forgiveness based on His redemptive death on the cross of
Calvary and His glorious, triumphant resurrection. They have
declared their desire to make Him Lord of their lives, through His
grace.
Hopefully, these people will be represented in every physical,
local ‘church’ that is situated in a specific geographic location. I
believe it will include a small number of people who are identified
with no physical, local church. If this creates a problem with
identifying the Church of Jesus Christ, that is quite all right. The one
to whom the church belongs has absolutely no problem identifying
His church. He tells us that “not everyone who says to Him, ‘Lord,
Lord…’ shall be numbered in His church. He says that there are even
some who “cast out demons and performed miracles” in His name
who will not be identified in His church. Matthew 7:20-22
Can I be honest? That scares the hell out of me, and it is good
that it does. That concern must govern my life and affect and
influence my actions. It must cause me to search my motives and
make sure that everything I do lines up with the over-arching will of
110
God.
However, God has no difficulty recognizing His church. The
Bible tells us in 2 Timothy 2:19 (NIV), “Nevertheless, God’s solid
foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: ‘The Lord knows
those who are his,’” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the
Lord must turn away from wickedness.”
Are you concerned about whether or not God considers you to be
part of His church? Without further delay, confess your sin to Him,
ask Him to forgive you of your sin and ask Him to write your name
down in the Lamb’s book of life. Bear in mind the fact that it is His
will that you should not perish. Find a local church that preaches
repentance, salvation and new birth in Jesus Christ and speak with
one of the leaders. Or if you wish, just write to me at
PutHimBackAmerica@gmail.com, and I will be happy to help you
find the peace that comes only from knowing Jesus Christ as your
personal Lord and Savior.
God – Head of the State
Now that we have dealt with God being head of the church, let us
examine the claim that He is also head of the state. In a very literal
sense, as creator of the universe, God is in charge of all things. No
sensible, rational person will deny that, and especially while being
traumatized by a tornado, earthquake or hurricane. Usually, even in
the movies, the first utterances usually have the word ‘God’
somewhere in them.
In Christian circles, we talk about the sovereignty of God. To
understand that concept, just think of a sovereign ruler. Don’t think of
the president of the United States of America. He is not sovereign. All
it takes to push him around and frustrate his plans are five Supreme
Court justices. Sometimes we wish that some presidents were
sovereign, and at other times we are glad that they are not. Just think
of the old kings of England who were genuine monarchs. They ruled
absolutely and did whatever they pleased. In the power of their
tongue and in one of their seemingly insignificant gestures was the
power of life and death. No one dared argue against their wish. Now
111
just multiply that kind of absolute authority by say a million times,

and you begin to get close to the meaning of the sovereignty of God.
Unlike the kings of old, the very wind and the waves obey the
command of the sovereign God of the universe. Therefore, from this
perspective, it seems like a no-brainer to say that God is the head of
the state. However, it really is a lot more than that.
Christians Must Submit
Through His revealed Word, He has thought it appropriate to
address the relationship of church and state very specifically, and
guess what… the state would love to hear what God has to say on the
subject. Every president, every governor, every king and every prime
minister would love to find a formula that results in all his citizens
becoming obedient, law-abiding, co-operative and tax-compliant.
That I believe would be their definition of Utopia. Well, let us see
what God says to His church.
The NIV translation of the Apostle Paul’s letter to the church at
Rome in Romans chapter 13:1-7 (NIV) reads as follows:
Everyone must submit himself to the governing
authorities, for there is no authority except that which God
has established. The authorities that exist have been
established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the
authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and
those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For
rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who
do wrong.
Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority?
Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is
God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid,
for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s
servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the
wrongdoer.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not
only because of possible punishment but also because of
conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the
112
authorities are God’s servants who give their full time to

governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe
taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then
respect; if honor, then honor.”
Every President’s Dream
Wow! Come to think of it, this Christian life is not so bad after
all! Every president of the United States of America should spend
quality time on his knees every day asking God to cause more and
more Americans to be converted, and then to aggressively practice the
Christian lifestyle on a daily basis. Let us review the benefits that the
state enjoys when God’s formula and commands are followed.
First, every member of the Church of Jesus Christ must submit to
the governing authorities. Submission does not refer to a servile
prostration of oneself before our leaders or bowing to them in
worship. Neither does it reflect an attitude in which you helplessly
resign yourself to whatever the leader chooses to do or say without
reference to the Word of God.
What it does mean is that every Christian must consciously
recognize that the leader is a part of God’s system of order, and that
regardless of the mechanics of whether you voted for him or not, his
appointment automatically falls under the ambit of the sovereignty of
God. His life and the very air he breathes are in God’s hands, and he
would have no existence outside of God.
It is therefore not a submission of the heart flowing from a love
and a personal support of his policies and management style, rather it
is a submission that flows from an acknowledgment that the office he
holds is held in trust as the servant of God, and he must therefore be
accountable to God. Put another way, it is as a direct result of our
obedience to God that we must submit to our civic leaders.
Obey God Rather than Man
However, this is not the only scripture that deals with the subject
of Christian obedience to civic leaders. There are other scriptures that
clearly teach that in a toss-up between obedience to God and
obedience to man, the Christian must obey God. Acts 5:25-29 (NIV)
113
clearly shows how the Apostle Peter handled a situation in which his
orders from God conflicted with those of the state.
Then someone came and said, ‘Look! The men you put in
jail are standing in the temple courts teaching the people.’ At
that, the captain went with his officers and brought the
apostles. They did not use force, because they feared that the
people would stone them. Having brought the apostles, they
made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by
the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this
name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your
teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s
blood.’ Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey
God rather than men!’
We all know how Daniel was set up by his enemies who
inveigled the king to pass a law that would conflict with his habitual
form of worship to Almighty God. Daniel had a choice and made it.
He chose to obey God rather than the state. He was thrown into the
lion’s den. God came through for him immediately and shut the lion’s
mouth.
Conditional Obedience
A refinement of the teaching therefore requires the Christian
member of the Church of Jesus Christ to consciously submit to the
civic leaders of his country in direct obedience to God, on condition
that the demands of his civic leaders are not in direct conflict with the
demands of God. Unfortunately for the civic leaders, this beautiful
Utopian doctrine of Christian submission comes with a caveat. The
facts are simple – the civic leaders ought to be operating under the
instructions of God. Once this is the case, then the Christian member
of the Church of Jesus Christ would have absolutely no reason to
disobey because all the rules and judgments would be in line with the
Word of God. Therefore a civic leader who recognizes the ultimate
authority of God is entitled by God to have submissive Christian
citizens. However, there is more.
Christians Must Obey the Law
114
The Christian leader is also entitled to have law-abiding Christian

citizens who do what is right and who refrain from doing evil. What a
wonderful thing then if every citizen were a Christian! Less money
could be spent on the police force and on the prison system and more
could be spent on social services. And God makes things easier for
the civic leaders by telling the Christian that the civic leader are not
only appointed by God, but that they are authorized to punish the
Christian on behalf of God if the Christian steps out of line…
Wowww! This is beginning to sound to me like a greater degree of
interaction between church and state than appeared obvious initially.
However, there is more.
God tells His church that every member should be tax-compliant.
Again, the command in this scripture appears to be unconditional and
could easily be misconstrued to resemble a ‘cart blanche’ permission
by the state to charge whatever taxes it pleases, squander it as it
wishes, and then expect the Christian to obediently pay it without
protest. However, when this scripture is combined with all other
relevant scriptures, it becomes clear that the civic leaders have a
responsibility to rule in righteousness and with equity. In establishing
the relationship between themselves and their citizens, they must
consider the relationship between themselves and God. That done, a
happy balance will be struck, and Christian citizens and their civic
leaders will live in harmony under the over-arching rule of God. The
Apostle Paul concludes by saying: “This is also why you pay taxes,
for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to
governing.” Romans 13:6And implicit in ‘governing’ is governing
‘well’, or at least to the best of their ability.
State Servants of God
It cannot be any clearer. Not only do our civic leaders fall under
the general sovereignty of God, as does every living creature and
inanimate object, but God has specifically identified them for special
mention. God has described them as His servants to do His will, and
consistent with that fact, He has warned his Church to submit to, and
obey, the civic leaders.
You will recall from earlier in the book that there was once a
115
state leader by the name of Nebuchadnezzar, who, being as successful

and as powerful as he was, became a little bit confused and forgot
who was actually in control. The result was that God took his
kingdom away from him and caused him to eat grass like an ass for as
long as it took for him to get his perspective right. The Bible tells us
that at the end of that period, sure enough, Nebuchadnezzar adjusted
his focus, saw things clearly and decreed that God alone is God.
God Appoints and Dis-appoints
However, there is one final backward step that must be taken to
bring the entire picture into perspective, and this is it. In His dealings
with the children of Israel, on several occasions God made it clear
that it was He who appointed and dis-appointed rulers.
God, as the chairman and as the head of both the church and the
state, delegates His authority to human leaders who we call heads of
the church and the state. There is a clear separation between the duties
and the responsibilities of these two sets of men. Neither is
accountable to each other, but both are accountable to God. Leaders
are relatively few when compared to the millions of citizens that they
govern. These citizens, many of whom are Christians, ought to be
guided by the standards that God sets down for Christians, but that
are in fact applicable to all citizens.
Does God Expose Christians to Victimization?
Did it occur to you that in telling the Christian citizen to submit
to the civic leader, and in warning the Christian that failing to submit
will expose him to punishment by the civic leaders, God is creating a
picture that is simply just not complete in this scripture? This picture,
based on this scripture alone, is telling us that the Christian citizen is
at a disadvantage because even if the civic leaders makes an
unrighteous law, the Christian will be exposed to forced compliance
on pain of punishment. The Christian will therefore have to choose
between obeying an unrighteous law that offends and conflicts with
the law of God on the one hand, and disobeying the unrighteous law
and being punished and tortured for righteousness sake on the other.
Add to that the fact that when there is a conflict, God expects the
116
Christian to obey Him rather than man, then it is clear that God is
exposing the Christian member of the Church of Jesus Christ to
torture at the hands of an unrighteousness leader whose legitimacy
appears to be sanctioned by God.
In another context, but an equally controversial doctrine, the
Apostle Paul in addressing slaves never advises them to run away or
rebel against their masters. But this is what he does say in Ephesians
6:5-9 (NIV):
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear,
and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is
on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from
your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the
Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward
everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or
free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not
threaten them, since you know that he who is both their
Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with
him.
Did you catch the main point? It came right in the last sentence
of the last verse: “He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven,
and there is no favoritism with him.” And so this leads us to the final
piece of the puzzle necessary to complete the picture.
God is Judge of All
God is not only head of the church and head of the state, but he is
also the judge of civic leaders, church leaders, and of all citizens,
Christian and unsaved. It is in His role as supreme judge of all
mankind that He will have the final say.
Referring to Jesus, the Apostle Paul writes to the Christians at
Philippi in Philippians 2:9-11:
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given
Him the name which is above every name, that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of
117
those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory
of God the Father.
And in Revelation 20:12-15 John the Revelator writes:
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God,
and books were opened. And another book was opened,
which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged
according to their works, by the things which were written in
the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and
Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them.
And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is
the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book
of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
God’s Perspective and Ours
Unfortunately, God sees things much differently from the way we
do – and if it is any small consolation, I am on your side on this point
and not on God’s side. We count a year as 365 days with an extra day
thrown in for good measure every fourth year. These days are divided
into subjectively long or short periods of twenty-four hours, and these
hours are further subdivided into minutes and seconds. We believe,
understand and expect that punishment or reward takes place very
soon after the act that warrants either. However, with God things are a
little different; and if the truth be told, much, much different.
With God, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years
are like a day. God said He would deliver the children of Israel from
the hands of the Egyptians. Yet He left the children of Israel suffering
in Egypt for the better part of 400 years. He was faithful to His word
and He did deliver them. However, by that time many hundreds of
thousands had died. For those who died before God brought
deliverance, God would have been perceived by them to have failed.
Yet He did not fail and He certainly did not lie.
In the same way, God says that the ways of the unrighteous man
shall not prosper, and we look at the expensive cars he drives and the
118
huge mansions in which he and his concubines live, and we conclude

that God has failed to live up to His word. Yet He has not.
The problem for us is that when God says He will do something,
He does not always tell us precisely when. However, in defense of
God – if I may be ambitiously zealous enough to attempt such an
undertaking – He has the whole world and all of history in perfect
perspective. He knows that the time that we spend on this earth, in
pain or in pleasure, in want or in plenty, in sickness or in health, in
poverty or in wealth is but a minuscule, insignificant, micro-fraction
of the total time we will spend in eternity.
What to me seems to be a ‘problem’ with God is that He has all
the time in the world, and I don’t. It is therefore a source of immense
consolation to know that my time is in His hands.
Reward and Punishment Guaranteed
God sees our beginning and He knows that we have no end. He
identifies us as being the same for a billion, trillion, quadrillion,
sextillion, septillion, octillion years, and pardon me, but that is as
close as I can get to eternity. So when He says the righteous shall
prosper, it is quite possible that during our less than hundred years on
earth the righteous may not appear to prosper. But rest assured that
for the remaining 99.9999999999999999999999% of our eternal life,
we shall prosper.
The same thing applies to the unrighteous man in reverse. He
may appear to prosper here on earth, but for the rest of his eternity, he
shall suffer. Fortunately, God also reserves the right to allow the
righteous to prosper here and now as well as throughout all eternity.
And yes, like you, that would be my distinct preference.
Church – Separate from State?
Whenever a debate rages with no end in sight, chances are that
both sides of the debate are in possession of a part of the truth. The
problem with this position is that the components of truth only
become truth when they are all combined and in the proper
relationship to each other. There is no such thing as a ‘half-truth’. Our
judicial system gets it right whenever it requires all witnesses to
119
subscribe to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Failing to accept the Word of God in its entirety is one sure formula
for encouraging error.
As it relates to the separation of church and state debate, could it
be that the Bible teaches an ‘involvist/separatist’ philosophy? So
much for the hint, and please, don’t go jumping to conclusions before
my train of thought comes to a complete stop. I would hate to see you
hurt yourself.
Let us look at the words of Jesus as recorded in John 15:12-20
(NIV):
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.
Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for
his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I
no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know
his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for
everything that I learned from my Father I have made known
to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed
you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father
will give you whatever you ask in my name.
This is my command: Love each other. If the world hates
you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to
the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not
belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.
That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I
spoke to you: ‘No servant is greater than his master.’ If they
persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed
my teaching, they will obey yours also.
Love Each Other
Watch out for the key concepts that we just read in the last
section of the quote. The first is ‘love each other’. Love is the
singular greatest non-physical power on the face of the earth. And
although it is not physical in the sense of being able to see it or touch
it or smell it, it is possible to experience its manifestation with all our
senses. One may similarly say that atomic energy fits into a similar
120
category. You can’t see it, or touch it or smell it, but no one denies its
manifestations.
Suffice to say that the command of Jesus to love each other in
this context sets the stage for a highly ‘separationist’ relationship.
Jesus is in fact saying that birds of a feather better flock together. He
is saying that you are not going to get love from outside, so you better
get with the program and get it and give it from inside. He is saying
that you are a special, highly visible, highly controversial people who
follow the most controversial leader of all time. So become self-
sufficient and use the resources that He have given you to be a self-
sufficient, self-sustaining and self-propagating community that
stretches across all peoples and all nations and all tribes and all
languages, and that is united and bound into an indissoluble whole by
your relationship with Him – Jesus.
Expect to be Hated
The second point emanates from the first. Jesus is saying that the
world hated Him and still hates Him. That being the case, it is only
logical to expect that the world will hate followers and Disciples of
Christ. So do not be surprised to be disliked. On the contrary, it is that
very ‘hate’ that you should expect from the world that will help to
bond you into a strong operational entity called the Church of Jesus
Christ. Again, the hatred that the world is very likely to have for you
automatically separates you from the world. So once again, it would
seem that Jesus had a very clear concept of the separatist nature of the
Church of Jesus Christ.
Christians Don’t Belong to this World
In the third statement, Jesus makes a very simple and easy to
understand point. “If you belonged to the world, it would love you as
its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen
you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.”
There you have it…a no-brainer if ever there was one. And
perhaps of the three statements looked at so far, this one is by far the
most blatantly obviously separatist. It is from this and related
scriptures that we derive the maxim that states that the Christian is ‘in
121
the world but not of the world’. That maxim in itself and of itself is
maximally separatist.
Master Greater than Servant
Finally, Jesus concludes with a summary and a resulting focus of
the previous three statements. He leads in with a truism. No servant is
greater than his master. And now for the application. The servant can
therefore at best expect to be treated like the master is treated and no
better. He then identifies a very unpleasant reality and one that the
Church of Jesus Christ in the United States of America knows very
little about. Jesus says that if they persecuted Him, then the Church of
Jesus Christ must expect to be persecuted. So the question now is:
Did they persecute Jesus Christ? And the instant rejoinder is: Most
definitely!
The logical conclusion therefore is that they will persecute the
Church of Jesus. Now, so as to complete the continuum, tie the first
section into the last section. Because they will persecute the Church
of Jesus Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ must assume both an
offensive and defensive posture, and we must love one another.
That love within the Church of Jesus Christ will generate enough
heat to keep us warm when the cold breezes of hostility assail us from
every side. That love will insulate us from the snares and the jeers of
the world because within the body we will be speaking to one another
with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making music in
our heart to the Lord and always giving thanks to God the Father for
everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
However, it is also as we love each other that the world will
conclude that we are true disciples of Jesus Christ, and by so doing
we will draw attention to Him. As we draw attention to Jesus by the
love that we have for each other we will also cause our light to shine
before men, and the Bible says they will glorify our Father who is in
heaven.
Foreign Citizens
However, this is far from being the only scripture that clearly
speaks to the separatist nature of the Church of Jesus Christ. Jesus
122
makes it very clear that He is a king, and that His kingdom is not of
this world. This is how John relates the interaction in John 18:33-37
(NIV):
Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus
and asked him, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’
‘Is that your own idea,’ Jesus asked, ‘or did others talk to
you about me?’
‘Am I a Jew?’ Pilate replied. ‘It was your people and your
chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have
done?’
Jesus said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world. If it were,
my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews.
But now my kingdom is from another place.’
‘You are a king, then!’ said Pilate. Jesus answered, ‘You
are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was
born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth.
Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’
Rehearse the words, “My kingdom is not of this world… But
now my kingdom is from another place.” In Ephesians 2:19 (NIV),
the Apostle Paul speaking to young Christians in the Church at
Ephesus says, “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens,
but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s
household.” Finally in Ephesians 2:4-7(NIV), we are given a very
clear picture of the primary citizenship of members of the Church of
Jesus Christ:
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in
mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in
transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved.
And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him
in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the
coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his
grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.
Christians – Distinct & Separate
123
Jesus and Paul through God’s Holy Spirit make it very clear that
the Church of Jesus Christ is distinct and separate from the world
within which we live. We are citizens of a different place. We have a
different leader. We have a different value system. The world hated
our leader, and it will hate us. We must bind together in love because
we are a minority people in a majority world. That is as different and
as separate as it gets.
And just in case you want to hear the word ‘separate’ to be totally
convinced that the undisputed head of the church desires and directs
separation, then join me in reading a section of Paul’s second letter to
the church at Corinth in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 (NIV):
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do
righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what
fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is
there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have
in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there
between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple
of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will live with them and
walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be
my people.’
Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the
Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. I will
be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.
Of interest to this discussion of God’s view of separation
between church and state is the observation that God is not telling His
church to be different. God is saying to members of the Church of
Jesus Christ that we are different. He is not prescribing separation as
a doctrinal code, He is saying that if you function as you are expected
to function, you will be so distinctly different that you will
automatically be separated from the rest of the world. He is saying
that for you to operate the way He wants you to operate, you will
have to be separate. He is saying that if you are trying to integrate
with the world on the one hand, but on the other hand you are trying
to operate the way He wants you to operate, you will discover that
124
you cannot integrate and will have no choice but to be separate.

Christians to Boycott Courts
Consistent with the separationist profile of the church, members
of the body of Jesus Christ are told to have nothing to do with the
state’s courts if it can be avoided. Specifically, we are not to take one
another to the world’s courts, and it may be inferred that where
possible we are not to take anyone to court. On the latter, I do not
speak with authority, and at any rate, God gives no prescription that
prevents an unsaved person from taking a Christian to court. May
God be merciful to us, and may the time never come when the
Christian is taken to court because of something he did or did not do,
or said or did not say that is wrong in God’s sight. The apostle Paul
was dragged before the courts but not for the wrong he did. As a
matter of fact, Paul even went as far as to orchestrate at least one
court appearance, and he used it for the glory of God.
Church – Relate to State
However, Jesus and Paul also make it very clear that the Church
of Jesus is expected and required to relate to the world. We are
expected to obey our civic or worldly leaders, except when obeying
them requires us to disobey God. And equally good news for our
worldly leaders, we are expected to pay taxes, and again the
presumption is that the taxes that are levied are reasonable and not
exorbitant to the point where payment of these taxes would
effectively prevent us from discharging our duties to God.
That was the message that Jesus gave when he said: “Give to
Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God.”
But we are also expected to pay the temple tax, as was the case when
He identified the money in the fish’s mouth. The support of God’s
house and those who give of their time to minister therein is not
optional.
Separate or Relate? A Very Thin Line
Jesus draws a very thin line that can easily be crossed without the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. John 3:16 tells us that God loved the
world and He gave His only Begotten Son Jesus Christ to die for the
125
sins of the world. Jesus tells us that we must love our brothers and
sisters regardless of whether or not they are members of the body of
Christ. And just in case there is any doubt of the scope of the people
that our love must encompass, He told us that we must love our
enemies, and He spells it out further by saying that we must love
them who despitefully use us and say all manner of evil things about
us.
Clearly, Jesus is not recommending eccentric behavior such as
that practiced by the American charismatic, psychopath religious
leader Jim Jones who took 913 of his followers in the People’s
Temple from California to live in a deep jungle area of the country of
my birth, Guyana. In addition, even clearer is the fact that God cannot
condone any kind of activity that breaches His commandments. In the
case of the criminal Jim Jones, he went on to murder his followers in
the name of Jesus before putting a bullet through his own head.
Clearly, Jesus is not recommending that the Church of Jesus Christ
opens factories and job opportunities exclusively for its members
under the pretext of avoiding contamination.
Clearly Jesus is not recommending that the Church of Jesus
becomes a socio-economic political organization and operate as a
‘state’ within the state. To even think such an absurdity would be
reflective of a very sad state of affairs.
On the contrary, Jesus wants and demands of his members that
we get involved in the day-to-day activities of the world because that
is where his ‘gold-mine’ is. The kingdom of God consists of men and
women, not things. Jesus did not come to call the righteous, but
sinners unto repentance. The Church of Jesus Christ is called to be
both the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Neither of these
functions can take place outside of the context of involvement. This is
not separation; this is involvement, and intimate involvement at that.
Yet God demands that we love not the world. The same writer of
John 3:16 clarifies the apparent contradiction when he explains in 1
John 2:15-17 (NIV):
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone
126
loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man,
the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and
does--comes not from the Father but from the world. The
world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the
will of God lives forever.
And if you desire a greater variety of Bible references for
emphasis and reinforcement, listen to James in chapter 4 and verse 4:
(NIV)
You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship
with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to
be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
It is clear that God, the head of the church, expects His people to
love the people of the world while at the same time not loving the
things of the world and the world system.”
What is Extent of Involvement?
The question is often asked: ‘In light of the fact that God expects
us to be in the world but not of the world, how involved should the
Christian, and by extension the church, be in this world?’ Regardless
of the motivation behind the question, my answer must come from the
Word of God. So let us take another look at what the Word of God
says, and from there let us extend the application to our 21st century
reality. Here is a short representative list of commands and
expectations of God.
• Love one another even as Jesus loves us (John 15:12 & 1
John 3:16).
• Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew
10:16).
• Respect the authorities of the state as having been put there
by God. (Romans 13:1)
• When there is a conflict, obey God rather than man. (Acts
5:29)
127
• Do good and not evil, or face the wrath and punishment of

the authorities of state. (Romans 13:2-4)
• Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. (Matthew 22:21)
• Give to God what belongs to God. (Matthew 22:21)
• Be faithful stewards of the resources of God. (Matthew
24:45-51)
• Fund the kingdom of God through your income –
proportionate commitments and offerings (Malachi 3:8-10)
• Build the kingdom of God by spreading the Gospel of
Jesus (Matthew 28:19-20)
• Expect to suffer for Christ (1 Peter 4:12).
• Be proud of your suffering for Christ (1 Peter 4:16).
• When they persecute you, flee. (Matthew 10:23)
• Act with power, love and a sound mind and not with fear
(2 Tim. 1:7).
The preceding selections from the hundreds of instructions and
guidelines that are designed to influence the Christian’s lifestyle are
subject to at least one major rule of interpretation and application.
And this is the rule – Do not select the one that is most applicable,
most relevant or most desirable. Instead, accept all as being relevant
and place all in the ‘mix’ in order to compile an accurate operational
model. So, if you are ready, let the construction begin.
128
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER SEVEN
Constructing a Christian Model
E ven before attempting to construct a Christian model, we need to

appreciate the fact that models have little value among
Christians except as a very basic reference point. The Christian
already has as his or her model – the life and words of Jesus, as well
as examples of a wide cross section of men and women whose actions
have been endorsed in the Bible as being either right or wrong.
However, most significantly, the Christian has the permanent in-
dwelling presence of God the Holy Spirit who, among other things,
will guide them into the ways of truth.
Wisdom
Wisdom is a foundational pillar for the Christian’s lifestyle. The
Christian must know what it is they want to achieve and must use all
legal avenues to achieve this objective. For instance, it is not the
Christian’s goal to suffer, so the Christian should not invite suffering
or go out of their way to attract it. However, if it comes, the Christian
should neither be ashamed nor afraid, but rather they must count it as
a privilege to suffer for the name of Christ. Similarly, the Christian
should obey the laws and directives of the state. However, where
there is a clash between the dictates of God and those of the state, the
Christian is definitively to obey God rather than man.
Goal-Oriented – Time
However, the Christian is to be goal-oriented and that goal must
be to build the kingdom of God on earth. In order to do that, the
Christian needs, among other things, time and money. Let us first take
a look at ‘time’.
God has given to every man a precise amount of time each day.
129
That time is twenty-four hours. Very simply put, this means that for
all of us whatever we do must be done within twenty-four hours each
day. And yes, although there are some people who complain about
being bored and having nothing to do, most of us have the opposite
problem of having too much to do. For those of us who are really
lazy, we probably would not mind having more time to do nothing.
Whichever way you look at it, this forces us to prioritize.
Perhaps, if we do ‘this’, then we cannot do ‘that’. Therefore, over the
long run God expects us to focus on those things that are of greatest
importance to our mandate. By paying attention to what we must do,
we will have to decline involvement in other things that we do not
have to do. Put another way, whatever the Christian finds himself
involved in, he must at the same time do all to the glory of God.
Goal-Oriented – money
When it comes to our money, God, through His servant King
David, reminds us in 1 Chronicles 29 that all we have comes from
God, belongs to God, and that we are merely temporary custodians of
His wealth and resources. This must form the background for any
discussion of Christian stewardship. When Jesus asked His disciples
to tell him whose image and inscription they saw on the denarius,
they answered, “Caesar’s!”
Jesus then said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things
that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
God Owns and Allocates All
It is important to understand what may appear to be the obvious
difference between the two concepts of ownership in these Biblical
references. God in His sovereignty maintains ownership of all things.
He is supreme. He is almighty, and all things ultimately come under
His jurisdiction. It is also God who allocates wealth within the
context of his own requirements that we physically and mentally exert
ourselves. This is how Deuteronomy 8:17-18 puts it:
…then you say in your heart, `My power and the might of
my hand have gained me this wealth.' And you shall
remember the Lord your God, for it is He who gives you
130
power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant

which He swore to your fathers, as it is this day.
However, there is the question of delegated jurisdiction. God has
delegated authority to men, and occasionally to women, to govern the
affairs of mankind. Having delegated that authority, the God who
could not stop Adam from sinning and plunging the whole human
race into sin, will not generally disturb man’s delegated responsibility
to govern in the affairs of men.
Give Unto Caesar
Caesar was such a man with God’s delegated authority, and one
of the areas in which he was given authority was tax collection.
However, God was not saying that the denarius belonged to Caesar.
Had He been implying that, it would have meant the particular
denarius that had been given to Him would have been stolen and the
participation of Jesus in a discourse that involved the unreprimanded
theft of Caesar’s money would have made Him an accomplice. If,
therefore, the money did not belong to the man whose image and
inscription it bore, then it must have belonged to the man who had
earned the right to it in exchange for whatever was considered to have
been of comparative value.
Consequently, the only rational resolution of the statement of
Jesus must be that we are to give to Caesar from our earned resources
the portion that belongs to him in exchange for his overarching
superintendence, not only of the monetary system, but also for the
administrative, protective and infrastructure services that he provides.
In short, we are commanded by God to pay taxes that are just.
Four-way Monetary Allocation
Now, this is where the rubber hits the road. We are commanded
by God to use the money that we have earned to pay taxes to our civic
leaders. However, Jesus Christ also commanded His disciples to pay
taxes to the spiritual or church leaders for the upkeep of the temple.
As a matter of fact, Jesus went further and commanded that taxes be
paid not only for His disciples, and in this case one of His disciples,
but also for Himself. Add to this the fact that the Bible declares that a
131
man who does not work must not eat, and it becomes self-evident that
a man who works and earns money is expected to eat. And equally
important, the Christian man is expected to provide for his family. In
1 Timothy 5:8, Paul says:
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially
for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever.
Finally, God’s concept of handling money requires that we save
as a precursor to investing. He expects that having given us ‘seed’, we
will use a part for food and other aspects of consumption, and another
part for sowing or investing to ensure greater harvests in the future. (2
Cor. 9:9-11). In Proverbs 6:6-8 we read:
Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be
wise, which, having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides
her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the
harvest.
Put another way, the ant understands the importance of saving.
Hence, there are at least four categories of allocations to which
our earned income must be put. A portion must go to the state in
which we live and from which we derive certain material benefits. A
portion must be given to support the work of building the kingdom of
God on earth. A portion must be used for support of ourselves and our
families. Finally, a portion must be saved and invested wisely to
accelerate our ability to achieve the first three objectives. For those
who have a difficulty understanding and accepting the principles of
tithing, free-will offering and first-fruit, I suggest that you consider
these simple pointers.
Before Christ died, the tithe, and sometimes more than one tithe,
was in force. What were you getting in return? For the answer, go to
Leviticus and read the requirements for making sacrifices for the
atonement of our sins, and then consider that because the sacrifices
were imperfect, the procedure had to be repeated, sometimes daily.
Then consider that today we enjoy the benefits of the perfect Lamb of
God having sacrificed His life once and for all. Today, because of
132
what he did, we can come boldly into His presence at any time and
confess our sins. This we do with the assurance that “He is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.” (1John 1:9) . All this because He not only died to
pay the price for our sins, but He was raised from the dead. He now
lives to make intercession for us before the father, and the father’s
satisfaction with us is guaranteed because of what Jesus did at
Calvary. Now, tell me – How much should we pay for all of that?
Should it be 10%, less than 10% or more than 10%?
Even before Jesus died, David got it right in 1 Chronicles 29:14
(NIV). “But who am I, and who are my people, that we should be
able to give as generously as this? Everything comes from you, and
we have given you only what comes from your hand.”
God – The Capitalist
Again, the full picture is important. God does not place an
impractical emphasis on our giving to Him. On the contrary, He
encourages us to give so that we might access the key to abundant
receiving. Put another way, God encourages you to give because He
wants us to get more. For His part, He endorses and facilitates our
exponentially increasing our income, not merely from hard work but
also from trading and entrepreneurial activity.
Jesus enshrined His advocacy of the capitalist system, which has
also been embraced by the United States of America, when He told
the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:15-30. By rehearsing in all its
vivid detail this earthly story with a heavenly meaning, Jesus Christ in
one swoop articulated all the major tenets of capitalism.
Return on Investment Required
A man invested his money with traders who he expected to trade
and reinvest his money. He left the money with them for a long time
because he understood the fickleness of short-term market conditions.
He expected to get some heavy returns and accepted a 100% return on
investment, not with surprise, but with gratitude. He then rewarded
the investors and entrusted them with greater assets than their original
allocation. But even in all of this, the master recognized varying
133
abilities and did not assign responsibilities to a servant that were

greater than his capabilities. Therefore, the man that could handle five
talents, and handled it well, ended up ruling over five cities, whereas
the man who could handle only two well ended up being made ruler
over two cities.
However, Jesus continued by indicating that no man is expected
to bring zero returns. No man is expected to bury his skills and
abilities because they are not as great as those of the other man. Every
man is expected to do his best with what little he has. The man who
buried his one talent did not steal it. He returned it to his master in its
original state, but for that, he earned the description of ‘wicked and
lazy servant’.
However, it did not stop there. The lazy and wicked servant was
relieved of what little he had and was punished. And guess who
gained the talent taken from him? Was it the one who already had
four, or was it the one who already had ten? Or was it yet another
person who had none? It was the man who had ten that received the
additional talent.
Was that an oversight? No! For it was out of this scenario that
came the chilling words: “To him that hath shall more be given… but
to him that hath not, the very little which he appears to have shall be
taken away.”
God of Increase
Clearly, God is a god of increase, a god of multiplication and a
god of profit. For these traits to be linked with the seemingly opposite
traits of giving and sharing and caring, God has attached a divine
principle of prosperity to the practice of giving. And by so doing He
concludes a major plank in His kingdom’s economics structure. Paul
picks up the theme in 2 Corinthians 9:6-8 (NIV) and concludes the
discussion for us.
Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap
sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap
generously. Each man should give what he has decided in his
heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God
134
loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace

abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that
you need, you will abound in every good work.
Stewardship
Now it might surprise you to know that all the preceding good
teaching on critical aspects of a Christian’s lifestyle is dedicated to
just one proposition. And here it is: Each member of the Church of
Jesus Christ must personally get involved in determining the results
of his stewardship of the assets with which God has entrusted him.
Included in this general activity is ensuring that Caesar does not
take more than what belongs to him. There is absolutely nothing to
stop Caesar from trying to take more than that to which he is entitled.
The wise Christian must therefore protect his God-given assets from
abuse by Caesar. For if the Christian gives more than he ought to
Caesar, he cannot give to God that which belongs to God. Clearly, by
now we are in agreement that what belongs to God is not just our
worship in spirit and in truth, but also our money on which the
maintenance and expansion of the kingdom of God depends. So the
understandable question is how do we stop Caesar from taking what
does not belong to him as far as our money is concerned? My answer
is ‘involvement’.
Civic Involvement
There are countries and circumstances in which the persecuted
Church of Jesus Christ cannot even publicly identify itself, much less
talk about getting involved in the decisions of our civic leaders. There
are countries today in which Christians are arrested, detained and
killed for no reason other than being Christian. There are countries
that are being run by dictators, and in those countries wisdom may
very well determine the level of involvement that a Christian will
attempt to achieve in the decisions of their civic leaders.
But thank God that for the time being America still proudly
parades itself as the world’s greatest and freest democracy. Under that
disguise, Christians in 2008 can still publicly assert their right to
involvement in the system established for the making and/or breaking
135
of laws in the United States of America. God expects us to make use

of this privilege. The fact that our brothers and sisters in other parts of
the world, and especially in countries where Islam is the established
religion, cannot freely and openly practice their Christian faith
without risking their lives is all the more reason for us to militantly
exploit the privileges associated with the democracy that we enjoy in
the United States of America.
I borrow from the title of a sermon preached in Jamaica by
Bishop Vaughn McLaughlin of The Potter’s House Christian
Fellowship, Jacksonville, FL: “Our Normal is Another Man’s
Miracle.” The two feet we take for granted represent a miracle for the
man who has only one. Our ability to speak represents a miracle for
the man who is dumb, and our ability to see represents a miracle for
the man who is blind. The right to involvement in public life in
America must never be taken for granted. On the contrary, it must be
vigorously defended and preserved by aggressive use.
Christians Must Vote
God has allowed members of the Body of Jesus Christ in
America to function as light and salt through access to the highest
corridors of earthly power and influence. Every Christian in America
must vote every time they get the opportunity. To not vote is
irresponsibility of the highest order. Not even the Founding Fathers of
America got the concept of voting right. In the days of George
Washington, poor White men who did not own land were not allowed
to vote. Black men were not allowed to vote. Wealthy and or bright
White women were not allowed to vote either.
It took time, great debate, ill will and struggles to set the stage for
what we now call universal, adult suffrage, or the right of every adult
to vote. Every Christian from the age of eighteen must therefore make
full use of the priceless privilege of voting. And just in case you know
of any ‘smart’ people who still insist on not voting, be kind enough to
give them a message for me – tell them that everyone votes. Those
who do not vote decisively or deliberately do so by default. You either
vote for the candidate of your choice by marking the X beside your
candidate or pressing the appropriate button on the one hand, or you
136
vote for the majority’s candidate whether you endorse him or not. It is
that simple. Failing to vote is to vote for the winner. And needless to
say, you become subject to whoever is elected, whether you like it or
not.
However, voting is clearly not an end in itself and must not be
seen as such. It is a reasonably non-confrontational way for Christians
to select leaders who are either committed Christians themselves, or
at least leaders who are demonstratively sympathetic to all that is
necessary for the expansion of the kingdom of heaven on earth. This
means that the Christian must vote intelligently and must submit their
choice of candidate for God’s approval. The Christian must vote for
candidates who as close as possible represent the ideal of the
Christian faith and philosophy. Christian voters must therefore
research their candidates and at all times be in a position to evaluate
their performance.
Christians Must Actively Lobby
However, there is more. Not only must the Christian research and
observe electoral candidates, but the Christian must attempt to
influence willing candidates to represent what is right and pleasing in
God’s eyes. Christians must monitor the performance of elected
representatives with a view to determining whether or not to re-elect
them. And since the Christian is to be wise like the serpent and
harmless as the dove, he or she must understand the nature of
majority rule in a democracy and make use of the political leverage of
numbers in the Christian community as well as that of non-Christians
who are supportive of Christian positions. Christians should therefore
add their voice to any for a specific Christian value, unless of course
that lobby is already identified with anti-Christian values. However,
even in such a case, God will give wisdom to Christians so that they
can support the good message of an otherwise evil messenger.
Think it through. Is it not hypocritical for the individual Christian
as well as the Christian Church to denounce homosexuality and
engage resources in preaching against its inherent sinfulness and
social ills on the one hand, and yet refuse to lobby against a political
candidate with a known homosexual agenda? Put another way, would
137
it not be wiser and more consistent for the Christian to help prevent a
candidate with a known homosexual agenda from being elected,
rather than sit back and do nothing to dissuade the majority from
electing him and then become very active in condemning his agenda
after he is elected?
Admittedly, the decision becomes more difficult when electing
the President of the United States as against electing a State Senator.
A Presidential candidate who supports one or even two distinctly anti-
Christian values may otherwise be evaluated as being the more
suitable of two candidates for the top job in America. On the other
hand, a Presidential candidate may line up with all major, socially
visible values, but may otherwise be evaluated as being the less
suitable of two candidates for the top job in America. How then
should the Christian vote in an American democracy in which the
President seldom has the final say? Fortunately for me, I do not have
to provide that answer outside of the context of specifics. The
Christian experience is characterized by a dynamic relationship
between God’s Holy Spirit and the individual Christian. God requires
that the Christian be aware of the issues and He is willing and able to
guide decisions.
Being a good steward requires the Christian to make the best use
of all his or her resources. However, whereas money is an important
resource over which we are to be good stewards, it is possible that it
may not be the most important resource. Money is limitless – we can
determine how much of it we have. But time is limited and we cannot
determine how much of that we have. Therefore, we should be good
stewards of the time God has given us.
This means that the Christian should operate on the cutting edge
of technology. We should not be using an old typewriter when a word
processor is around. Why? The word processor will help us to get an
excellent job done many times faster than would the old typewriter.
With the word processor we can cut and paste and delete, and best of
all, undo and redo. We can change fonts, bold, underline, justify, and
change color. And with the word processor, we can save, transport
and print. What is the point behind using the word processor or
138
computer software to prepare our document? The job will be

completed in far less time, and the time saved can be used to do
something even more productive. That is part of what it means to be a
good steward of our time.
In the area of the discharge of our civic duties, the Christian must
subscribe to the maxim that ‘an ounce of prevention is better than a
pound of cure’. ‘A stitch in time saves nine’. If the aim is to expand
the kingdom of God on earth and cover the earth with His
righteousness, then the Christian must strategically identify and give
his support to all that will help to make that possible. All laws,
programs, ideologies along with their proposers and backers that will
work contrary to that goal must be identified the moment they are
first put forward, and, as William Shakespeare said, “think him as a
serpent’s egg, which hatched, would as its kind grow mischievous,
and kill him in the shell.” On the other hand, the Christian should
identify all laws, programs and projects – as well as their proposers
and backers – that are consistent with and supportive of the expansion
of the kingdom of God on earth and give those their full support and
backing. It is ultimately easier to prevent a problem from developing
than it is to cure it after it has developed.
Christian Political Candidates
Not only must Christians vote, but Christians must also offer
themselves to be voted for. Is it not hypocritical for the Christian to
criticize and condemn those who run for public office as being
unrighteous and unworthy while at the same time placing restrictions
on the righteous and worthy from offering themselves as alternatives?
And is it not hypocritical to claim to be the salt of the earth and the
light of the world while maintaining the claim that involvement in
politics will damage the Christian’s testimony? Or is it true that if the
truth be told, many Christians feel comfortable in the safety of the
sanctuary but scared in the cauldron of the society?
If there is a large enough constituency of Christians or Christian
sympathizers who effectively believe that a Christian candidate will
do a better job for the community than would a non-Christian, then
the Christian will be elected. If the Christian candidate fails to be
139
elected, they would have made good use of an opportunity for their
voice to be heard and their values to be shared. If they remain faithful
to their public ministry, their voice will continue to be heard even
though they were not elected. Moreover, at any time there is a
problem with the performance of the incumbent, the Christian
alternative will have first right of audience. If the Christian were
elected, they would then have the opportunity of leveraging their
testimony with the facilities of the state, which is nothing more than
the collective resources of the same people who elected them. Under
God’s guidance, God will now have access to a 21st century Shedrach,
Meshach, Abednego, Daniel or Joseph, all of whom were minority
servants of God who became effective politicians and brought honor
and glory to the name of God.
So, whether elected or unelected, Christians and the church must
analytically and critically comment on the administration of the state
so as to facilitate the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
And because to whom much is given, much is expected, the
church of Jesus Christ in America must use the influence and freedom
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America to
influence the government of the USA to support the defense of the
inalienable rights of Christians in oppressed countries throughout the
world.
140
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER EIGHT
Christian American Controversy
N ow that we have laid down the basic principles that must

underlie any discussion of God’s perspective of separation of
church and state, it is time for us to make the application to the
United States of America. For purposes of application, identifying the
church is easy, and is as directly addressed by the Bible writers, as
were the local churches at Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia and other
places. Identifying the ‘state’ is just a tad more difficult. We can be
referring only to the administrative and management structure of a
country, and not to the people who man the structure. President Bush
may be a member of the body of Jesus Christ, but the presidency is an
integral component of the state.
Founding Fathers’ Concept of God
Our Founding Fathers hit the nail on the head. They understood
the concept of the sovereignty of God. They often spoke of divine
Providence and except for the handful of Thomas Paine influenced
deists, our Founding Fathers accepted the Bible as the revealed Word
of God – this was never an issue. Even avowed and/or alleged deists
like Benjamin Franklin spoke in very personal terms of the God of the
Bible that would be inconsistent with today’s bland, insipid strain of
deist ‘theology’. Like us, Our Founding Fathers were far from perfect
and so from time to time we witness hideous aberrations resulting
from glaring contradictions between what they preached and what
they practiced.
Patrick Henry is one such case in point. While being the most
powerful and persuasive voice in the decision to go to war with Great
Britain for the independence of America, he confessed to being a
pathetic wimp when it came to his active involvement in the
141
institution of slavery, which he described as the ultimate evil of which

man is capable.
Absence of God from Constitution
Neither God, nor any reference to God, was not placed in the
Constitution simply because it was unnecessary so to do. The
Constitution was written against the backdrop of active, functioning
constitutions of each of the thirteen independent colonies. In most of
these constitutions, Christianity was either the established religion, or
after disestablishment, the dominant religion in a new culture of
religious tolerance and freedom. Therefore, it is self-evident that our
Founding Fathers had no difficulty with God being the chairman of
the board, as per our earlier model.
Founding Fathers & Established Church
It is equally clear that our Founding Fathers hit the nail on the
head when they reiterated in the Bill of Rights that: “Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof…” And although the context of that
statement in the Bill of Rights could appropriately be interpreted to
mean no more than that the determination of religious and other
related issues fall under the purview of the state and not the federal
government, it was still a clear and unequivocal statement. As a
matter of fact, it was a statement that no doubt helped to extend the
pressures that had begun to build up against established religion and
facilitate the move towards religious freedom and expression
throughout the colonies that became the United States of America.
Remember that establishment of religion was never a viable or a
self-sustaining proposition. At all times, whether in Great Britain, the
rest of Europe, or in America, its inherent nature always contributed
to problems for both the beneficiaries and victims of established
religion. Establishment always meant that a minority was oppressed,
whether that minority was a numerical minority or a politically weak
minority. That oppression was always resisted with varying degrees
of intensity, and on at least one occasion contributed in no small
measure to the founding of a powerful nation called the United States
142
of America.
Seeds of Religious Freedom
Similarly, establishment always meant that those who aligned
themselves with the established religion enjoyed an ‘unnatural’
supremacy over their fellow citizens that frequently led to abuse, even
if not as expressive as legislation that penalized minority religious
expressions. The Rev. William Rogers, founder of Rhode Island, more
than a century before had effectively sewn the seed of religious
freedom and tolerance, and the Baptists and many others had
gravitated to the fresh air of religious expectancy that it offered.
Therefore, the First Amendment as it related to religious freedom was
not revolutionary in character, as it pointed in a direction and along a
path that had already begun to garner popularity, and that in fact had
already been embarked on by several states.
Was America Ever Officially Christian?
When understood in this context, everything about the First
Amendment and the so-called ‘God-less Constitution’ becomes
completely explicable. Were it not for the foundation work done by
many great Americans, I would have had a much more difficult
challenge in writing this book. I am, therefore, forever grateful to the
likes of David Barton, the pro-‘Bartonists’ and the ‘anti-Bartonists’. I
am forever grateful to the likes of Dr. James Kennedy and Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell as well as to their supporters and
detractors. I am grateful to a host of contributors to Internet-posted
articles, which by the way are a very dangerous source for readymade
accurate information. I am even philosophically grateful to the likes
of the ACLU, without which I may not have so easily recognized the
crisis into which the United States of America has evolved… the list
goes on.
However, the simple fact is that all talk about having established
a ‘Christian America’ or not is steeped in meaningless theory and
senseless semantics, consequently rendering it of little practical value.
Coming in at the bottom end, and as the new kid on the block, it is
obvious to me that this singularly simple recognition clarifies much of
143
the controversy that surrounds the original intention of the Fathers

versus what they actually achieved. For now, I will make a simple
statement, and elsewhere I will elaborate.
Preconditions for Christian America
The concept of a ‘Christian America’, as distinct from an
America founded by and influenced by Christians, presumes the
existence of one or more of the following conditions. Not necessarily
in order of priority, but one condition would be that the majority of
citizens voluntarily subscribed to such a declaration. For any or all of
many reasons, this never happened.
The second condition requires the government of the country to
decree that America is and/or shall be a Christian country. Again, this
never happened before or after 1787. The third would require God to
so declare that America is a Christian nation. This He certainly has
not done. He created only one theocracy, in which He served as
national head and ruled through the judges that He appointed. The
Children of Israel ended this arrangement when they demanded a
king, so that they could be like the nations around them. God
conceded, and Saul was appointed their first king.
Therefore, God could not have declared America to be a
Christian nation. A nation that consists of men and women created in
the image and likeness of God with the inalienable right to freedom
secured by the indestructible, genetically fused right to choose,
cannot be effectively forced to execute any action that requires
voluntary compliance.
Worship is one such act. God’s dealings with Israel demonstrated
that all He could do was to establish His commandments and clearly
indicate the consequences for both obedience and disobedience. He
clearly outlined the life-enhancing promises of God as well as the
deadly punishments that were consequent upon man’s personal
preference for obedience or disobedience. Man then did the rest. Were
it not for the mercy of God, Israel and the entire human race would
have been exterminated by our own self-determination through our
exercise of our inalienable right to choose.
144
Federal Constitution v. Contemporary Documents

The historical facts show that by the time we reached 18th century
revolutionary thinking and activities, Christianity had long become
established as something that was best not prescribed but instead left
to personal practice. Wherever there was disagreement with this
principle, there was an abundance of problems.
However, it will take a lot more than evolutionary philosophy to
explain the position of the Founding Fathers as they consciously
contrived to form a new nation that was to become known as the
United States of America. I base this conclusion on the fact that there
is a huge visible disparity between the religious expression in the
immediate, pre-Constitution documents such as the Articles of
Confederation and the Declaration of Independence, as well as their
contemporary religious practices on the one hand, and the language of
the Constitution and Bill of Rights on the other hand. And lest we
forget, these two sets of documents were written by pretty much the
same set of men and/or a set of similarly influenced men over a span
of a little more than a decade.
Virginia Declaration of Rights
Appearing in Section 16 of George Mason’s 1776 Virginia
Declaration of Rights are the following lines:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by
reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore
all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the
mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and
charity toward each other.
1776 Declaration of Independence
Appearing in Thomas Jefferson’s 1776 Declaration of
Independence are the following lines:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes
necessary… to assume among the powers of the earth, the
145
separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and

of Nature’s God entitle them… 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… We, therefore, the Representatives of the united
States of America, in General Congress, Assembled,
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
of our intentions…And for the support of this Declaration,
with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and
our sacred Honor.
Articles of Confederation
Appearing in the 1781 Articles of Confederation are the
following lines:
And whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the
World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively
represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to
ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.
1787 North West ordinance
Article III of the 1787 Northwest Ordinance reads as follows:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to
good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and
the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The
utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the
Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from
them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and
liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in
just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws
founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be
made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for
preserving peace and friendship with them.
146
Founding Fathers & Prayer to God

Paradoxically, we are obliged to compare the text of the
Constitution, not only with contemporary documents of the Founding
Fathers but also with the intellectual environment in which it was
itself written.
During the Constitutional Convention, several interesting
phenomena occurred that are of relevance to the setting of the context
in which both the Constitution of America and the Bill of Rights
appear to be ‘Godless’. I now invite you to take an exhaustive look at
one pivotal event as related by a highly respected American president.
For good measure, it should be remembered that this American
president is sometimes enlisted by detractors who try to distance
America from Christianity. This witness is the 4th president of the
United States of America, James Madison.
In this exhaustive report by Madison, we get a rare insight of
how a large majority of the members of the Constitutional
Convention felt about prayer to Almighty God. Did they recognize its
existence? Did they endorse it? Did they disclaim its relevance and
power? Did they think it was something that they should do? And was
it something that others did? And for good measure, very great, great
grandpa Franklin also gives us a little taste of his own familiarity with
the Bible, the inspired Word of God.
Benjamin Franklin on Prayer
Recording the contribution of the eighty-one-year-old Benjamin
Franklin as he addressed Chairman George Washington on Thursday
June 28, 1787, Madison writes:
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the
dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it
when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have
not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of
lights, to illuminate our understandings…
Here Dr. Franklin unmistakably draws on a well-known section
of the Bible found in James 1:17:
147
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and
comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no
variation or shadow of turning.
Given the response to his challenge, I could only conclude that
all present were familiar with what he was saying. It is equally clear
that they either had not thought of it, or otherwise for reasons best
removed from the realm of conjecture, were too ashamed or
otherwise unmindful of saying it. The truth be told, the situation
resembles a blown-up version of a Christian family that begins to eat
a meal, having forgotten to ‘grace the table’ and to give God thanks
for what they were eating. It just so happened that on this occasion,
they were reminded by the oldest among them who spoke for them
all.
Note that Dr. Franklin asked a rhetorical question…or was it
really rhetorical? For included in Franklin’s ‘we’ would obviously be
Franklin himself. It therefore follows that since Franklin, by his
words, demonstrated an intense consciousness of, and awareness of,
the need to rely on God; his failure to have previously thought of
invoking the help of God could not be construed as the result of an
unawareness of, or nonchalant attitude towards, God. By including
himself in the ‘we’, Franklin includes all the delegates present in the
same predicament in which he found himself; namely, being aware of
the presence and power and relevance of God, yet failing to
remember or otherwise specifically invoke His help, especially at a
time when all else seemed to have been failing.
To complete this tight and deductive analysis we need to examine
the response of the delegates on whose behalf Franklin spoke. Dr.
Franklin’s proposal for henceforth commencing daily sessions with
prayer was immediately seconded by Mr. Roger Sherman.
Rising to speak on the motion were several members whose
arguments were apparently summarized by Mr. Alexander Hamilton.
They formed the following three conclusions.
The first is that Dr. Franklin’s resolution was a proper one.
Secondly, by extrapolation, its propriety would have been
148
unquestioned at the commencement of the proceedings, not as a one-

off act of formality but as a precedent to be repeated every day.
Thirdly, the resolution if carried at this late stage of the game, might
attract some strong criticism.
The only possible criticism offered by Mr. Hamilton is that the
public may form the view that what ought to have been a first resort
was now relegated to a last resort, and only because of the well-
publicized embarrassments and dissensions that had come to
characterize the convention.
Let us pause for a moment. Both the initial omission by all
present to think of and/or to implement the invoking of the presence
and help of God at the start of the Convention, as well as Hamilton’s
implicit attempt at protecting this high calling of prayer to God from
the cynical attacks of careless critics are characteristic of the
occasional behavior of every member of the Body of Jesus Christ.
What ought to distinguish the Christian is not necessarily the absence
of mistakes and slips, but the readiness to get up, repent and return to
righteousness with the help of God’s Holy Spirit. Now back to the
exchange at the Convention.
Franklin Forges Further
The concerns expressed by Hamilton and others were
immediately answered by Dr. Franklin, his seconder, Roger Sherman,
and others who now swelled the ranks of what began as a sole voice.
The rejoinder commenced with a gem of logic. “The past omission of
a duty does not justify continued and future omissions of the duty.”
However, notice also that Franklin and his supporters have
slipped in a word that effectively ups the ante. To invoke the presence
and help of God has now been elevated to a ‘duty’, and to that there
was no objection. They also opined that the rejection of the measure
would expose the Convention to greater animadversions or strong
criticisms than would the adoption of it. And even if some said prayer
had been relegated to a last resort because of mounting dissensions
and embarrassments in the Convention, so what? Such a result could
just as well do good as it could do ill.
149
Madison in a Moment
I part from the verbatim of Madison for a moment and invoke my
own God-given intelligence. Based on the foregoing, and having
myself been in several debate situations, I find it difficult to resist
trying to imagine the atmosphere in the Convention. Franklin fires the
first shot, which squarely applies to all present. No one invokes his
right to a disclaimer or to request to be omitted from Franklin’s
generalization. There is a certain amount of shame that is induced by
Franklin’s question “How could we…?” To that question there is no
answer, and none is attempted, at least initially. What happens next is
a weak, almost dumb attempt by Hamilton and others to justify the
wrong. They themselves testify to the weakness of their reactions by
using words like ‘might’ and essentially set themselves up for the
logical rejoinder from Franklin. This time Franklin, Sherman and a
growing number of persons rebuff Hamilton and his team. They say
that two wrongs do not make a right. Again there is no argument
against that. There is a silence… No objection to Franklin’s motion
has been left unrebutted. You can hear a pin drop. Clearly the ACLU
is absent. It is quite likely they would have found something stupid to
say.
Williamson’s Whammy
Then comes a fatal shot from Mr. Hugh Williamson from North
Carolina. No… he does not blow Franklin’s resolution out of the
water. Instead, he continues on the same defeatist concessionary track
taken by Hamilton, but in so doing he implicitly exposes Hamilton’s
façade for what it was. The real reason says Williamson is that the
Convention could not afford to pay for the services of an official
chaplain. I just love it when I get my opponents on the defensive, and
there are very few sights more amazingly amusing to behold than that
of a protagonist backpedaling on a fast retreat. If Hamilton’s apology
was puerile, Williamson’s was nothing short of ridiculous. For even
after conceding that the practices of the day would normally have
required an official church leader to have presided over prayers
and/or devotions, it is mind-boggling to believe that more than
enough volunteers could not have been found, if asked, so that a
150
different minister could have presided without pay on each day!

Edmund Randolph
At any rate, the next contribution by Mr. Edmund Randolph from
Virginia seemed to have effectively put the lie to the ‘no funds’
defense. Mr. Randolph requested that on July 4 a special sermon be
preached at the request of the Convention, and that thereafter, prayers
etc. be read in the Convention every morning. This concluding
counter motion was in fact an improvement on Dr. Franklin’s motion
since his did not require the special sermon to be preached on
Independence Day. Coming at the time it did, Mr. Randolph’s
proposal also had the effect of negating the weak, though proffered
‘shame argument’ since daily prayers would now be seen as arising
out of the Convention-requested July 4 special service. By way of the
ultimate endorsement of Mr. Randolph’s counter motion, it was
seconded by Dr. Benjamin Franklin, the proposer of the original
motion.
Was There Prayer Thereafter?
What happened thereafter is not clear from Madison’s notes.
There is no record of a vote having been taken before the
adjournment. Madison, however, does tell us that an adjournment was
taken to accommodate the proposal of Mr. Randolph from Virginia.
We know that the special sermon was preached and that the closing
prayer was said by Rev. William Rogers, pastor/rector of the Calvinist
Church. We do know enough of the prayer to know that it was either
specifically crafted for, or greatly influenced by, the needs of the
Constitutional Convention. Madison is silent on whether or not the
rest of Randolph’s proposal to have prayers thereafter every morning
was implemented. Although there is no record of a vote, the
implementation of one half of the proposal seems to be logical
grounds for concluding that the other half was also implemented. At
any rate, it would be difficult to imagine why Dr. Franklin and others
would stand by and accept the non-implementation of the proposal
that successfully made the rounds through debate and at least partial
implementation.
151
Franklin in Full
But wait a minute…we took a look at only one small section of
the persuasive presentation by Dr. Franklin. It is very critical to get
the full picture of exactly what it was that spawned the debate and
influenced the course that it took. When Dr. Franklin invoked his
critical ‘we’, what was the framework to which he referred?
Let us now join Dr. Franklin’s speech from our point of departure
to its end.
In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when
we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room
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 need his assistance? 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 builds the House they labor in
vain those 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:
We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our
projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become
a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is
worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate
instance, despair of establishing governments by human
wisdom, and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
152
I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers

imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our
deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before
we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of
this city be requested to officiate in that service.
Vintage Franklin
At the risk of gilding the lily, permit me to highlight some of the
most irresistible parts of his presentation. Dr. Franklin effectively
uses history and the reverse of the line of argument subsequently
adopted by Mr. Hamilton. Without knowing how valuable his
innocent reference to a historical fact would be in the 21 st century
idiotic debate about whether or not our Founding Fathers wanted to
create a Godless America, Dr. Franklin states, “we had daily prayer in
this room for the divine protection”.
Wow! Thank you, Dr. Franklin… by golly! That was not a
century before, or even a generation before, that was a mere decade
before! But there is more! Not only did we pray, but also, “Our
prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered!”
Can you imagine how George Washington’s skin tingled as
Franklin mentioned God’s protection and His over-arching
providential generosity in reference to the American war against
Great Britain? Can you imagine Washington reliving the several times
he had a close shave with death during the miraculously won War of
Independence from the most powerful military force on earth at the
time? Could you imagine the former general shifting in his presiding
chair… just checking to see if that too, like his horses, had been shot
out from under him! Yeah, this was real. This was not a show. These
men had a very clear understanding of the God that Franklin spoke
about and about His role in the affairs of men.
“And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we
imagine that we no longer need his assistance?”
If the momentous surge of Franklin’s cascading logic was to be
stopped, it ought to have been stopped at the commencement of his
speech. Now it was too late! A touch of fact… a rhetorical question…
153
a hint of sarcasm are all masterfully employed as he skillfully builds

on each concession made by the rapt attention, nodding heads and
possibly even the occasional recalcitrant tear of his captive audience.
Hush, he’s not done yet!
“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.”
Oh no! It’s a body slammer! The old veteran appeals to yet
another inalienable fact. He adds the age-old card to the deck. He
would not be the first though. The Psalmist David in Psalm 37:25
said: “I have been young, and now am old; Yet I have not seen the
righteous forsaken, Nor his descendants begging bread.”
And what is all this talk about sparrows not falling to the ground
without His notice as the logical basis for concluding that an empire
cannot be built without His aid? Where on earth is this man’s wisdom
really coming from – or could it be from heaven? Well, he doesn’t
keep us waiting too long, does he? “We have been assured, Sir, in the
sacred writings, that except the Lord builds the House they labor in
vain those that build it.” Was this ‘sacred writings’ the Koran, or was
it the sacred text of some other religion? Could this ‘sacred writings’
actually be the Bible? And could it be an almost direct quote from
Psalm 127:1?
But wait, the veteran now speaks of the tower of Babel in
Genesis chapter 11 in cryptic detail and with locked-in relevance. Just
as he begins his logical assault with a reference to Matthew 10:29, he
culminates with the calculated consequences of ignoring God by
quoting from Psalm 44:13-14: “we ourselves shall become a reproach
and byword down to future ages.”
Bible Benjamin
This man knows his Bible very well, and, assuming that he was
not reading from a prepared text, the familiarity with which he draws
from a wide cross-section of references and inferences almost smacks
of divine inspiration. Then, like the ultimate orator, he winds down by
climbing up as he skillfully loops his conclusion into the open end of
154
his beginning and completes a closed continuum of logic.

Human wisdom is all we have. Human wisdom is all we can
depend on. But human wisdom alone is clearly inadequate for the
task. Yet human wisdom was never meant to operate alone outside the
parameters of God’s help. For it is only when human wisdom is
energized by God’s help that it amounts to anything.
And yet for all of this, because of the earthly profile of human
beings relative to the invisible hand of God, it is to humans and to
human wisdom that the credit will come when we rely on the help of
God. Equally true, when we fail to rely on the help of God, it will be
to the detriment of human wisdom for having failed to optimize its
true potential. But who am I to represent Dr. Franklin? Let him speak
for himself!
Mr. President, The small progress we have made after
four or five weeks close attendance and continual reasonings
with each other—our different sentiments on almost every
question, several of the last producing as many noes as ayes
—is, methinks, a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the
human understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want
of political wisdom, since we have been running about in
search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models
of government, and examined the different forms of those
republics which, having been formed with seeds of their own
dissolution, now no longer exists. And we have viewed
modern states all round Europe, but find none of their
constitutions suitable to our circumstances… And what is
worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate
instance, despair of establishing governments by human
wisdom, and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
Deist Founding Fathers?
Did someone say that the overwhelming majority of our
Founding Fathers were deists? Certainly not those who participated in
the Constitutional Convention. And if so, their version of deism was
such a far cry from 21st century deism that it would be an intellectual
155
disgrace to refer to the two concepts by the same name. For were they
deists, Franklin’s speech, lavishly laced as it was with a litany of
references from revealed religion, and from the Bible of all books,
and primed with pleas to a personal patron for His specific
intervention, would have galled the guts of genuine deists and given
them much cause for revulsion, much less objections.
Oooopppss! I almost forgot! Dr. Franklin himself was supposed
to be one of the leading deists! I guess it is something like musical
chairs. It really does not matter how many times and how fast you
move, or how many times and how long you sit, it is where you are
found when the music stops that matters. Clearly at eighty-one years
of age, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, like Charles Darwin, had come to his
senses and had put his religion in perspective. Either that or his
Constitutional Convention speech as recorded by Mr. James Madison
was the biggest hypocritical charade that a deist has ever mounted
before a consortium of his deist colleagues who criminally conceded
to a conspiracy of silence … and I am tempted to say, “Praise the
Lord!”
However, we know better. The truth is that the men at the
Constitutional Convention represented a positively skewed cross-
section of Americans who believed in God, revered the Bible, and
like us, with varying degrees of accuracy and faithfulness, practiced
what they preached. Its relevance to this chapter is to demonstrate that
what appears to be a significant omission of God from the
proceedings of the Convention is in fact full of a wealth of evidence
that supports the well-established belief of the delegates in God, and
helps attach the lie to the allegation that the delegates were committed
to establishing a Constitution designed to spawn a Godless America.
State Ratifications & God
Many before me have done excellent jobs in highlighting aspects
of the history of both the Constitutional Convention and the State
Ratification Conventions that clearly indicate great harmony between
church and state and equally clear involvement of our Founding
Fathers in the Christian religion. In New York and in Virginia, the
Ratification Conventions’ proceedings began with prayer every
156
morning. In North Carolina, the Ratification Convention met in a

church and presumably prayers were said every morning. In
Massachusetts it was voted that the Convention should attend daily
morning prayers, and it is very probable that the proceedings were
conducted in a church in Boston.
Because of the limited relevance of original intent to the realities
of today, I will conclude this argument against alleged irreligious and/
or non-Christian motivations of our Founding Fathers with the text of
the Proclamation of a Day of Thanksgiving by the Commander-in-
chief of the Colonial Forces of the War of Independence, the
chairman of the Constitutional Convention of the USA, and first
president of the United States of America, George Washington. We
shall note that this proclamation, and no doubt both the preamble and
the argument thereof were recommended by majority members of
both the Congress and the Senate, and therefore presumably reflective
of the will of the people.
Washington’s 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
157
the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we

experienced in the 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; 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 shewn kindness onto us)
and to bless them with good government, peace, and
concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true
religion and virtue, and the increase 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 Washington!
Constitution Contextualization
It is within the context of the several founding documents, as
well as the atmosphere in both the Constitutional and Ratification
Conventions discussed above that the texts of the Constitution and
Bill of Rights must be analyzed for original intent as it relates to the
desire of the Founding Fathers to distance and/or disassociate the
158
United States of America from religion, and specifically from

Christianity.
Because I consider the classification of any scholarly
investigation into any predetermined philosophical, theological or
sociological mold to be less than complimentary, I entertain no
reluctance to state that there is absolutely no indication of any
Christian or religious bias in the texts of the Constitution and the Bill
of Rights. I refuse to hitch my conclusions to the flimsy thread of a
stock phrase such as ‘in the Year of our Lord’. Neither would I
condescend to resort to a single reference to Sundays as non-working
days as proof that the Constitution is not ‘Godless’. However, these
acts of generosity that I show to the enemies of a Christian America
are matched by a disdain for those who try to torture truth with
references to the diplomatic deceit in the denial of Christian values by
Article 11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli.
Elementary principles of analysis and interpretation predispose
me to look at the text by itself first, and only after that to examine the
context for interpretation and/or clarification of the text. If all or most
of the opponents of a Christian America are relying on the text of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights for their substantive position, I
would have to sympathize with their conclusion based on this
basically narrow, but valid component of literary analysis. However,
despite the ultimately qualitatively high level of legal relevance of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights, those two documents are
quantitatively subsumed by a plethora of other documents, some of
which we have already glanced at, coming before and after them that
manifestly attest to the contrary alleged intent.
Relevance of Original Intent
It is understandable that our generation and generations past and
future would strain for a satisfactory resolution of this dichotomy.
And this we will attempt. However, even before attempting to resolve
it, let it be clearly established that there is extremely limited value in
the ‘original intent’ of the Founding Fathers as it relates to their
creation of ‘organisms’ as dynamic and steeped in longevity as the
Constitution and Bill of Rights. In establishing the relevance, and by
159
the same token, irrelevance of ‘original intent’, let me borrow from

the debate contribution of Hon. Oliver Wolcott in Connecticut’s
Federal Constitution Ratification Convention:
I have given it all the consideration in my power, and I
have, a considerable time since, made up my mind on the
subject, and think it my duty to give my voice in favor of
adopting it. It is founded upon the election of the people. If it
varies from the former system, or if it is to be altered
hereafter, it must be with the consent of the people. This is all
the security in favor of liberty that can be expected. Mankind
may become corrupt, and give up the cause of freedom; but I
believe that love of liberty which prevails among the people
of this country will prevent such a direful calamity.
Dynamic Constitution
Although this was not his ‘original intent’, what Mr. Wolcott was
in fact saying was that ‘original intent’ has its place. However, for so
long as each generation zealously guards its democratic right to
determine its own destiny through the constitutional power of the
ballot, whatever evolves would be the reflection of the collective
majority will of the people, and as such would have far greater claim
to relevance in our present reality than would ‘original intent’.
Of course, Mr. Wolcott’s argument presupposes an educated,
informed, alert and concerned population. It presumes that there will
be those who will attack the basis of freedom. However, it equally
presumes that the people directly or through their elected
representatives would be alert enough to recognize an attack on
freedoms in whichever form it comes and rise up in defense.
Original Intent’s Pride of Place
Nevertheless, it will forever remain irrefutable that ‘original
intent’ enjoys a pride of place that cannot be equaled or surpassed –
there is only one place for one original. ‘Original intent’ will therefore
forever remain the ultimate reference point against which subsequent
positions must be measured and evaluated, and I dare say, justified.
Therefore, when things are going well, altered or evolved positions
160
can modestly claim that they were built on the foundation of ‘original
intent’. However, when things are not going well, evolved positions
must be called into question and re-examined in light of the source
from which they evolved.
However, whereas the Founding Fathers deliberately deposited
dynamism into the DNA of the Constitution because of their
consciousness of their own fallibility, it was not their intention that
this ingredient should be used to set the Constitution adrift. There
were very vexing issues that the Fathers felt could not be definitively
and finally dealt with at that time, although the seeds of their
determination had already been sown. One such issue was slavery,
and another was the expanding role of the woman in American
society. Our Founding Fathers were brilliant, practical men who
understood the gravity of the responsibility entrusted to them, and
they did the best that they could have done. It is both illogical and
void of any evidence to even suggest that the Founding Fathers
intended the Constitution and its provision for amendments to be so
flexible as to facilitate the complete reversal of the major principles it
sought to enshrine.
The Founding Fathers did not view the drafting of the
Constitution as the sole foundation on which the creation of a brand-
new country would rest. It would have been illogical for them so to
think, and the basis for the lack of logic would have been their own
presence. If anything created anything new, it would have been the
Declaration of Independence and the subsequent War of
Independence that gave life to the declaration. The Constitution,
important as it was, was to be a major contribution within an
established context.
Constitutional Convention’s Mandate
This reasoning is supported by the original intention behind the
commissioning of the Convention. It was to modify, adjust and
improve the Articles of Confederation which were already in
operation, not to create a brand-new document. Certainly for the
overwhelming majority of delegates, even if not for a handful of
visionary leaders, it was after the failed initial exchanges and attempts
161
at patching up the many flaws and loopholes in the existing articles

that it became obvious to all that it was easier to start with a clean
slate than to correct, modify and reframe the old.
Thirteen Independent Countries
Also of value in creating an accurate perspective of the
environment in which the Constitution was drafted is the fact that all
thirteen states already considered themselves independent countries,
and as such they saw every power granted to the federal government
to be an erosion of their own. This resulted in very grudgingly
conceded powers to the federal government, which in turn contributed
in no small measure to the confusion and cut and thrust that
characterized much of the Convention. Also appreciate the fact that
just as collectively the states wished to concede as little to the federal
government as possible. Individually, each wanted to protect itself
from unfair advantages by the other. The one unifying factor was their
common hatred for Great Britain and all that Great Britain had come
to mean to them. Later, even the initially proposed style of addressing
the President was discarded on the grounds that it was too
monarchical.
Religion Was Never an Issue
Against that background, everything that was said, as well as
everything that was not said about religion and Christianity in
particular, is understandable. First, religion was not an issue because
it was not one of the areas of power that was conceded to the federal
government.
Remember that the Constitution of the United States of America
was ratified on June 21, 1788. At that time there were already thirteen
state constitutions in operation. Each of those constitutions addressed
the question of religion. Most states established religions, all of which
were brands of Christianity. A few of these state constitutions even
had harsh religious tests for holders of public office. Others did not
establish religions but had distinctly biased Christian structures.
Federal v. State Government
Also bear in mind that the federal government, which was to be
162
governed by the Federal Constitution, was not and could not be an

entity in itself. There can be states without a federal government, and
that in fact was the case at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
However, there can be no federal government without the states. Put
another way, Every officer of the federal government is first a citizen
of a state and comes under its jurisdiction.
The Federal Constitution therefore complemented the state
constitutions and was not expected to operate in a vacuum. As a
matter of fact, the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights spell
out a very clear and distinct relationship between the federal
government and the states. Amendment IX states: “The enumeration
in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment X states: “The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.”
Interpreting Absence
The absence of any reference to religion in the Constitution, save
and except for the negative reference to religious tests, simply meant
that whatever the states legislated concerning religion was the
applicable law of the state. As far as religious tests were concerned, a
state was still free to require religious tests for its officials.
What the Constitution did was to declare that anyone who wished
to hold federal office could not be subjected to religious tests; the
reason should not be hard to imagine. If religious tests were allowed
for federal appointments, which religious test would it be? You would
first have to establish a national religion before you could establish a
religious test for federal appointments.
‘No Religious Test’
However, perhaps the most powerful and potent evidence that
our Founding Fathers did not intend or even contemplate a Godless
America or a Godless Constitution that would be silent on religion is
their careful choice of a religious sub-theme on which to speak. Take
a close look at the text of Article VI Clause 3:
163
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 language is at the same time both all-inclusive and
exclusionary. The Founding Fathers clearly intended all holders of
public office in the several states as well as in the federal government
to declare their allegiance to the Constitution. The term they
employed was, ‘both of the United States and of the several States’.
But then in the same clause they insert a caveat that is designed to
place a restriction on the earlier intention.
They wanted allegiance to the Constitution but not with the help
of the most widely practiced methods. There were to be no religious
tests. Now walk with me through these steps. It was necessary to
stipulate that no religious tests would be permitted because it would
have been logical in their time for people to assume that one way to
secure allegiance would be through a test of one sort or the other.
There might have been other tests that were applied to public
officials, but the one that made the rounds in the state constitutions
was the religious test.
Why No Religious Test?
We have already stated that a good reason for having no religious
tests is the inability to determine which of the state religious tests
would have been appropriate. However, let us examine this a little
closer. Why was it necessary to make the stipulation? Why could the
subject not just have been left alone? After all, was it not clear that
the Founders intended the states to be in charge of the federal
government and not the federal government in charge of the states?
Was it not clear that the federal government was intended to serve the
interests of the states and not the reverse? And was it not a well-
established fact that the states were very clear as to their religious
privileges and prerogatives?
164
I suggest that the Founding Fathers found the ‘no religious test’
caveat to be necessary because of the highly charged religious
environment that characterized American society at the time of the
Constitutional Convention. Left alone, it was almost a foregone
conclusion that some methodology would be employed by some
creative federal politicians to exclude and discriminate against
Americans who did not subscribe to their brand of Christianity. Once
that trend began, then holders of public office would be religiously
colored or discolored by one brand or the other of Christianity.
Sooner or later, one of the brands of Christianity would find itself in
the ascendancy, and since Christianity had already acquired state
patronage, that would be synonymous to one or more states acquiring
the ascendancy over others. It would be a very short evolutionary step
from this fiasco to the establishment of a national religion.
In 1787, with the leader of the War of Independence presiding at
the Constitutional Convention, no delegate was about to leave
unplugged such a gaping loophole through which the tyranny from
they had escaped from at the price of blood could insidiously creep
back in under the disguise of patriotic paraphernalia. The ‘no
religious test’ caveat is therefore part of the very clear evidence that
the Founding Fathers rated religious motivation to be so powerful as
to identify it as one of the few things that could undermine the
stability of the new nation if not subjected to restraint by consensus.
And by way of confirmation, the same Fathers who wrote the
Constitution clarified all doubt as to both their motivation and intent
when they penned the Bill of Rights.
More than ‘No Religious Test’
It would be expected that if religion was as hot a topic and as
serious a consideration as I propose it was, then such a strategic
inclusion of a religious caveat would not be left standing in isolation.
After all, the ‘no religious test’ caveat could hardly be said to be
explicit in its description of the problem that the Fathers feared, and
that motivated them to include the caveat in the first place. It is
therefore of absolutely no surprise whatever that the very First
Amendment dispenses with the illusionary gloves and attacks the
165
critical issue head on.

However, clause 3 of article VI was pregnant with both inclusive
as well as exclusionary provisions. The ‘no religious test’ caveat was
not to apply to the ‘several states’ but only to the United States.
Fundamental laws of interpretation require us to pause and reflect.
After immediately applying a desired objective to all involved, the
same author proceeds to apply the constraint only to some of those
involved, it is logical to conclude that the author does not intend the
constraint to apply to all. The Founding Fathers therefore with one
stroke of the pen proscribed religious tests for federal officials and
endorsed its prescription for state officials. In fact, they had little or
no choice because the practice was very well entrenched in varying
degrees in each of the thirteen original states.
Why not ‘no religious test’ for States?
One final deduction is possible as a result of careful analysis. We
know that the practice of establishing state religions was on its way
out as the 18th century closed. We know that by the turn of the 19th
century only three states still had established religions. We know that
of these three, the first to disestablish was Connecticut in 1818, the
second was New Hampshire in 1819, and the last was Massachusetts
in 1833. Why did the Founding Fathers stop short of barring religious
tests in both ‘the several States’ as well as in ‘the United States’?
The answer is simple – they had no choice. Although the move
towards disestablishment at the state level was well underway, the
Founding Fathers knew that it would have been suicidal for them to
even appear to be attempting to push it faster than it was moving. At
any rate, because most of the states were represented, some of the
men at the Constitutional Convention would have been representing
states that still supported established churches. As it stood there were
deep-rooted suspicions between some of the delegates and especially
between delegates of the smaller states on the one hand and delegates
of the larger states on the other hand. There were almost
insurmountable suspicions between delegates of slave states and those
form free states. Already the country had already been divided into
‘North’ and ‘South’ over the issue of slavery. The shaky discussions
166
that limped along, and definitely so for the first half of the
convention, would have been completely derailed if any controversy
surrounding religion had been allowed to creep in.
This is not the picture of a roomful of men who were anti-
religious or anti-God, or who wanted to install a Godless Constitution
in order to spawn a Godless America. This is a picture of a roomful of
men who had the highest respect for religion, who were the offspring
of men and women who feared God earnestly, and above all, men
who were conscious that they were leading people who were deeply
religious, and that that religion was Christianity. They knew how
powerful religion was to the people of America. They knew that one
wrong word on the topic of religion cold ignite the fragile union they
were painstakingly building. This is why they wisely took the view
that the less said on the topic the better. And when they did speak
about religion, they confirmed the views held by all, or at least by the
overwhelming majority.
First Amendment
The First Constitutional Amendment in the Bill of Rights
consistently lives up to our expectations. It clearly states that:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Our Founding Fathers by
these two direct references to religion revealed the intensity of the
relevance of the subject, the depth of the fears of any kind of religious
suppression, and the lengths to which the Fathers would go to assure
the people of America that their right to religious self-determination
would not be infringed.
This Amendment, as was the philosophy behind the entire Bill of
Rights, was designed to burden and restrain Congress, not the states
or its people. It was Congress that the people were afraid of because
its prospect for oppression reminded them too much of the
monarchical monster from which they had recently freed themselves.
Moreover, the people’s fear of the prospect of a powerful
domineering Congress was also shared by the officials of the states
who drafted and ratified the Constitution. As a matter of fact, several
states entered into a gentlemen’s agreement that they would ratify the
167
Constitution only on condition that a Bill of Rights would be passed,

especially seeing that several of these states already had their own bill
of rights. And most of those who opposed the Bill of Rights did so
only on the grounds that they thought it unnecessary since they
understood that the Federal Constitution enjoyed only the powers that
were given to it by the states, and as such was not a threat to the
rights of the people.
Fourteenth Amendment – Net Gain or Loss?
It was not until the highly questionable ratification of the 14 th
Amendment after the conclusion of the Civil War, which cost the
lives of over 600,000 Americans, that the states lost much of their
autonomy and had their powers swallowed up by the federal
government. And whereas one understands the psychological
environment that was created by the secession of eleven Southern
States from the Union and the cost of a wasteful war that arguably
followed as a direct result, much of the state skewed gains that were
secured by the Founding Fathers through their masterful design of
both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were forever, or until this
day, lost. From that day forward, it would be the federal government
that would be the guardian of the Bill of Rights. How much more
wrong could that have been? The ‘monster’ against which the Bill of
Rights was established to protect the people had now become the
protector of the Bill of Rights – presumably against the people! My
grandmother would say, “Never set a rat to guard the cheese!” At the
end of the day, the 13th, 14th and 15th Reconstruction Amendments
benefited the emancipated Black former slave. They atoned for the
hideous crime that had been perpetuated against the Black man in
America. Added to the millions of pints of blood that had been wasted
on the battlefields of the Civil War for four long years, the
Reconstruction Amendments could be said to constitute a form of
penance necessary to purge the collective conscience of the United
States of America. However, the price paid for those amendments was
high, and today we are still paying the price. The underpinning
philosophy on which the model of American Republican democracy
was built was fatally altered – perhaps forever.
168
Rationale behind Power Distribution

The difference is not so subtle. Powers that were assigned to the
federal government by the Founding Fathers were concentrated in
areas in which the federal government enjoyed a natural monopoly.
The Post Office, regulation of foreign trade, the declaration of war,
and the creation of treaties with other nations were among the areas in
which a strong federal government was not only desirable, but also
had enjoyed monopolistic strengths and advantages.
The establishment or disestablishment of religion on the other
hand was a matter in which there was no need for centralized
authority, and in fact played into the overarching capitalist philosophy
that seems to be embedded in the very genetic structure of the
American experience. After all, where there is a free flow of
information, choice and accessibility, the market will flourish. It does
not matter whether it is a market of ideas, of services, of goods or of
citizens. As the United States expanded, states were naturally
constrained to operate in an environment of undeclared brotherly
rivalry. Any state with a predominance of repressive, uncompetitive
laws, whether it was religious, commercial or social laws would find
itself facing rapid depopulation as its people migrate to other more
friendly states. With the lion’s share of power now residing in the
federal government, if abused, the only migratory recourse that the
people have is to try to go to Mexico, Canada, Jamaica or Cuba –
which would probably mean that they would be obliged to remain in
America.
The Quest for Freedom
However, before changing our perspective, there is something
that is worthy of observation and emphasis. The trek of American
settlers from Great Britain and other countries to mainland America
was all about freedom. The Pilgrims and many of the early settlers
right up to modern times have fled from one form or another of
oppression and have come to America in search of freedom.
American settlers were attracted to America primarily because of
its vast land resources which they translated to mean freedom. With
169
very few exceptions, native American Indians were friendly and

helpful to early American settlers. Pocahontas may have been ‘larger
than life’ but was not unusual. The Native Americans were free, and
their freedom was linked to the freedom of their greatest asset – land!
American settlers wanted to own land, but this for the Indians would
mean loss of the heart of freedom, for what is free cannot be owned.
Freedom Lovers and Slavery
The settlers used superior firepower and with the help of
biological weapons of European diseases against which the Native
Americans had no immunity, won the battle to enslave the land.
However, land was not the only thing that freedom-searching
American settlers enslaved. They also enslaved their fellow human
beings. How could a freedom-conscious people build an economy on
the practice of enslaving other human beings? Yet that is exactly what
very many Americans did. And as uncomfortable and unpalatable as it
is to concede this today, some Americans successfully rationalized the
institution of slavery so that it created little difficulty for their
‘Christian’ consciences. Perhaps I should say they did so almost
successfully.
Jefferson and Slavery
President Thomas Jefferson, in my opinion, distinguished himself
by his extensive reading, research and writings. After his term as
governor, a detailed commentary on Jefferson’s legislative plans for
the emancipation of all slaves born after the passage of his proposed
law was published in 1782. Clearly, Jefferson wanted an end put to
slavery, although at the time he was a slave owner. He conceded that
it was degrading and dehumanizing. However, he stopped short of
coming close to any abhorrence of the enslavement of the Black man
on the grounds that both Black and White were created in the image
and likeness of God and as a result were brothers in Christ.
On the contrary, Jefferson’s plans for the emancipation or
manumission of Black slaves also included a requirement for their
colonization in some part of the world other than in America.
Jefferson was firmly against any prospect of Blacks and Whites living
170
together as equals in the United States of America. Moreover, almost

as if in an attempt not to be misunderstood on this issue, in a very
detailed, cold and blunt comparison between Blacks and Whites, he
concluded that Blacks were inferior.
The fact that Jefferson could defend such a view two centuries
after Americans began owning Black slaves leaves unchallenged the
view that for many Americans the Black slave was treated like
property and not a human being made in the image and likeness of
God. It would appear that the laws which defined the Black man as
property merely codified the practice that was already prevalent.
Slavery and the Civil War
Is it not paradoxical that at the heart of the Civil War was the
secession of the Southern States and at the heart of their secession
was the maintenance of the foundation on which their economy was
built – slavery of the Black man!
Enslavement of the Black man and his posterity had become so
endemic that not even the Civil War was fought to gain his freedom.
Many of the hundreds of thousands of Northerners who fought and
died in the Civil War and who supported the war did not care enough
about the plight of the Black man as to fight, although they
maintained an aversion to this repulsive institution of slavery which
they had already made illegal in the North.
Abraham Lincoln and Slavery
Some people have even tried to argue that slavery could not have
been that bad because White people would not be foolish enough to
deliberately destroy their possessions and assets based on economic
considerations. Perhaps no lesser example could be found than
President Abraham Lincoln, who was well known to be almost
neutral on the issue of slavery at the personal level, although he
objected to its expansion and declared it to be inherently wrong.
On March 1, 1859 in Chicago, Illinois, Lincoln said:
I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of
slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and
171
perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for

it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and
strengthening and perpetuation of it are entirely different
propositions. There we should in every way resist it as a
wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must
and will come to an end.
On another occasion, writing to his friend William H. Seward on
February 1, 1861, Lincoln said:
I say now, however, as I have all the while said, that on
the territorial question – that is, the question of extending
slavery under the national auspices, – I am inflexible. I am
for no compromise which assists or permits the extension of
the institution on soil owned by the nation. And any trick by
which the nation is to acquire territory, and then allow some
local authority to spread slavery over it, is as obnoxious as
any other.
But whereas Lincoln was almost on the verge of ambivalence on
the subject of taking action to end slavery, he was very clearly
committed to saving the Union, even if it meant freeing the slaves of
the South. Therefore, on the issue of secession, far from being
ambivalent, Lincoln was adamant. However, from the South’s
perspective, the gradual movement of Northern antislavery sentiment
would inevitably reach the South and destroy their economic base.
In August 1862 Lincoln wrote a memorable response to an editor
of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley, who had publicly
challenged him to put an end to slavery.
If there be those who would not save the Union unless
they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with
them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless
they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree
with them. My paramount object is to save the Union, and
not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave, I would do it—if I could save it by
freeing all the slaves, I would do it—and if I could do it by
172
freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.

What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because it
helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because
I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Yet undoubtedly, slavery became the clarion call of the Civil War,
and President Lincoln, who did not care too much about Black slaves,
has gone down in history as the president who emancipated them. But
the thousands of gallons of blood shed on the battlefield would not be
the only price that freedom-loving Americans would be called upon to
pay for their two-hundred-year love affair with slavery.
Context of the Illegal 14th
The 14th Amendment was illegally and unconstitutionally passed
for a very good reason. It consolidated the gains of the Civil War,
which was precipitated by the exercising of the right to secede by
eleven states in the United States of America. The precipitate of the
Civil war exposed the United States at perhaps its most vulnerable
point. President Lincoln saw himself as having the responsibility to
save the Union, and that continued to be his single greatest
motivation. It would appear that the major price in blood having been
paid, a little constitutional treachery to consolidate the gains made
was a relatively small price to pay. In the process, liberty for the
Black man was enshrined and the permanence of his emancipation
and the full rights and protection of citizenship constitutionalized.
Slavery & States’ Right to Secede
However, in order to do this, Congress had to remove from the
Southern States, and by extension all states, the right to reintroduce
slavery, to perpetuate its institutions and to deny the Black man
access to inalienable rights enjoyed by White Americans. In the
absence of a definitive position by the Constitution on the right of a
state to secede, and not wanting to strain at an interpretational gnat in
the 10th Amendment, historical context weighed in on the right to
secede. Almost everyone in America at the time of the Constitutional
Convention saw this new development as an experiment, especially
after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Nowhere in the
173
Constitution is it stated that the states had entered into a permanent

union. When Rhode Island, New York and Virginia ratified the
Constitution, they implicitly expressed their right to secede upon
provocation. The text of Virginia’s declaration is of special interest
because George Washington, who was the chairman of the
Convention, was also a delegate from Virginia. The relevant excerpt
reads as follows:
…the powers granted under the constitution, being
derived from the people of the United States, may be
resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to
their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted
thereby, remains with them and at their will.
At the end of the Civil War, the implicit right to secede was
destroyed and replaced in 1869 by the Supreme Court in Texas v.
White with the explicit proscription that individual states could not
unilaterally secede from the Union.
Naturally, the vanquished Southern States disagreed but were
powerless to object and literally signed the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments while looking down the barrel of a gun. The victorious
Northern States saw the Reconstruction Amendments as their creation
to control the South so they supported it in order to consolidate the
gains that they had bought with blood.
And so for two different reasons, the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments became law, and the constitutional rights of the states
and its people were ceded forever to the federal government.
Freedom Lost
And so it was that because of their support for, and tolerance of,
the evil institution of slavery, a freedom-loving people who came to
America to be free, secured freedom from Great Britain. They then
enshrined freedom in their Constitution against expected attack from
their own federal government, while hypocritically denying or at least
delaying enjoyment by Black slaves of their inalienable right to
freedom. These freedom-loving people gambled their freedom on the
battlefields of the Civil War; and eventually surrendered it through
174
the 14th Amendment to the federal government.

Lincoln’s Last Perspective of Slavery
Lincoln did not live long enough to appreciate how the 14th
amendment would come to haunt the nation and threaten the very
freedom that was so dear to him. However, at the end of the third year
of the Civil War, his perspectives were typically clear and his analysis
characteristically brilliant. This is what President Lincoln said:
Now, at the end of three years’ struggle, the nation’s
condition is not what either party or any man devised or
expected; God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending seems
plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and
wills, also, that we of the North as well as you of the South
shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial
history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the
justice and goodness of God.
Can freedom lost ever be regained? Can the downward spiral of
individual and states’ rights into the abyss of federal domination ever
be halted, much less reversed? Of course it can. And the good news is
that on this occasion, no civil war will be fought, but some blood will
inevitably be shed as individuals and groups of individual attempt to
reclaim what was once theirs, was ceded on the altar of expediency,
but which will forever remain an inalienable right. No wonder so
many Americans are content to leave well enough alone!
175
The Truth About the Treaty of Tripoli
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER NINE
B ecause much ado has been made about the little known Treaty
of Tripoli, and especially about a seemingly indicting clause in
that treaty, it would be helpful to acquire a proper understanding of
what the opponents of a Christian America deliberately misconstrue.
The first fact is that the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli is a reality,
although it did not last a decade. The document made its way into the
treaty books and in that format has been preserved until this day. The
second fact is that, like it or not, Clause 11 is a reality and its validity
cannot be denied. But why is there even talk about denial of its
existence? For the answer to that question, let us take a look at Clause
11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli.
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 Musselmen,-and as the said States never have
entered into any war or act of hostility against any
Mehomitan 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
The potentially offending section includes the words, “the
government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion”. These words have been used by
opponents of a Christian America as evidence that America was never
a Christian country. The inference is that we should not at this stage
try to suggest that it was, neither should we now try to make it one in
the 21st century.
176
The third fact is that it is a disservice to scholarship to even

suggest that Clause 11 was not in the original Arabic version, and that
in 1930 it was discovered that Clause 11 of the original treaty is
gibberish. Nor is it palatable to dilute the efficacy of Clause 11 by
attributing it to the private opinions of Joel Barlow or to his recruit,
Richard O’Brien. For though Richard O’Brien may have been
instrumental in much of the negotiation, he did so under the orders
and supervision of Joel Barlow, who was by far the most trusted and
successful agent of the United States of America to Tripoli and the
other Barbary States. At any rate it is Barlow’s endorsed version that
would have been handed to Congress for ratification. Nor does it
make any sense to accurately accuse Barlow of allowing his personal
deist biases to influence the unprecedented inclusion of Clause 11.
Barlow is entitled to his views. The president of the United States of
America and the Congress ratified the treaty unanimously. Therefore,
Clause 11 can no longer represent the biased views of Mr. Barlow; it
now represents the official position of the government and people of
the USA. Unfortunately, in an attempt to defend themselves against
the onslaught of the opponents of a Christian America, some
proponents of a Christian America have feebly pleaded one or more
of the foregoing.
Having established the official validity of the Treaty of Tripoli
and its 11th clause, let us try to understand what the treaty was all
about with help from the invaluable Avalon Project of Yale Law
School, and several other sources.
From as early as the 17th century, four small Muslim countries
along the southern coastline of the Mediterranean Sea were called the
Barbary States. These were Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.
These were little pirate kingdoms that plundered the merchant ships
of much bigger nations, and included among these were the merchant
ships of Great Britain and other European countries, all of which were
identified as being Christian. As in many other instances, the tenets of
the Muslim religion with its focus on hatred for Christians and Jews
as well as on Muslim world domination, the Barbary States combined
a religious motive with raw, unbridled, materialistic, criminal and
cruel actions.
177
The pirates operated like clockwork by a very simple plan. They

would employ the use of small fast boats. They would pull up
alongside a merchant ship, take it over, take the crew captive and
demand a ransom for the release of the crew and ship. Individual acts
of piracy and negotiated settlements gave way to a more systematic
and organized regime of treaties between the Barbary States and
mercantile governments. The latter agreed to pay money and/or other
tribute to the Barbary States as part of a treaty. In return, the Barbary
States guaranteed safe passage of all ships protected by the treaty. In
1662 Great Britain signed such a treaty with the Barbary States, and
she was not the only large country that did so. The good thing about
Britain’s treaty was that American ships were protected so long as
America remained under British rule. However, when in 1776 the
United States of America became independent of Britain, she lost the
parental protection from piracy she had enjoyed through treaty. Great
Britain, on the other hand, opted to continue rewarding the pirates
instead of removing them so as to focus their avaricious appetites on
potential prey such as the United States of America.
Colonial America had developed very progressive trading
relationships with other countries. The Barbary States, recognizing
her vulnerability as from 1776, began attacking American ships with
impunity and demanding handsome ransoms for their release. By
1784, the United States of America’s Mediterranean trading activities
had been virtually paralyzed. As a result, the Continental Congress
authorized tribute treaties to be made with the Barbary States. A
three-man special commission, consisting of John Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, was appointed to steer the
negotiations. Congress also armed them with a vote of $80,000 to
spend on tribute treaties with the four Barbary States.
In 1785, Algiers attacked and captured two American merchant
ships and demanded a ransom of slightly under $60,000 for the
twenty-one crew members and their vessels. America offered under
$5,000. The American captives were enslaved and humiliated for ten
years because no deal was struck. In 1787 John Adam’s preference for
diplomatic initiatives paid off when America successfully signed a
treaty with Morocco for a one-time payment of $20,000 plus
178
incidentals. Peace with Morocco meant one less pirate state with
which to contend.
Yet Algiers held out. In order to press their demands and
strengthen their position, in 1790 Algiers captured eleven more
American ships and more than a hundred prisoners, bringing the total
number of ships being held to thirteen and the number of men to more
than 120. This news sent shock waves throughout the United States of
America, and Congress was forced to decide whether to continue
paying ransoms or go to war. Of the two leading negotiators on the
newly formed commission, Thomas Jefferson was in favor of a
military solution to the problem, while John Adams preferred
diplomacy and the payment of tribute. Eventually Congress leaned
towards war; but first, warships had to be built. Five years later the
construction of six warships was authorized.
Finally, under intense pressure from smarting under the
knowledge that more than 120 of its citizens had been cruelly
enslaved by a foreign pirate state far inferior to the world power they
had recently defeated, the USA bowed to the criminals and signed a
treaty of peace and friendship with Algiers on September 5, 1795.
According to my distillation of the best records available, the United
States agreed to pay between $585,000.00 to $642,500.00 plus an
annual tribute of $21,600.00. In addition, she agreed to provide naval
supplies and presents to the Dey, the pirate ruler of Algiers. In
exchange, he promised the release of the American captives and
protection for American shipping. The USA had been humiliated and
at least temporarily brought to its knees by a bunch of organized
terrorists. It could not afford the negotiated settlement and ended up
being vulnerable to continually escalating terrorist demands as a
result of the delay in settling.
The following text, reproduced in Hunter Miller’s Notes and
related work Treaties and Other International Acts of the United
States of America, is drawn from the instructions given to O’Brien
when he was dispatched to Algiers as US Consul General in 1798.
The Crescent Frigate in which you are to embark, you will
deliver to the Dey and Regency, for whom it has been
179
constructed and equipped, conformably to the stipulation of

Mr Barlow. The Schooner Hamdullah, which has lately sailed
with Stores for Algiers is also to be delivered to the Dey. This
Schooner has been purchased, and the Schooner Lelah Eisha
is now building here, for the Dey, in the expectation that they
will not only soothe him under the past delays &
disappointments in the fulfilment of our stipulations, but
serve as acceptable substitutes for the stipulated, masts,
Yards, and heavy planks, which are so costly and difficult to
procure, and so exceedingly expensive to transport-the
former, when delivered at Algiers will cost the United States
perhaps thirty times their estimated price in the stipulations.
Instead of paying $80,000 to four pirate kingdoms, the USA
ended up paying a US Treasury estimated $992,463.25 to just one. So
weak was the position of the USA in 1798 that it was also obliged to
agree to ongoing payment of tribute in the form of naval supplies and
bribes.
It was against this background that we must interpret the treaty
with Tripoli signed in Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and with Algiers
on January 3, 1797, as well as the treaty with Tunis, signed at about
the same time. Tripoli was less powerful than Algiers by far but was
an integral part of the Barbary States, and more specifically, the three
remaining pirate states with which the USA did not have a treaty.
Those Americans who had been enslaved in Algiers and who had
survived the ordeal were released on July 8, 1796 after more than ten
years of captivity. At the time of their release, Joel Barlow described
the abomination by reporting that:
Six of them had in the previous few weeks died of the
plague. Several of them are probably rendered incapable of
gaining a living. One is in a state of total blindness; another
is reduced nearly to the same condition; two or three carry
the marks of unmerciful treatment in ruptures produced by
hard labour; and others have had their constitutions injured
by the plague.
The Treaty of Tripoli, which was negotiated through the
180
combined efforts of Joel Donaldson, Richard O’Brien and Joel

Barlow and with the full endorsement of Commissioner
Plenipotentiary David Humphreys on the part of the USA on the one
hand, and the Most Illustrious Jussuf Bashaw, Lords and Governors
of the City & Kingdom of Tripoli on the other, proved to be far less
painful to the USA. The total cost in straight cash for treaties with
Tunis and Tripoli was approximately $160,000.00. Of course there
were the additional bribes in kind that were required. The ransom and
bribes for the Treaty of Tripoli included thirteen watches of gold,
silver and pinsbach, five rings, of which three were diamond, one of
sapphire and one with a watch in it, one hundred and forty piques of
cloth, and four caftans of brocade.
However, even this relatively small ransom proved to be too
much for the fledgling United States of America, and given the
distance between the two countries, delays in payment were
inevitable. The Bey of Tripoli responded predictably. He escalated the
ransom demands and eventually broke the treaty in 1801 and declared
war on America. Fortunately, the docile President Adams was in the
process of demitting office and Thomas Jefferson was in the
ascendancy. One of Jefferson’s first acts was to dispatch warships to
the Barbary States and by 1805 the threat of piracy from the Barbary
States was history. Commodore Decatur three times made his name in
the Barbary States and the USA’s military exploits in that region have
been immortalized in the Hymn of the Marines.
When seen in its proper context, what significance can really be
attached to a one-of-a-kind clause that denies that the American
Government is founded on the Christian religion? And what is the
real significance of that clause when it was not written by the
president or the Congress of the USA? And when ratified by the
president and Senate of the USA, how inappropriate would that be
when this profession is being made to fanatical Muslims whose
economy is fueled by piracy and who have been holding captive more
than 120 citizens of the USA for almost a decade? Consider that much
of what the Barbary Muslim pirates did was done in the name of their
religion, and by default, their targets were Christians. Their captives
were humiliated for being among other things ‘infidels’, which has
181
become a synonym for ‘non-Muslim’. Given President Adams’

preference for diplomacy and the payment of bribes as against direct
military intervention, how significant would be a pacifist’s concession
to a Muslim maniac that the Government of America is not in any
sense founded on the Christian religion? And which requires the
greater diplomatic, ethical and conscientious genuflection? Would it
be a statement that the Government of America is not in any way
founded on the Christian religion, or that the American Government
“has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or
tranquility of Musselmen” who had been crippling their
Mediterranean trade for decades, successfully bribing the
Government of the USA and cruelly enslaving its citizens? Clearly, it
would have to be the latter.
But not only is Clause 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of almost zero
significance when examined within its historic context, it is also of
negligible worth when examined outside of its context. The first part
of Clause 11 is a totally accurate statement. The governments and
Constitutions of the individual states of the United States of America
were all founded in almost every sense on the Christian religion, to
the point where Christian religious tests were enforced to determine
the suitability of government appointees. The declaration of Clause 11
referred not to the states and to the people of America that had
inhabited that part of the world for almost two centuries, but to the
nine-year-old constitutional creation called the federal government,
which among other things was specifically prohibited from making
any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof.
Therefore, regardless of the motivation for the ratification of
Clause 11, the Senate and president of the United States of America
did not lie. After all, it was the same President Adams who in a letter
to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 said:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved
independence were the general principles of Christianity. I
will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those
general principles of Christianity are as eternal and
182
immutable as the existence and attributes of God.

And in the Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p.
9. John Adams writes:
Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the
Bible for their only law Book, and every member should
regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every
member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance,
frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity
towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence
toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise
would this region be.
If the Treaty of Tripoli is the best leg on which opponents of a
historically Christian America have to stand… then their cause is
permanently crippled.
183
The Mobilized Church of Jesus Christ
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER TEN
I n my first major book, You’ve Got All it Takes to Succeed, I penned

these words.
If something goes wrong in your life, accept
responsibility.
There was either something that we did that we should not
have done; or something that we did not do that we should
have done. Or there was something that we should have
allowed to be done to us that we did not allow to be done; or
something that we should not have allowed to be done to us
that we allowed to be done to us.
If there is a spiritual crisis in America, the Church of Jesus Christ
must accept the responsibility for the failure that is evident. The
challenges that the Church of Jesus Christ faces are minuscule when
compared to the power that the church possesses through the
indwelling of God the Holy Spirit in the lives of each one of the
members of the Body of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if in the war
between good and evil there appears to be even a temporary moment
of failure, since that failure cannot be attributed to God, it must be
attributed to the people of God. It must be that the people of God fail
to take unto ourselves the whole armor of God so that we can
withstand the attacks and overtures of the Devil and his demons.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, members of the Body of Jesus
Christ who called themselves ‘Baptists’ were mobilized for action and
for growth. Today, there are a handful of members of the Body of
Jesus Christ from almost every Christian denomination that are
mobilized for growth. However, that is not enough. The entire Church
184
of Jesus Christ in America and in every other country of the world

must be mobilized for spiritual warfare at a level never seen before,
as the Devil and his demons prepare for their ultimate defeat in hell
and as they try to take as many of God’s creations with them as
possible.
Danbury Baptists & President Jefferson
In 1801, during the ‘teen period’ of our nation, a representative
cross-section of the persecuted Church of Jesus Christ in America in
the form of the Baptists of Danbury took the initiative to directly
address the president of the United States of America on a matter that
was of ‘grave’ concern to them. The president received the letter from
the church several weeks after it was inexplicably delayed in transit to
him. Based on the importance he attached both to the content of the
communication and the character of the communicators, President
Jefferson decided to forgo a large chunk of his official and domestic
New Year’s Day duties on January 1, 1802 to draft, re-draft, edit,
acquire legal guidance from his Attorney General, finalize and have
delivered his response to the Baptists.
In 1802, the Danbury Baptist/Jefferson letter exchange was not a
trite insignificant series of actions with a vested interest in nothing
but courtesies and mutual well wishes. The Baptists had better things
to do with their time. President Jefferson, especially on New Year’s
Day, and with a 1235 lb cheese from his friend Rev. John Leland on
his doorstep, definitely had better things to do. For the Danbury
Baptists, political hostages as they saw themselves, their decision to
write Jefferson was a political ploy of the savviest order.
This was a major maneuver calculated to play an unpredictable
role in their overall efforts for achieving religious freedom in a local
state environment that was monopolized, controlled, and
contaminated by the established Congregationalists. For Jefferson,
fond as he was of writing, New Year’s Day could not have been his
day of choice for writing a letter to a group of people with whom he
was not personally acquainted. However, he did so because the
Danbury Baptist letter provided him with a political opportunity for
which he had long wished. The president therefore attached the
185
utmost seriousness and urgency to his response, and unlike his

treatment of hundreds of his personal letters, had two of his senior
government officials vet and edit the letter before sending it to the
Baptists. Therefore, both Jefferson and the Baptists saw this as a
political opportunity, seized the moment, and made the best of it.
As with almost everything else that President Jefferson did, the
letter hit the press. The fact that after being edited, the letter ended up
not saying what Jefferson really wanted to say could have accounted
for its lackluster performance at the propaganda level. There was only
one reported sighting within the first three months of its existence,
and that was in a Massachusetts newspaper.
Nevertheless, we can be sure that it was as visible as Jefferson
really wanted it to be. For after all, at least initially, he saw this
chance to reply to the Danbury letter as an opportunity for which he
had long waited. The fact that the Federalists had dominated the first
three elections and the fact that Jefferson was the first Democratic
Republican to be elected no doubt increased his appetite for
propaganda opportunities. Then, like everything else that is subject to
media attention, the letter took its place in the annals of history and
was forgotten. Well, not exactly forgotten…or you may say that it
went into hibernation.
As we take a rare, realistic, revolutionary, and redemptive look at
the predicament that faces the United States of America today, we
shall see how a section of the Body of Jesus Christ in the person of
the Danbury Baptists responded to mounting religious
marginalization. To say the least, they were proactive and made
optimal use of the political establishment in an attempt to defend their
right to publicly and freely worship their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
and share His love with others.
The Baptist/Jefferson exchange can provide us with at least a
little of the motivation needed to help us determine what needs to be
done to halt the slide of this great nation into the abyss of judicial
despotic decadence, and to identify who must be in the vanguard of
that assault.
186
It is always good advice not to fix something that is not broken.

Equally true, when the first cracks in a building become evident, it is
time to revisit the foundation. It does not matter what the foundation
is, any time that you tamper with, and proceed to systematically
destroy the foundation of a building, you set in motion a sequence of
events which, if not effectively countered by the ‘replacement’ of an
equal or stronger foundation, will result in the inevitable collapse of
the building. Undoubtedly, the religious and associated moral
foundations that underpinned the American colonies and the United
States of America have been tampered with and have not been
replaced by anything, much less something better.
Foundation of Founding Fathers
The Founding Fathers of America consisted of an overwhelming
majority of Christians, most of whom were educated churchgoers, a
handful of Seminary students, and a few deists at best. None of them
were Muslim. None were Hindus. None were Taoists, or agnostics, or
atheists, or secular humanists. Even independently of the weight of
evidence that now resides in the archives of the Library of Congress
and that have been replicated by hundreds of writers and
communicators, it is self-evident that a nation founded by
predominantly Christian ‘parents’ could not help but be founded on
Christian principles.
Today, many of our judges at all levels are abusing their
‘hijacked’ powers to systematically remove all traces of the Judeo-
Christian heritage from the public face of America, and at the same
time they are making inroads into the private practice of the Christian
faith.
Foundational Replacements
With what are they replacing these foundation pillars of Christian
values? They are legitimizing the same things that earned the
distinctive wrath of God on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
thousands of years ago and that the Bible consistently speaks against
– homosexuality, buggery, state-approved murder, Satan worship,
pornography and all their consequences. In part, because of its own
187
shortsightedness and self-defeating, voluntary submission to the

regime of 501C3 tyranny, some of the preachers and teachers in the
earthly incorporated Churches of Jesus Christ in America are being
censored and threatened if they fail to comply with the restraints on
the free exercise of their faith in Jesus Christ.
So… “Dawaaah!” In 2008, the United States of America is in a
predicament as its traditional values are deliberately crumbled by
those who have been allowed to besiege the country from the
perceptually impenetrable fortresses of the judiciary.
Stop the Madness
Let us agree that something must be done to halt the avalanche of
uprooted foundational values as they cascade into the abyss of
judicial irrelevance and are arbitrarily assigned to the enemy camp to
be used as weapons against their adherents. Why must something be
done? Because the United States of America is the greatest country on
earth and this status has not been achieved by accident. On the
contrary, this status has been achieved by the interaction of divine
Providence and a revolutionary pragmatic model of government of
laws that are founded on Christian principles and under girded by an
unparalleled written Constitution. All of this achievement has been
paid for by millions of gallons of blood of patriots and countless
billions of gallons of sweat of every free and initially enslaved
American who helped convert America from Jamestown settlement
and Bradford’s Plymouth landing into the arguably only recognized
superpower in the world today.
We must fight to redeem America from its path of destruction
because, since it cannot conceivably be better than it used to be
before the assault of the judicial tyrants, it will only become worse,
consistent with the social trend analyses. Parents slave in small part to
make life good for themselves, but in greater part to make life better
for their children. They do this by laying a foundation on which their
posterity can be built and become better.
The Archaeologist Approach
The archaeologist specializes in reverse engineering as he digs
188
deeper and deeper in search of a witness from the past. Closest to the
surface is always the most recent civilization because invariably,
civilizations build on top of each other. Barring the guaranteed effects
of the return of Jesus Christ for His Church at some unknown time in
the future, our generation must expect that just as we have benefited
from the foundation laid by our ancestors, we should consciously sow
today so that tomorrow our children can cheerfully reap. Of course, it
is apparent that this kind of argument is at least one generation too
late, but better late than never. The work of reconstruction now will
be harder today than it was a generation ago. Yet it is still achievable.
And finally, although there is a natural law that suggests that it is
easier to grow thorns and thistles and bush than it is to grow
tomatoes, turnips, tulips, corn and wheat, there is also a social law
that states that all that is necessary for evil to thrive is for good men
to do nothing. Not only is evil reversible, but it is easily reversible
and even easier to prevent in the first place.
Who Will Bell the ‘Rat’?
We must decide who will take the responsibility for ‘belling the
cat’, although I would have preferred that the cliché was ‘bell the rat’.
A good starting point is to determine who, if anyone, has the
responsibility for overtly launching and sustaining the
counteroffensive into the realms of darkness to reclaim the Judeo-
Christian values upon which this nation was built.
No one is exempt from consideration in the quest for identifying
leadership for the task of reclaiming America. In the final analysis,
every American man, woman, boy, and girl has a vested interest in the
well-being of the country, and as such must volunteer to become part
of the solution, or otherwise be classified as part of the problem.
However, there is one group of men, women, and children that must
come forward and identify itself as the one that will take
responsibility for leading the counterassault for the reclamation of the
Christian values that have recently been surrendered. That group is
the Church of Jesus Christ. Why the Church of Jesus Christ? I am
glad you asked.
189
The Church is the Light

The Church of Jesus Christ is so described in its operational
manual, the Bible. The Christians who comprise the Church of Jesus
Christ are referred to as ‘the light of the world’. The electro-civic
engineer, Jesus, advises that in its preferred mode of operation, this
light must not be hidden under a covering. Instead it must be set on a
light stand in the house so that those in the house may see, and on a
light-post on a hill so that it may give light and direction to all who
can see in the city. By extension, we can add that it must be set in a
lighthouse that towers above the city walls so that those on the open
seas may see it and safely guide their vessels to the shore.
The Church is Salt
The divine chef, Jesus, advises that the Christians who comprise
His church are the salt of the earth. He teaches that the salt must
neither lose its essential saltiness nor must it spend most of its time
congregating with other grains of salt in the saltshaker. He warns that
if the salt refuses to leave the confines of the saltshaker, the meat will
rot because of lack of salt, and the cooked food will reveal an insipid
taste. He goes on to warn that useless salt is good for nothing and
must be despised, discarded and disposed of to be trampled under the
foot of men.
The Church is an Army
For yet another reason the Church of Jesus Christ and the
individual Christians that comprise it are the ideal pick for leadership
of the process of reclaiming America. The Christians making up the
Church of Jesus Christ are referred to as soldiers, and it is the same
Greek word that is elsewhere translated ‘soldiers’ when referring to
fighters who carried swords and spears and shields. In 2 Timothy 2:3
(NIV), the Apostle Paul tells young Timothy, “Endure hardship with
us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus”.
Archippus is referred to as a fellow soldier in Philemon
1:2. And of course in Ephesians 6:11-14 (NIV), the Apostle
Paul outfits every Christian in the metaphor of a soldier, and
it was not to attend a tea party, a sewing class or a picnic,
190
desirable as all these are. Under Divine inspiration, Paul said,

Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your
stand against the Devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not
against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the
authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against
the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore
put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil
comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you
have done everything, to stand, stand firm…
Clearly, the repetitious and unmistakable metaphor of a warrior
vividly depicts one perspective of the church. It is the church that
must be the first line of attack and the last wall of defense when the
kingdom of heaven on earth is invaded by those who have no
allegiance to the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. The church
must sound the battle cry and awake a sleeping society, and having
awakened them, provide the leadership necessary to reverse the
assault and conquer the retreating enemy. And for this mission, the
church has been uniquely equipped, not only to conquer mere human
foes, but essentially to conquer the diabolic sources of evil and the
demons from hell that control the minds and hearts of otherwise well-
thinking American leaders and convert them to puppets and
emissaries of the Devil.
Americans Understand War
If there is one scenario with which Americans are all too
intimately familiar, it is that of war. Throughout its history, it has seen
war after war. Sometimes, it has been its own war, and at other times,
perhaps most times, it has been other people’s wars. This great
country frequently attempts to assert itself as the protector of the
disadvantaged throughout the world and feels obliged to protect the
interest of its citizens in every part of the world. Moreover, for the
majority of Americans, to be or to have been a soldier is a source of
pride. Senator John Kerry will go to his grave blaming the Swift Boat
veterans for resurrecting his alleged deficiencies as a soldier just at
the time when it looked as though he could have become the next
president of the United States of America. And every year, Memorial
191
Day remains a national landmark to which multiple millions look as

they refocus their appreciation for the sacrifices made by the patriots
of old and for those that have sacrificed their lives on the battlefields
from Lexington to Iraq.
Militant American Church
In light of this rich American heritage of military militancy, the
Church of Jesus Christ in America therefore ought to have no
difficulty in donning its battle gear and assuming its assigned
strategic position under the command of General Jesus in a battle for
the very soul of the nation – and without stopping to count the cost.
Countless church leaders played leading roles in the American War of
Independence. Although some were loyal to Great Britain and the
Church of England, most ministers helped to create the revolutionary
environment in the colonies by reminding the people that Britain was
intent on recreating a set of circumstances similar to those that caused
their ancestors to flee Europe in the first place. Many church leaders
volunteered the use of their churches as strategic posts, and some of
them even bore arms and provided actual military service.
The Church – Corporate Citizen of Heaven
The Christians who comprise the Church of Jesus Christ are
described as having their citizenship in heaven. A dear friend of mine,
Brother Christopher James, pastor of Christ’s Harvesters’ Ministries
in Mali, West Africa, reminded me that the Christian’s citizenship in
heaven determines his duties on earth. When someone is a citizen of
one country and lives in another on assignment to execute the wishes
of his home leader, that person is called an ambassador. It is therefore
no surprise that the Apostle Paul referred to himself and his co-
workers as ambassadors of Jesus Christ and at another time to himself
as an ambassador in chains.
The Church – Ambassador Corps
As ambassadors, the Christians who form the Church of Jesus
Christ must be prepared to present their credentials to the leaders and
people of America and faithfully represent their inter-terrestrial and
inter-celestial Sovereign Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Nevertheless,
192
lest we lose a factual perspective on reality, consider how easy it is

for Christian ambassadors to have their credentials accepted in the
United States of America.
Surprisingly, there is more of God in the American Constitution
than the Founding Fathers may have intended, and that many modern-
day skeptics recognize. Whereas we respond negatively to the
removal of prayer from public schools as any part of its official
activities, the very ‘separation of church and state’ that the Supreme
Court is appropriately accused of abusing remains the strongest
testimony to the divine hand of God in the writing of the Constitution.
Fathers Understood God’s Supremacy
The Founding Fathers, who wrote prolifically, demonstrated their
appreciation for the incompetence of the state to interfere with or
regulate the affairs of the church because of the nature of its
leadership. At a time when the seeds of the God-less French
Revolution were being sown, two Founding Fathers, both of whom
were intimate with the players in the French Revolution, opted to
steer the fledgling nation of America towards God, not away from
God. The original Constitution established the legislature, the
judiciary and the executive branches of government. However, the
First Amendment established the Christian Church, and by extension
the broad spectrum of religion as being both outside of and beyond
the control of all three branches of government. For, since Congress
can make no law respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, it follows that the Executive
cannot sign any such law into existence. Moreover, if there were no
law, then constitutionally speaking the judiciary can make no
judgments and must be prevented by the people from legislating from
the bench. James Madison, before he became the fourth president of
the United States of America, wrote in one section of his Memorial
and Remonstrance:
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the
Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the
Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and
vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative
193
and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate

departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the
constituents.
In another section, Madison wrote:
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such
homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.
This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of
obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can
be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be
considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe:
And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his
allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.
It is therefore evident that in America, the Church of Jesus Christ
cannot be treated incidentally. Constitutional provision has been made
for its sustained importance.
Church Implicated in Leadership
The Church of Jesus is not merely described as the answer to the
need for leadership in the battle against the encroachment of evil, and
prescribed to the world as having the answer to its problems, it is also
ascribed the responsibility of leading through the pronouncements of
its leaders. Every Christian preacher who is worth his salt has been
described as ‘militant’ at one time or another. Among the more visible
televised preachers, some are quietly militant like Doug Batchelor,
Charles Stanley, Robert Schuller, James Kennedy, Joel Osteen, and
the deceptively docile Christian giant Jack Hayford. Others are
charismatically, vocally, and dynamically militant like T. D. Jakes,
John Hagee, Juanita Bynum, Paula White, Eddie Long, Benny Hinn,
Clarence E. McClendon and Rod Parsley. Yet others are
entertainingly effective like Jessee Duplantis, and in a class by
himself there is Billy Graham! All of these and many more,
sometimes calmly persuasive, at other times saturating the airwaves
with the fire of their sermons, seek to lead the Church of Jesus Christ
into the definitive battle of the moment as they storm the gates of hell
to set the spiritual captives free.
194
World Waits on Church for Leadership

The good thing is that the world has believed our preachers. It
expects the church to come to its rescue without an invitation. It
expects the church to do what it says it is designed to do. It does not
expect the church to duck and hide at the first sign of the enemy army
and at the first sound of a volley of lies from hell. It hears the Church
of Jesus Christ singing, “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to
war” and yet it sees the church running from the battle and watching
from afar. It hears the church talking from the pulpit, but it sees the
ACLU stalking the courthouses. And worse of all, it hears that the
church will eventually be victorious, but in the meantime all it can see
is the enemy capturing city after city and state after state. It stands
helpless as the enemy kicks away one Christian foundational right
and privilege after another.
Judicial Defeat after Defeat
In 1943, in what paradoxically appeared to be a ruling in support
of a ‘so-called’ church, the Supreme Court reversed itself in West
Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and under the disguise
of First Amendment rights, knocked out a fundamental symbol of
patriotism when it enshrined the right of Americans not to salute the
flag. Then in 1947 came the infamous ‘black wall of separation’
between church and state in Emerson v. Board of Education. In this
subtly deceptive landmark judgment that by a five-to-four vote
actually upheld the use of public funds to subsidize transportation of
students attending church-related schools, a major judicial plank on
which future rulings would rely was erected.
It was in this judgment that Justice Black exhumed Jefferson’s
Danbury letter and enshrined his interpretation of it in law.
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.’ [Majority opinion in Everson v. Board of
195
Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)]

It was the same Justice Black who in a 1965 case involving a ban
on the public sale of contraceptives (Griswold v. Connecticut), stated
in a dissenting vote:
I like my privacy as well as the next man but I am
nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right
to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional
provision.
In 1948, religious instruction in public schools was kicked out in
Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education of School District,
333 U.S. 203 (1948). Then it was government’s declared inability to
censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs in
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952). In Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct.
1261 (1962), we were told that any kind of prayer, even non-
denominational and/or inter-denominational prayer composed by
public school districts is government sponsorship of religion and as
such is unconstitutional.
It was only a matter of time before the court found Bible reading
over school intercom unconstitutional in Abington School District v.
Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). In Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct.
266 (1968), it was determined that a state does not have the right to
ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, while in Edwards v.
Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987), the same court ruled that it is
unconstitutional for a state to require teaching of ‘creation science’ in
all instances in which evolution is taught since that would mean that a
clear religious motivation would be in existence. In 1980, in Stone v.
Graham, 449 U.S. 39, the court decided that the posting of the Ten
Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.
Then fast-forward to 2005. The Supreme Court, having refused
to accept the case of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in
which the presence of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom was
deliberately intended to represent the role of the Christian religion in
life in America, it decided two other Ten Commandments cases. In
both cases, which resulted in a multi-directional, compromising
196
decision of questionably limited value, the arguments for the

Commandments were pivoted on the premise that the Ten
Commandments were relatively insignificant museum type artifacts
and consequently harmless. As at time of writing, former Chief
Justice Roy Moore remains punished for daring to insist that God, as
represented by His Ten Commandments, is relevant to the justice
system of America and to America in general. Incidentally, Morris
Dees, cofounder of The Southern Poverty Law Center, says The
SPLC brought the case against Chief Justice Roy Moore of the
Alabama Supreme Court because it is important to stop religious
bigotry. Dees further declared that he was sure of victory, despite the
fact that 77% of those surveyed favored keeping the Ten
Commandments monument. And guess what? He was right! Through
it all, the church has stood silently by! What would the Danbury
Baptists have done?
Destruction – Engraved in Stone
Many renowned American writers have already chronicled a
more exhaustive list of the battles where the judiciary of America has
fought and defeated the people of America by attacking the
foundational principles on which this great nation is built and by
riding roughshod over the clear intent of the framers of the
Constitution. In closing this section, let us look at a section of the
verbatim in Stone v. Graham.
On November 17, 1980 it was held that a Kentucky statute
requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased
with private contributions, on the wall of each public school
classroom in the state had no secular legislative purpose. It was
therefore unconstitutional since it violated the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment. The court recognized that the state
legislature required the notation in small print at the bottom of each
display that:
[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is
clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of
Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United
States.
197
However, the Court held that, such an ‘avowed’ secular purpose

is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment.
The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten
Commandments, which do not confine themselves to
arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature, and
the posting serves no constitutional educational function. (Cf.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203). The
fact that the posted copies are financed by voluntary private
contributions is immaterial; for the mere posting under the
auspices of the legislature provides the official support of the
state government that the Establishment Clause prohibits.
Nor is it significant that the Ten Commandments are merely
posted rather than read aloud, for it is no defense to urge that
the religious practices may be relatively minor
encroachments on the First Amendment.
The Church’s Loud Silence
The church at large has effectively stood silently by or otherwise
has ‘unstrategically’ made noise in the wrong places with the net
result that its territory has been consistently eroded by a marauding
pack of judicial bandits, who have been shrewd enough to enlist
formidable groups of like-minded supporters in its Amen corner.
However, God is faithful to His Word. Throughout the ages,
when the gloom seems bleakest and the night seems darkest, God has
always reserved for Himself a remnant. There was a Noah, there was
a Seth, and there was a Lot. There was a Caleb and a Joshua and yes,
there is Jesus Christ.
Today is no different. Despite the general apathy within the Body
of Jesus Christ in America, there are beacons shining everywhere,
which, though they fail to engulf the country in light, are enough to
give warning of their presence and provide a reference point for the
weak and tired who yearn for a haven of rest.
I join in saluting Rod Parsley and the ministry that God has
committed to him for dramatically calling for a break in the silence of
the church with his best-selling book Silent No More. Individual
198
members of the Body of Christ must determine to join Rod and others
and break the silence. Moreover, Silent No More must be the clarion
call, not just for preachers and Christians to wake up and start talking
where they have been silent, but to stand up, line up and start fighting
where they have been retreating.
Don’t Think You are Alone
In making a point, especially one as serious and ominous as the
major subject of this book, there is the temptation to succumb to what
I call the ‘Mt. Carmel Syndrome’. Many dramatic things happened on
Mt. Carmel. Yet perhaps none was as dramatic as Elijah’s frightening
flip-flop
Elijah’s Deal of Death
The prophets of Baal entered into a deal of death with Elijah that
saw them calling on their dead god for almost the whole day as they
cut themselves with knives and lances in worship and/or desperation.
Elijah mocked them and their god, suggesting that it might be asleep
or perhaps gone out on a long journey, or just otherwise indisposed.
Elijah then prayed to God, and God sent down fire from heaven that
consumed both the water and the sacrifice and the stones and the dust.
Thereby, according to the terms of the deal of death, God proved that
He is God.
Elijah then slew 450 prophets of Baal. After telling Ahab that
God was about to break the drought, Elijah ran down hill for about
twenty miles, and did so faster than Ahab’s chariot. It was not until
after all this that he received a threat from Jezebel, wife of Ahab.
Elijah Loses Focus
Before engaging the prophets of Baal, Elijah knew that Jezebel
had killed several prophets of the Lord God. Yet he pressed on with
his assault on Mt. Carmel. Why did he not fear for his life from the
very beginning? Because his eyes were focused on God and the Word
of the Lord and not on Baal. Now that God has given him the victory
in repeated miraculous ways, why did Elijah fear for his life at the
threat of Jezebel? Because he had now changed his focus and had
taken it off God and placed it on Jezebel.
199
Elijah’s Shocking Revelation

Elijah then went into a very typical psychological inversion. He
feared for his life, hid himself, and announced to God that he had had
enough and was ready to die. It was shortly after that that Elijah told
God he was the only one left who served the true and living God, for
so it appeared to him. Then God assured him that he was wrong and
that despite how it appeared, God had reserved to Himself 7000 who
had not bowed the knee or worshiped Baal.
Sleeping Church, Awaken!
The Church of Jesus Christ has conceded territory that it ought
not to have conceded. However, God has reserved to Himself a
remnant that has kept the flame flickering and the fire burning. The
fire has not burned bright enough to prevent multiple millions of
babies from being murdered by American abortionists, despite
scientific evidence that the fetus is a living human being. The fire has
not burned brightly enough to arrest the spread of the infectious,
contagious cancers of homosexuality and lesbianism. The fire has not
burned brightly enough to stop and turn back the systematic
dismantling of the foundational Christian values system of public
America. Nevertheless, there has been a flicker.
That flicker has been bright enough to result in many Christians
actively facilitating the re-election of George W. Bush after he dared
to put his career on the line by unequivocally standing up for
righteousness and publicly aligning himself with the Church of Jesus
Christ. Whether or not President Bush displayed integrity in
committing America to war in Iraq is a subject that will best be dealt
with by the appropriate authorities and by history. The flicker was
bright enough to influence the 100% rejection of same-sex marriages
in all eleven states in which the issue was exposed to the vote of the
people in 2004. Since then California and Massachusetts have
succumbed and now allow same-sex marriages. The flickering flame
is bright enough for the ACLJ and a handful of other law-based
organizations to attempt to take on the powerful ACLU, and with
commendable results.
200
The flame is bright enough for a handful of pastors and preachers

throughout the nation, regardless of their voluntary compliance with
‘501c3’, to stand up and declare the uncompromised Word of God to
a generation of Americans that need Jesus more than ever before. The
flame is bright enough for isolated individuals all over this country to
stand up and say enough is enough and even to sue for their God-
given inalienable right to proclaim His praises and tell others about
Him every day of the week and in every nook and cranny of America.
Fan the Flickering Flame
In light of what God has done with the little that we have offered
Him, it is now high time that members of the Body of Jesus Christ
stepped up to the plate en masse. It is now time that every Christian
who declares that Jesus Christ is Lord of his or her life stand up and
be counted and identify themselves as an active-duty, serving recruit
in the army of the Lord. It is time that the warrior leaders of the
Church of Jesus refresh themselves, take courage, and be reminded
that this is not the time to quit. It is now that every Christian who may
have thought that God was either asleep, or that He did not care,
realize that they were wrong.
If, like many, we believe that things must get progressively worse
before Jesus comes, the time has come to realize that this is none of
our business. Our duty is to keep busy rescuing the perishing and
caring for the dying until Jesus comes. It is time that every Christian
realize that the world as we know it today is condemned. America and
every other nation on earth but one will perish as a nation but out of
every people and every tribe and every nation, God has selected His
church. The time has come for every born-again Christian to realize
that it is their duty and responsibility to aggressively share the good
news of the saving power of Jesus Christ with all who would listen
and with all those who will hear. That is our duty and that is our
calling. God will do the rest.
Disobedience Determines Defeat
Now the Church of Jesus Christ has not failed in its effectiveness
because it wished to fail or because it did not like the idea of
201
succeeding. The Church of Jesus has not failed because it wants

America to go to the dogs. The Church of Jesus has failed to be more
effective because it has fallen short of doing what God has called it to
do. It failed to effectively operate as light, as salt, as spiritual warriors
and as ambassadors. The Church of Jesus has failed to strategize
effectively. If a tree is to be destroyed, it could be killed by severing
the leaves one at a time and eventually working your way down to the
bottom of the trunk. The problem with that approach is that it will
take a long time and may never succeed because as one leaf is
destroyed, another is growing, and you just might not have that much
time available. A far more effective strategy would be to destroy the
root of the tree. Then, with or without your assistance, that huge
portion of the tree above the ground will inevitably die. The time has
come for the Church of Jesus Christ to militantly prepare to wage war
against all that is evil in America, not only for the sake of America,
but also for the sake of the rest of the world that looks to America for
leadership.
202
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER ELEVEN
The Danbury Baptists and Jefferson in Depth
The Danbury Dissidents’ Dilemma
T he Church of Jesus Christ in America today has a great heritage

of social, political, and even military activism to which it can
look for motivation. The Baptist Christians at Danbury had a
problem. Their problem had to do with real state restrictions on their
freedom of worship. Now, let us get our time line right because we
are about to ‘kill two birds with one stone’.
Danbury was a district in the state of Connecticut. In 1818-19,
the Connecticut legislature repealed its laws that for more than a
century had established Congregationalism as the state religion.
However, the letter under consideration written by the Danbury
Baptists was written before 1819, long before 1819. It was written in
October of 1801. This means that at the time it was written,
Congregationalism was the official state-established religion in
Connecticut.
So what did that mean? That meant that every taxable person was
assessed a special tax for the state support and upkeep of the
Congregationalist Sect of the Christian Religion. Luckily for the
Danbury Baptists, things were not as bad as they could have been.
Exclusive support could have been the end of the law. But the
Connecticut law, which was in fact in essence its 1662 Colonial
Charter, did provide some relief for dissidents or ‘nonconformists’ or
‘protestants’ who either refused to conform to Congregationalism or
who protested it.
Brief History of the Baptists

203
However, the Baptist Church in Connecticut did not just happen,

and a brief look at their history will prove to be very instructive, and
it will help explain why they would even consider addressing the
chief executive of the United States of America as they did.
Baptists in Europe
The Connecticut Baptists have had a long tradition of struggle for
religious freedom. Long before Europeans discovered America,
Baptists were creating problems for established Christian orthodoxy
in Europe, and because of the protection offered to the dominant
religion by the secular leaders of the countries, Baptists were
receiving more than their fair share of persecution. Their drastic
disagreement and opposition to infant baptism as practiced
throughout Europe caused them to stand out like a sore thumb. Their
insistence on the need for adult baptism by immersion for converts
who had already been baptized by sprinkling as babies earned them
the nickname ‘Anabaptists’ or ‘re-Baptists’.
So serious was the perception of their threat to the established
state religion and consequently to the established government of
Great Britain and other European countries that for dissenting,
Baptists were martyred by drowning, or as their enemies cynically
indicated ‘permanently baptized’. Therefore, Baptists, like many
other Christian sects, came to America because they longed for
freedom to practice their religion in the way they wanted.
Baptists in America
Having found Roger Williams’ Rhode Island a haven of religious
tolerance, Baptists welcomed all and sundry into their midst, no doubt
with the understandable and worthy motive of converting them.
Roger Williams himself, an ostracized ordained minister of the
Anglican Church, adopted a philosophy of religious tolerance with a
distinct aim of creating unity between the ecclesiastical and civil
authorities of his colony, and he even succeeded in having that
principle embedded in the charter he received from Great Britain in
1663.
Baptists in Connecticut
204
The magnetic pull of the West inevitably extracted some Baptists,

as it did a number of almost every other group. Therefore, at the close
of the 17th century it is believed that the first Baptists arrived in
Connecticut. William G. McLaughlin in his New England Dissent,
1630-1833 argues that by 1704 their first modest assembly was
formed in Groton, and according to George W. Grisevich in his
Baptists and Religious Liberty in Early Connecticut, their second
assembly was not formed until 1726 in New London. However, three
years later a group of Baptists emerged in Saybrook, and from here
on their growth was exponential.
1723 Anti-Baptist Law
The threat of the Baptists with their dissenting views about
Biblical supremacy, and especially about baptism by immersion, did
not escape the eyes of the established church. The General Assembly
of Connecticut passed a law in 1723 inflicting grievous penalties on
dissenters, who for practicing religion without a license were exposed
to large fines and/or whippings of thirty stripes or less. Consistent
with the annals of history, torture and oppression have proven to be
instrumental in the growth of the Church of Jesus Christ. In fact, the
blood of the martyrs has always been the seed of the church. By 1760,
no fewer than eight churches were in existence. By the close of the
18th century, it is estimated that there were about 3,500 Baptists
worshiping in sixty assemblies under the guidance of about forty
ministers.
Religious Intolerance in Connecticut
Despite the impressive growth of the Baptists, there was very
limited religious tolerance in Connecticut at the dawn of the 19th
century. Many Baptists were converts who turned their back on the
established religion. Rugged individualism seemed to have become a
characteristic of the Baptists, who never failed to seize an opportunity
to press for their emancipation from the unfair, inhumane, and
degrading religious assessment laws of Connecticut.
Quite often, obtaining a certificate of exemption from
contribution to the established Congregationalist religion was difficult
205
and required unacceptable levels of humiliation. However, this served

only to keep the Baptist dream of complete religious freedom alive.
Therefore, in the 1801 election of President Thomas Jefferson, who
was a man that had distinguished himself as a supporter of religious
freedom in Virginia, they saw a good opportunity to further their
cause and pursue their quest for freedom.
Background to Letter
Christian historical commentator David Barton in his The Myth
of Separation, states:
Although the statesmen and patriots who framed the
Constitution had made it clear that no one Christian
denomination would become the official denomination, the
Danbury Baptists expressed their concern over a rumor that a
particular denomination was soon to be recognized as a
national denomination. On January 1, 1802, President
Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists in a letter. He
calmed their fears by using the now infamous phrase to
assure that the federal government would not establish any
single denomination of Christianity as the national
denomination.
Rumors are always difficult to establish, and equally difficult to
deny, and that makes them extremely dangerous. Nevertheless,
contrary to many of his detractors, I am prepared to allow the well-
researched David Barton his ‘rumor’, although it seems highly
unlikely that the well-educated Baptists of Danbury in 1801 would
not have been fully aware that: “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion…” Actually, in order to arrive
at this position, we need not go any further than the very text of their
letter. Clearly, was it not for the First Amendment, only Congress
could have been in a position to pass a law that would be expected to
bind all states. In addition, even if this were so, Jefferson of all people
would not have been the likely president to even think of it.
On the other hand, an equally well-educated group of Baptists
would have known that whereas Connecticut saved the possible
206
derailment of the Constitution with its ‘Great Compromise’ and

ratified the Constitution on January 8, 1788 on the strength of 128
signatories from a 168-delegate Convention, that independent state
had refused to ratify the first ten amendments, regardless of the
pretext. Although Barton does not indulge us in the luxury of stating
the source of his rumor, could it be that the Danbury Baptists’ long-
established fears of religious intolerance were exacerbated by their
state’s refusal to sign off on the First Amendment, and that that single
fact could have left unresolved, in their minds at least, the brand-new
doctrine of the First Amendment? And if such a possibility can attach
to itself even the smallest modicum of rationality, then would not the
resulting state of mind of the Baptists be a fertile breeding ground for
even the slightest hint of national establishment, and even more so if
this were to be of a self-fulfilling prophetic nature?
Nevertheless, in the absence of any notes that reveal a hidden
motivation behind the Danbury Baptists letter, I will stick to the text
of their letter, the known history of the Baptists in Connecticut and
the legal existence of state established religion in Connecticut,
unaffected by the First Amendment.
Legally Established State Religion
However, before pursuing the letter itself, let us harness some of
the information that may have been treated as incidental in the
foregoing discourse. Perhaps the most important is the fact that at the
time of the writing of the Danbury letter in 1801, and indeed until
1818, there was a legally established religion in Connecticut. The
Library of Congress records indicate that Connecticut ratified the
Constitution on January 8, 1788, being the fifth state to do so.
Although it did not ratify the first ten amendments, there is nothing to
suggest that this failure was in any way related to the subject matter
of the first. At any rate, the Constitution that Connecticut ratified
stipulated that amendments did not need to be ratified by all states to
become law and to be binding on all. Connecticut, therefore, was
aware that the original Bill of Rights, having been ratified, was
binding on all states. Yet there is absolutely nothing in any accessible
document today that suggests that Connecticut was operating in
207
breach by continuing to practice religious establishment after the

ratification of the First Amendment. For that matter neither was it felt
that New Hampshire nor Massachusetts was in breach for continuing
their practice of establishment. Following Connecticut in 1818, New
Hampshire disestablished in 1819, and Massachusetts in 1833. Why
was this so?
The answer is simple, and can be summed up in one word,
‘Congress’. The Constitution stated, “Congress shall make no law...”
It never said, “States shall make no law...” Initially, researching the
‘God-less’ component of the American Constitution proved to be
traumatic. After searching dozens of books and articles on the subject,
nothing seemed to adequately explain the absence of any positive
reference to religion and/or God in America’s most important
document. Compounding the agony of the inquisition was the fact
that everything else pointed to an exceedingly rich Christian heritage
from the period of Columbus’ miraculous discovery of the region. Of
course, there are those who say that America has no Christian
heritage; but then there are also Americans who will tell you that God
does not exist. Yet others will tell you that it was intended that man
and man should enjoy meaningful sexual intercourse. It is both
impossible and undesirable to respond to every nuance of a disturbed
mind. It is equally undesirable to invest in efforts to bring sight to a
man who swears not to see. However, for the overwhelming majority
of Americans, who because of years of brainwashing by the enemy
may be genuinely unaware of the rich Christian Heritage of the
United States of America, I commend to you several of the books
listed in my extensive bibliography. On all of these books, I have
more or less relied heavily for my own acquired knowledge, and I am
therefore eternally grateful to their authors.
It was not until several months into extensive research that it hit
me in the form of a revelation from heaven that ‘Congress’ meant
Congress. I do not blame you for laughing, especially if you knew
this all along, but yes, for me a very, very recent student of the history
of the United States of America, it was a revelation. Indulge the
confession that even more surprising than the paucity of my own
‘pre-revelation’ knowledge was the fact that none of the previously
208
consulted works seemed to have reflected a great appreciation of its

significance.
God-less Constitution?
Of course America has a ‘God-less’ Constitution, and yes, the
word ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ or even ‘Providence’ or ‘Bible’ or ‘Christian”
does not appear therein. A form of the word ‘religion’ does appear;
but alas, only in the negative context of ‘no religious tests.’ In
addition, where in the Bill of Rights the word ‘religion’ does appear,
it appears in negative form as a prohibition. Furthermore, reliance on
the singular mention of the word ‘Lord’ in “year of our Lord” would
constitute contextual torture and would resemble a drowning man
clutching at a straw.
Equally true, about 90% of the framers of the Constitution, and
perhaps a slightly smaller percentage of the framers of the Bill of
Rights, were considered active Christians. A handful had even
attended theological seminary and some were preachers. According to
John Eidsmoe’s The Christian and American Law:
The late Dr. M. E. Bradford of the University of Dallas
undertook a detailed study of the 55 delegates to the
Convention and concluded that at most, only three or four of
them were Deists. The vast majority were professing
Christians and actively affiliated with Christian churches.
I could not understand how the Constitutional Convention, at
least midway in its deliberations, purportedly began every session
with prayer, or at least appears to have done so, and officially
declared thanks to God upon the successful conclusion of the project,
and yet omit any reference to God in the Constitution.
Complementary Federal Constitution
The resolution is simple. The Federal or central Constitution was
designed to work alongside each state constitution, and was never
intended to be the singular instrument of government. Every
American citizen would first come under the protection and restraint
of their own state’s laws before exposure to those of the Constitution.
Furthermore, it was the states that reluctantly gave the federal
209
government all the powers it has. Each power granted to the federal
government was accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the
states’ power, and was given most reluctantly, and only in instances
where a clear advantage was to be gained.
Remember that the states that drafted, approved and ratified the
Constitution were all independent states and considered themselves
independent in every sense, having all won their independence from
their colonial master. None of them was anxious to surrender one inch
of sovereignty to a federal government. Although they thought a
federal government was necessary, they were fearful that it would, in
the words of Shakespeare, “if hatched…as its kind grow
mischievous.”
No Need for God in Constitution?
Let us lay the foundation by clearly stating that the Founding
Fathers made a mammoth mistake when they deliberately omitted any
reference to God or to Providence or to the importance and relevance
of the Christian religion in the Constitution of the United States of
America. However, they had a very plausible reason for their
decision.
Every framer understood very well that matters relating to the
day-to-day life of American citizens would be matters for the states to
continue addressing, and to so do independently of each other if
necessary. Clearly, matters of religion would fall under this heading.
On the other hand, matters that were common to all would be the
responsibility of the federal government. These would include all
diplomatic foreign relations issues, international commerce, all
national issues as they emerged, the postal service, national defense
and of course the power to tax in order to support its functions. This
is why there was no need to include religious positions, neither their
desirability nor their undesirability, in the Constitution. God already,
acceptably or otherwise, ideally or otherwise, had His rightful place
in the laws of the states. Fortunately, Jefferson was a prolific writer.
Here are two excerpts from his several letters during his tenure as
president that clearly indicate where his head was.
210
I consider the government of the United States as

interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in
religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.
This results not only from the provision that no law shall be
made respecting the establishment or free exercise of
religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the
powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no
power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume
authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the
General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it
can be in any human authority” (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan.
23, 1808).
In matters of religion, I have considered that its free
exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the
power of the federal government. I have therefore
undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious
exercises suited to it; but have left them, as the constitution
found them, under the direction of state or church authorities
acknowledged by the several religious societies” (Jefferson’s
Second Inaugural Address)
Having established the fact that all matters religious were
reserved to the authority of the states, and having had this confirmed
by the very man whose ‘Wall of Separation’ too many Supreme Court
justices with questionable agendas have been hiding behind as they
discharge their destructive missiles against the foundational values of
America, let us make a clarification.
American Heritage Christian…Not Perfect!
When we talk about America’s Christian Heritage, we are not for
one moment implying that this heritage reflected Christianity at its
ideal level or at the level that Jesus Christ, its founder, would have it.
Within the Christian heritage of America, much would make an
‘atheist’ vomit. Part of the Christian Heritage of America includes the
1665 Salem witch trials and the 1723 laws that threatened Baptist and
other nonconformists with flogging and punitive fines for worshiping
God without a license. Part of the Christian Heritage of America
211
includes all sorts of discriminatory practices among Christians – and

we are not proud of these. According to a Reader’s Digest
documentary which relies on Bradford’s diary, part of our Christian
Heritage includes words of implied divine sanction from William
Bradford as he watched the Indians roasting in the fire as his Pilgrims
and others fought for possession of the land to which the Indians had
first claim.
Imperfect Patrick
Patrick Henry, the great orator who on March 23, 1775 motivated
the political leaders of his day to go to war with Great Britain and was
at worst a strong supporter and sympathizer of Christianity, would
definitely have been a nominal Christian, and may even have been
converted later in his life. The American Revolution may never have
taken place when it did were it not for his fiery, oratorical,
motivational messages. Yet, in Patrick Henry, a nominal Christian, we
see the hypocrisy of which so many Christians were guilty in his
dealing with the subject of slavery. Read to the relevant part of his
March 23, 1775 speech.
This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the
House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own
part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom
or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject
ought to be the freedom of the debate…Is life so dear, or
peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and
slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course
others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me
death!
Now compare those words that still ring out as the clarion call to
the Revolution with Patrick Henry’s own words about his pathetic
position on slavery.
Would any one believe that I am Master of slaves of my
own purchase? I am drawn along by ye general
inconvenience of living without them. I will not, I cannot
justify it. However culpable my Conduct, I will so far pay my
212
devoir to Virtue, as to own the excellence & rectitude of her

Precepts, & to lament my want of conforming to them.
The hypocrisy is obvious. Here is a man and hundreds of others
beside him who were slave owners, yet found slavery to be so
repugnant and repulsive that they agreed with Patrick Henry, “Give
me liberty, or give me death!”
Christian America and Slavery
However, having admitted that the Christian Heritage of America
is far from flawless, we must with similar finality, put to rest for the
last time the fact that America was in every sense a country that was
influenced predominantly by the Christian religion, by the Bible and
by the gracious providence of God. Admittedly, one of America’s
darkest periods was that in which she practiced and promoted slavery.
So what? Does that diminish the Christian heritage of America?
Not in the least bit! Not all Americans supported the institution of
slavery, and for that matter, not all black persons in America were
slaves. American Slaves, or to be more politically correct, slaves in
America, were eventually freed because of the cumulative action of
Americans who recognized slavery as wrong and who actively
campaigned against it. In fact, the legislatures of several states,
including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and late Colonial Virginia
were firmly against the institution of slavery. In drafting the
Declaration of Independence, Jefferson did not forget the fact that
King George used his veto powers to block a statute designed to
abolish slavery in Virginia… the state in which it began in 1619!
Widespread Objection to Slavery
As a religious group, the Quakers were among the first to take a
stand against slavery and did so consistently. At the highest level,
George Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris wrote: “I can only
say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do
to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” President
Washington bequeathed freedom to his slaves upon his death,
regardless of the potentially mixed reasons that formed part of his
motivation.
213
Stephen McDowell in his excellent article The Bible, Slavery,

and America’s Founders, posted on David Barton’s Wall Builders at
http://www.wallbuilders.com, quotes signer of the Declaration of
Independence Benjamin Rush as he addressed a convention of
delegates from the abolition societies established in different parts of
the United States assembled at Philadelphia.
Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of
Christianity…. It is rebellion against the authority of a
common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and
efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is a usurpation
of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who
has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of
men.
Rush’s convictions were echoed in varying degrees of intensity
by a large number of Founding Fathers and early influencers of public
opinion in the United States of America, including Charles Carroll,
Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. The great Baptist preacher
and religious liberty advocate John Leland couched his convictions in
the form of a resolution for the General Committee of Virginia
Baptists meeting in Richmond, Virginia in 1789
Resolved, that slavery is a violent deprivation of rights of
nature and inconsistent with a republican government, and
therefore, recommend it to our brethren to make use of every
legal measure to extirpate this horrid evil from the land; and
pray Almighty God that our honorable legislature may have it
in their power to proclaim the great jubilee, consistent with
the principles of good policy.
Nevertheless, few were more morally qualified to denounce
slavery than was third president of the USA, John Adams, who could
say:
My opinion against it has always been known…. [n]ever
in my life did I own a slave.
Legal Provisions for Slavery’s Demise
Independence from Great Britain having been won and secured,
214
the Continental Congress in 1787 included in the North West

Ordinance provisions that barred the expansion of slavery to the new
states that would be formed out of that large tract of land called the
Louisiana Purchase. Almost immediately after the First Congress of
the United States assembled, the North West Ordinance was reenacted
essentially unchanged in 1789, and again it proscribed slavery as an
option in the new states west of the Ohio.
In the Constitution of the United States, slavery found temporary
haven only because the subject proved to be a non-negotiable for too
many of the Southern States. Any attempt to abolish slavery at the
time the Constitution was written would have been so strongly
resisted as to have made the adoption of the document almost
impossible. Nevertheless, the majority of delegates still had their way
and included a provision for the abolition of the slave trade by 1808
in the Constitution.
For well over a century before the legal demise of slavery,
antislavery voices were heard throughout the colonies and the United
States, but perhaps few as emphatic as that of Harriet Beecher Stowe.
She shook America and possibly the slave world with her book Uncle
Tom’s Cabin. In addition, of course, President Abraham Lincoln,
despite his Jeffersonian-echoing self-confessed conviction that Blacks
were inferior to Whites and that meaningful co-existence on the
socially and politically equal grounds was impossible, did finally play
the major role in freeing Black slaves in America.
Taney’s Dreadful Dred Scott Decision
The fact that slavery was so entrenched in the South as a
perceived economic asset serves only to put the abolitionist efforts in
perspective. Although Americans who were slave owners were a very
small minority, they were a very powerful and influential minority.
The power of the slave-holding community was extensive, and
perhaps was nowhere better demonstrated than by the Southern-
dominated Supreme Court.
This court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Roger Taney,
was responsible for handing down the dreadful 1857 Dred Scott v.
215
Sandford decision. The tainted Taney court made two rulings. First, it
ruled that Dred Scott, despite having lived as a free man for several
years in Illinois, which was by law a free state and whose citizens
were consequently all free, was inherently and essentially still a slave
based on the fact of his birth as a Black man.
Missouri Compromise
Not satisfied with that perversion of justice, the court moved to
invalidate the Missouri Compromise, the very law on which Dred
Scott relied. In 1820, a rancorous and discordant divide developed in
Congress over the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave
state. Because the majority of congressmen were opposed to slavery,
Congress blocked Missouri’s admission unless it abandoned slavery.
The Senate failed to agree on the issue. While the issue simmered on
the back burner of Congress’ agenda, Maine successfully applied to
join the Union as a free state. This proved to be the catalyst that led to
the Missouri Compromise, in which Maine was to be admitted as a
free state, Missouri was to be admitted as a slave state, and from
thenceforth no other slave state would be admitted to the Union.
The Taney court ruled the Missouri Compromise of 1820
unconstitutional to facilitate its ruling that Dred Scott was still a slave
although he had enjoyed all the rights and privileges of a free man for
several years. It was largely out of this rape of the law and travesty of
justice that men like Abraham Lincoln and others firmly attached
themselves to the commitment to retake the country from the jaws of
the judiciary. They were aware that for a long time the judiciary had
been rewriting the Constitution from the bench and usurping the
prerogatives of the other co-equal branches of government. Moreover,
the power of the Southern slave states was manifest in the Taney
court. Of the nine justices, Robert C. Grier was Republican, Benjamin
R. Curtis was a Whig, and the others were Democrats. So were the
majority of Southern slave-owning Americans. However, it is
precisely an appreciation of the power and influence of those
Americans who had an interest in maintaining slavery that helps us
understand how bitter a battle was fought by abolitionists.
Tried, Convicted, Sentenced… Executed!
216
The pro-slavery biased verdict of the Dred Scott case probably

contributed more to the Civil War than at first meets the eye. By the
time the Civil War was fought and won, with slavery being no small
part of its indirect agenda, a horrendous price in American lives had
been paid for its abolition. In practicing slavery, America erred. It is
true that not all Americans practiced slavery. It is true that many
Americans objected to slavery. It is true that majority sentiment
turned firmly in favor of abolition of slavery after the War of
Independence. However, it is equally true that during the first half of
the 19th century, there were enough slaves and slave owners in
America to attach the crime of slavery to the entire nation. In the war
between the South and the North, Americans paid the price for their
error with the blood of over 600,000 fellow Americans. That to me
seems like justice, and very consistent with the Christian philosophy.
Christian Indices of America
The fact is that in the early 17th century the overwhelming
majority of American settlers were Christians of varying intensities,
but still Christians. The fact is that when the Mayflower landed at
Plymouth, more than 75% of the people on board and that signed off
on the first written constitution composed on American soil were
Christians. The fact is that during the period of colonial America, all
thirteen states either supported or established one brand or the other
of Christianity as the official religion. Centuries later, the fact is that
in 2008 more than 75% of all Americans claim loyalty in one form or
another to Christianity.
Too Many Crosses to Destroy
The ACLU, the Supreme Court, and its allies have their hands
full pulling down crosses, taking Bibles and prayers out of schools,
harassing public Christian expression and trying to replace every
vestige of our Christian heritage with anything and everything else or
nothing, only because there is so much of it all around. Does not that
in itself speak to what America is? In December of 2004, the very
salutation ‘merry Christmas’ was under attack and a bland ‘happy
holidays’ was being proffered as being politically correct. Even the
department store, Target, banned from its facilities the internationally
217
acclaimed Salvation Army social workers with their kettles.

I predict that so steeped in Christianity is everything good in
America that before the ACLU and its allies come close to destroying
our Christian heritage, the Body of Jesus Christ will awake, realize
that we are under attack, and fight back. By the way, ‘Merry
Christmas’ is Christian for obvious reasons. So is ‘Merry Xmas’…
the ‘X’ does not stand for ‘an unknown’. Either it stands for the
symbol of one version of the cross or for the letter that commences
the Geek spelling of ‘Christ’. Moreover, pardon my amusement, for
even when you degenerate to ‘Happy Holidays’, remember that a
‘holiday’ has its origins in a ‘holy day’. I pray that one day the leaders
of the ACLU will, like the Jewish leader Saul, hear the voice of God
saying, ‘ACLU… Supreme Court and others… why do you persecute
me?’ It is hard for you to kick against the pricks!
Now for the letter of the Danbury Baptists and the response of
President Jefferson that has become one of the underpinning
considerations in Supreme Court rulings against the public practice of
Christianity since 1947.
Text of the Danbury Baptist Letter
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the
State of Connecticut; assembled October 7th 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson Esq., the 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 enjoy’d in our collective
capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great
satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in
the United States: And though our mode of expression may
be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe
their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are
more sincere.
218
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 neighbour:
But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our
antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident
therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our government at
the time of our revolution; and such had been our laws &
usages, & such still are; that Religion is considered as the
first object of Legislation; & 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
acknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of
freemen.
It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those who seek
after power & gain under the pretence of government &
Religion should reproach their fellow men – should reproach
their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & 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 & also sensible that the national
government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our
hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved president,
which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant
beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these
States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be
destroyed from the Earth.
Sir, when we reflect on your past services and see a glow
of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of
more than thirty years we have reason to believe that
219
America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out
of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you
preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task
which providence & the voice of the people have cal’d you to
sustain and support you in your Administration against all the
predetermin’d opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth
& 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
Text of President Jefferson’s Response.
To mess. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen
S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in
the state of Connecticut.
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 & zealous pursuit of
the interests of my constituents, & 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 & his God, that he owes account to none
other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers
of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should
220
‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of
separation between Church & 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 &
blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender
you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances
of my high respect & esteem.
Th. Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
The Danbury Baptist/Jefferson Exchange
The abiding relevance of the Danbury letter is inextricably
intertwined with the response it received from President Jefferson. In
addition, the relevance of this one of thousands of correspondence
from Jefferson is the use and interpretation of his ‘wall’ metaphor in
his referral to his informed view of the relationship between church
and state. Because the Supreme Court of the United States of America
has relied on Jefferson’s ‘wall of separation between church and
state’, and having up to this point failed to decisively retract its
opinion, we are forced to scrutinize this plank on which the judicial
dismantling of Christian America is built.
After matching their pleasantries with a quantitatively less but
qualitatively adequate amount of his own, President Jefferson got
down to business. “…Believing with you that religion is a matter
which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to
none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, & not opinions…”
Jefferson first establishes the essential attribute of religion. It is a
matter that lies solely between man and his God. The word ‘solely’
successfully eliminates everything else, including the state and even
221
the church. He reinforces the meaning of this relationship and

amplifies the implications by acknowledging that a man is under
obligation to explain or defend or justify his faith or his worship to
none other than God. In referring to ‘faith’, he encompasses man’s
‘belief’ about God and the relationship between himself and God. In
referring to ‘worship’, he identifies man’s reaction to his beliefs and
his response to God.
The Extent of Government’s Power
Jefferson then introduces ‘government’ into the equation. When
legitimately exercised, the power of government extends only to
actions and not opinions. Nevertheless, let us pause at this point.
There is an inescapable natural correlation between Jefferson’s
previous twins, ‘faith’ and ‘worship’ on the one hand, and his latter
‘opinions’ and ‘actions’ on the other hand. Faith or beliefs are
inextricably associated with ‘opinions’. ‘Worship’ and ‘actions’ are
equally inextricably associated. For whereas the Father seeks men and
women who worship Him in Spirit and in truth, worship still largely
remains an action or activity with very visible and varied
manifestations.
So what is Jefferson really saying, and what does he mean? Is
Jefferson saying that the legitimate powers of government reach
actions of worship, and as a result man is not accountable solely to
God for these actions? Alternatively, could it be that this is what he
said but not what he meant? For after all, it is meaningless if not
contradictory to state that the legitimate powers of government reach
actions only and not opinions, if I am not free to demonstrably
express the opinions I hold without exposing myself to possible
sanction of government – legitimately. In fact, because of the very
nature of religion and the accountability of man to whichever god he
chooses to make the object of his faith, opinions very easily evolve
into convictions. Moreover, of what value is a conviction if it does
not provide the motivation for action?
Therefore, if jihad against infidel Christians and Jews is the
direct or indirect teaching of the Muslim religion, and if a Muslim is
free to exercise his or her religion, then the obligation of jihad may
222
find expression in a Muslim attacking unrepentant Christian infidels.

Clearly, the state has an obligation to protect the Christians in such an
instance and the Muslims would be under sanction of the state for
even attempting to live out their religious convictions or opinions.
Therefore, whereas it sounds plausible to say that the legitimate
powers of government do not extend to opinions, a critical caveat
would be, ‘once those opinions remain unexpressed’. When the
opinion or conviction matures itself into expression as both the
Christian and Muslim religions demand, then legitimate government
action is required to sanction their expressions.
Interpreting Jefferson for Functionality
For Jefferson’s construct to function, we must do one of at least
two things. First, we may disavow ourselves of the theoretically
plausible concept of religious freedom and accept that the legitimate
powers of civil government extend to actions as well as to expressed
religious opinions and convictions. Alternatively, we may conclude
that there are religions whose dictates and dogmas, if followed, are
guaranteed to produce actions that are pre-approved by civil
government, and as such are exempt from government sanction. If,
therefore, an alleged practitioner of such a religion acts in a way that
is conflicting with his civic duties, then he is deemed not to have been
religiously motivated. Any sanction that he may consequently incur is
deemed a sanction of the perpetrator and his evil ways and not of the
religion that he claimed to be following, but to which he had in fact
been disobedient.
Given the validity of this reasoning, Jefferson’s concept of
religious freedom could only exist in cases where government pre-
approves religious tenets and worship. However, the problem with
this scenario is that such pre-approval would at best be tantamount to
a non-preferential establishment of religion if every religion has an
equal chance of being approved. At worst, it would amount to a
preferential establishment of religion if government selects just one or
two and refuses to approve others.
Conditional Religious Freedom
223
Interestingly enough, what we now have in American practice is

exactly what Jefferson implied, although there is no evidence to
suggest that he meant what he said. We have a situation in which
government legislates and establishes laws that manifestly restrict the
expression of the opinions and convictions of the Christian faith. The
Christians’ manifesto says, “Faith without works is dead”. The
Christian is required to demonstrate their faith through their works.
The Christian is required to “let your light so shine among men that
they may see our good works and glorify our father who is in
heaven”. The Christian is to go into the byways and hedges, into the
cities and the villages and share the good news of Jesus Christ with a
lost and dying world. Christianity is at once both private and public
and rightly belongs in the public square. The Jesus Christ of
Christianity was publicly crucified and now demands that He be
publicly lifted up so that He can draw all men unto himself.
Religious Persecution
The Government of America in preventing Christians from
publicly practicing their faith in the public square is in fact guilty of
practicing discrimination and religious suppression and not religious
freedom. Moreover, where religious suppression and religious
oppression is practiced, religious persecution is the natural sequel, if
and when Christians resist and insist on acting out their convictions in
the public square.
The government must take no comfort in the fact that Christians
are free to practice their religion as expressively as they wish outside
of government property and outside of the public square. Christian
Americans are citizens of America and as such are entitled to all the
freedoms and privileges that America offers.
The Constitution establishes the First Amendment right to
freedom of speech. It clearly says, “Congress shall make no law…
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press…” Speech must
include all forms of communication, as communication is the function
and aim of speech. If geographic limitations are placed on a
Christian’s right to speech and communication, then to an equal
extent, their religious freedom is being encroached. The church
224
cannot be the church when the church is restricted to the church, no

more than salt can fulfill its role when it remains in the saltshaker. To
attempt to remove the church from the public square is to attempt to
cripple the church in a most fundamental way.
However, there is more. Part of the modern-day Supreme Court
rhetorical dribble suggests that the Constitution requires the
government to be non-preferential in its separationist church/state
philosophy.
In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black
writing for the five-to-four majority verdict, held:
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 non-
attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be
levied to support any religious activities or institutions,
whatever they may be called, or whatever 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.
Judicial Discrimination
Same treatment it says must be meted out to all religions as well
as no religion. Like so many other instances in the orchestrated effort
to rid America of its public Christian profile, this philosophy is
flawed. For in ridding the public square of Christianity and its
225
practices and symbols, the Supreme Court is favoring and executing

the agenda of ‘no religion’ while deliberately discriminating against
Christianity, which is undoubtedly historically the default preferred
religion of the majority of Americans of all ages. Now back to
President Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.
Natural Rights & Social Duties
A few words later Jefferson says:
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.
Let us take a closer look at Jefferson’s ‘convictions’.
The well-read Jefferson was very well schooled in the
predominant philosophies of his day, and the natural rights of man
was definitely one to which he subscribed. ‘Natural rights’ can best be
described as a political theory that affirms that before man became a
social and/or political being, he was a spiritual being. The philosophy
clearly affirms that as a spiritual being, man’s first commitment is to
nature or nature’s god who lays down natural laws by which man
must govern himself. In turn, nature’s God has endowed man with
certain natural rights that cannot be taken away or compromised by
any lower power. John Locke and other philosophers of his day
debated the exact listing of these ‘natural rights’. However, all agreed
that the right to worship headed the list, and that it was followed by
the right to self-government, which gives rise to the right to having a
voice in how one is governed. Other natural rights include the right to
self-defense and the right to property, both of which found expression
in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Restoration of Man’s Natural Rights
Man has natural rights that have been compromised, and
Jefferson is committed to facilitate, encourage, or at least be sincerely
satisfied by, the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore all
the natural rights of man. The context of his comment informs that
one such right is the right to worship without the necessity of the
226
approval of man or government and without the hindrance of the

same. After all, this is what the Danbury Baptists had expressed
concerns about.
However, Jefferson’s convictions are not without conditions. He
insidiously inserts a test of social duties in such a reflexive manner so
as not to raise alarm. However, upon closer examination, Jefferson’s
condition effectively negates much of the unequivocal strength and
relevance of his previous pronouncement. For Jefferson’s statement
can be accurately interpreted only to mean that an alleged ‘natural
right’ of man must be redefined and reassessed if it opposes a social
duty, or alternatively, a ‘natural right’ of man that opposes a social
duty does not enjoy his commitment to its restoration.
Social Duties
What are social duties? These are obligations of members of a
society to each other and are necessary for the harmonious and
productive coexistence of all in the society. Social duties therefore
restrict freedoms and ‘natural rights’. Social duties are properly seen
as the price that an individual pays and the freedoms that he gives up
in order to benefit from the advantages that the society offer beyond
that possessed by individuals. One social duty is to obey the law. If
the law states that vehicles must operate on the left-hand side of the
road, then I owe it to my neighbor to drive on the left-hand side of the
road. If I decided to drive on the right-hand side of the road, I will
cause a collision with another vehicle traveling in the opposite
direction. Again, what is Jefferson really saying?
Worship
Worship, as distinct from faith, attracts to itself and manifests
itself through visible actions. People choose places, days and times to
worship. Some worship loudly and some worship quietly. Some make
use of items in worship that others find abhorrent. Some choose to
worship Satan and thereby expose themselves to all the tendencies of
Satan. Others choose to worship God with all the attendant exposure
to the attributes of God. Conflict is bound to occur when these two
sets of people come into close proximity of each other.
227
The Bible states that light and darkness cannot meaningfully

coexist. 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 (NIV) asks:
For what partnership has righteousness and lawlessness,
or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony
has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common
with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of
God with idols?
Not nearly as potentially confrontational is the question of a day
of worship. There are built-in tensions between Saturday worshipers
and Sunday worshipers. The Constitution of America even suggests
that Sunday worship is the default preference, and as such Sunday is
not counted as a business day. Finally, what happens when Muslims
determine that they must take their religion’s expressed hatred for
Jews and Christian infidels literally? Is there to be retaliation on the
part of the ‘infidels’ or are they to humbly wait for another airplane to
slam into a heavily populated area with the sole purpose of murdering
the infidels so as to be assigned seventy virgins as a reward in the life
to come? Clearly, in the face of these conflicting interests, in order to
prevent confrontation, extermination, and self-destruction, a society
has to protect itself.
Laws
How does a society protect itself? It does so with laws, and
obedience to these laws becomes a social duty. Since the desire to
facilitate the restoration of these natural rights is conditional on their
not being in opposition to any social duty, the social duty
automatically takes precedence over the natural right, at least in
Jefferson’s philosophical construct.
The question is: was his philosophy properly constructed?
Diverting if we may to other writings of Jefferson on the subject, we
are reminded in his Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty:
Well aware… that it is time enough for the rightful
purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere
when principles break out into overt acts against peace and
good order.
228
Here again, Jefferson is consistent. People are not free to practice

religion. People are free to practice good religion that guarantees that
its principles will not break out into covert acts against peace and
good order.
Theoretical Religious Freedom
It would therefore appear that Jefferson’s religious freedom is
more theoretical than practical. His ‘separation of church and state’
philosophy as it is proposed by both his Danbury letter as well as his
substantial Virginian Statute for Religious Liberty, for which he
wished to be remembered, is skewed towards theoretical rather than
practical religious freedom. Jefferson believed that the state must not
tell a man how to think and what opinions to hold. Nevertheless, the
state must definitely tell a man how to act, even when his actions
form part of his worship.
It follows therefore that if the Jeffersonian theory of religious
freedom requires the state to set the lower boundaries of a citizen’s
acceptable behavior in worship, it must not at the same time intervene
in imposing boundaries at the upper end if it wishes to cling to even
the appearance of being supportive of religious freedom. For to
prescribe limits at both extremities is to completely circumscribe
religious expression and worship and inhibit freedom. Put another
way, if the state has an obligation to intervene when principles break
out into overt acts against peace and good order, and it does, then it
cannot under the same pretense intervene when Christian principles
and socially constructive tenets of good living seek to generally uplift
the society through infiltration of the public square. Moreover, since
our Supreme Court dares to desecrate the memory of our Founding
Fathers by occasionally blaming their original intent for today’s
contemporary constitutional carnage, let us remind ourselves of their
opinion of the relevance or irrelevance of Christianity to the public
square and to the nation as a whole.
Chief Justice Jay’s testimony
The first chief justice of the United States of America, John Jay,
at the age of seventy-one, and with the benefit of years of reflection in
229
public life, cut to the chase when he declared: “Providence has given
to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the
privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer
Christians for their rulers.”
Justice Chase’s Testimony
Talking about cutting to the chase, let us do exactly that. In 1799,
after long and extensively ventilated arguments, the Supreme Court
issued a writ of mandamus in favor of the Rev. William Runkel’s
recovery of his pulpit and its attached emoluments from which he had
been dethroned. In granting the mandamus, the court, through the pen
of chief justice of Maryland and signer of the Declaration of
Independence, Samuel Chase, unanimously stated:
Religion is of general and public concern, and on its
support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order
of the Government, the safety and happiness of the people.
By our form of Government, the Christian religion is the
established religion; and all sects and denominations of
Christians are placed on the same equal footing, and are
equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty. (U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. 1799. Runkel v.
Winsmiller.)
Chief Justice Kent’s Testimony
A decade later in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns 545-547, we are
confronted with the written opinion of chief justice and subsequently
chancellor James Kent. Chancellor Kent was easily the most
authoritative legal mind of his day. Not only was he a dedicated
student of the English legendary legal luminary, Sir William
Blackstone, he was also the author of Commentaries on American
Law.
The defendant was indicted ... in December, 1810, for
wickedly, maliciously, and blasphemously, utter[ing], and
with a loud voice publish[ing], in the presence and hearing of
divers good and Christian people, of and concerning the
Christian religion, and of and concerning Jesus Christ, the
230
false, scandalous, malicious, wicked and blasphemous words

following: ‘Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must
be a whore,’ in contempt of the Christian religion…. The
defendant was tried, convicted, and sentenced to three
months, and $500.
On appeal, the defendant argued on the basis that the First
Amendment essentially discarded state protection of religions and a
person was therefore free to utter anything he wished regardless of
which religious beliefs it supported or offended.
The prosecution on appeal conceded that the constitution of the
state did save for its citizens the rights of conscience and religious
preferences, however:
…it has left the principle engrafted on the body of our
common law, that Christianity is part of the laws of the State,
untouched and unimpaired.
The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. Chief Justice
Kent of the State of New York in handing down the Court’s 1811
ruling, stated inter alia:
Such offenses have always been considered independent
of any religious establishment or the rights of the Church.
They are treated as affecting the essential interests of civil
society....The people of this State, in common with the people
of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity,
as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the
author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of
view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the
obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and
good order.
We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country
is deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the
doctrines or worship of those impostors [other religions]....
[We are] people whose manners are refined and whose
morals have been elevated and inspired with a more enlarged
benevolence, by means of the Christian religion. Though the
231
constitution has discarded religious establishments, it does

not forbid judicial cognizance of those offenses against
religions and morality which have no reference to any such
establishment.... [offenses which] strike at the root of moral
obligation, and weaken the security of the social ties....
This [constitutional] declaration (noble and magnanimous
as it is, when duly understood) never meant to withdraw
religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral
and social obligation from all consideration and notice of the
law.... To construe it as breaking down the common law
barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon
Christianity itself, would be an enormous perversion of its
meaning....
US House Judiciary Committee’s Testimony
These specific and blunt indicators of the relevance of the
Christian religion to the state and the government in the founding era
are but a few of the similar judicial utterances that formed the norm
and not the exception. However, before returning to Jefferson’s
Danbury letter, let us consider a sampling of the prevailing views of
Congress in the 19th century. This is how the US House judiciary
Committee of 1854 put it:
Religion must be considered as the foundation on which
the whole structure rests. In this age there can be no
substitute for Christianity; the great conservative element on
which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free
institutions…The great vital and conservative element in our
system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and
divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Federal Constitutional Context
President Jefferson continues in his letter to the Danbury
Baptists.
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,
232
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall

of separation between Church & 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.
The Federal Constitution was established within the framework
of a very strict and restricted context. That context was the existing
legal, social, religious, security, and economic framework of the
existing thirteen independent, former colonial states of America. It
was the immediate leaders of these independent colonial states and
their delegates who, through a process of discussion, negotiation,
construction, and ratification, brought into being an entity called the
federal government. This federal government derived its existence
from the legal expression of the states and was created with the sole
intent of benefiting and adding value to the collective worth of the
existing thirteen, and future states, and to the individual states
wherever possible.
Consistent with these aims, objectives and overarching
philosophy, the federal government was deliberately shackled and
restrained by the empowering states; and these shackles and restraints
were deliberately made a part of the Federal Constitution. The Federal
Constitution was therefore granted relevance only to the point that it
functioned within its prescribed parameters and that it complemented
the satisfactory operation of its creators, the states of America.
Constitution Carefully Crafted

The framers of the Federal Constitution were careful to do two
things. First, they tidied the process of creation by carefully removing
any loose-lying constitutional debris with the potential of creating
mayhem in the future. They accomplished this by making sure that
there were no stray ‘powers’ left hanging around that could respond to
the powerful magnetic pull of the new federal government by
233
reserving all powers not delegated to the United States by the

Constitution to the states respectively, or to the people. This safeguard
left the people, of whom the states were comprised, firmly in charge
of their own destiny, and more specifically, in charge of the federal
government that they had just created.
Nevertheless, the creators of the Constitution did not stop there.
They also reserved to the states respectively, and to the people
generally, all powers not specifically prohibited to the respective
states by the Constitution. Thus, with a double-edged sword, the
framers cut loose all and every conceivable and inconceivable
postpartum powers with the potential for corrupting their creation.
The Right to Amend the Constitution
However, there was a second thing that the Fathers did and this
thing effectively laid the foundation for the negation of much of the
value in the first. The constitutional creators vested within the
Constitution the vulnerability of all its provisions to change. The
change was to be orderly. The change was to be systematic. The
change process was not to be simple, but it was to be possible.
The Founding Fathers simply did not foresee the confluence of
circumstances consisting of both the causes and the consequence of
the Civil War. These circumstances created the perfect environment in
which a majority of the respective states and the people in general
permitted the federal government to deprive them of their
constitutional rights, and in the process, permanently remove these
from them. America has paid and continues to pay a horrific price for
its practice of slavery.
Today both Southern States that supported slavery as well as
Northern States that opposed it, have lost their freedom and have been
‘enslaved’ by the Federal Government. It can be accurately said that
the tail now wags the dog. And in this catastrophic corruption of the
greatest ever constitutional model, the weakest of the branches of
Federal Government now appear to control the others!
234
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER TWELVE
Jefferson’s ‘Wall’
Contextual Interpretation of Jefferson’s Wall
I f Jefferson’s ‘wall’ is to be seriously interpreted and applied in the

post Civil War era and post reconstruction amendments era, it must
first be accurately interpreted in the social, religious and political
context in which it was ‘erected’.
Jefferson seems to harbor no desires to hide the fact that he was
not present at the Constitutional Convention, or at the drafting of the
Bill of Rights for that matter. Surely, however, he was part of the
people who were obliged to be governed by the constraints of the
Constitution. Yet he used the word ‘their’, and by so doing possibly
implied that he was not an active part of that decision. If this fact did
occupy Jefferson’s mind as he wrote, it is all the more commendable
for his claim to humility because there is a very high probability that
the spirit of Jefferson influenced the final document as much as any
other man present, and possibly more so.
For starters, Jefferson and Madison were friends, although they
were political rivals and intellectual sparring partners. Madison
successfully championed Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious
Freedom and paraded it through Congress. They worked very closely
while both served as ambassadors in foreign lands, and it is
unthinkable that Madison would not have consulted his colleague
Jefferson, who was on diplomatic assignment to France at the time of
the writing of the Constitution. At any rate, Jefferson had already
given America the Declaration of Independence, and before that,
Jefferson, assisted by Madison, had given Virginia An Act for
Establishing Religious Freedom. Both of these documents
235
undoubtedly influenced the tenor of the Federal Constitution.

Jefferson instructively contemplates the First Amendment with
‘sovereign reverence’ and refers to it as a ‘solemn act’. He thereby
sends a very strong indication of the distance that he now places
between it and its creators. Put another way, the thing created and
given life by the people now dictates and controls the actions of the
people, and as such is not to be trifled with.
By substituting the word ‘legislature’ for ‘Congress’, Jefferson
chooses to emphasize the major function of Congress, which is to
make laws, but never a law respecting the establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The next word is both key and pivotal in the construction or
reconstruction of Jefferson’s intention as it relates to his ‘wall of
separation’. That word is ‘thus’, a mid old English word which has
two meanings when used as an adverb. It could mean ‘therefore’ or
‘hence’ when introducing a logical conclusion, or it could mean ‘so’
when referring to the way indicated. Therefore, Jefferson said either
that a wall of separation between church and state was built, or was
being built, as a logical result of the declaration of ‘the whole
American people’, or that the wall of separation between church and
state was built, or being built, in the way indicated. On this occasion,
the impact of either interpretation is similar. We do not therefore need
to further pursue an accurate determination of what Jefferson
intended. Let us now look at the wall itself.
The Wall – Construction Material
The wall was constructed with material taken directly from the
Declaration. This declaration was irrelevant to the individual states. It
was a shackle placed on the central government, hence the use of the
definitive word ‘Congress’. Since Madison was charged with the
responsibility of drafting this amendment, and since Jefferson’s
alleged commitment to modern interpretations of his ‘separation of
church and state’ doctrine was allegedly paralleled only by Madison,
it would be instructive to read what Madison wrote in his first
submitted draft.
236
The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of

religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be
established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience
be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed. No state shall
violate the equal rights of conscience or the freedom of the
press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
Madison’s original draft is very informative. Religious
discrimination was not to rare its ugly head in the federal government,
and clearly, was equally undesirable at the state government level.
One way to guarantee the absence of religious discrimination was to
refrain from establishing a national religion. Regardless of what
Madison’s views on this subject were, there were still many states,
like Connecticut, that retained their established religion while making
efforts to introduce religious tolerance. Madison therefore did not
attempt to assign his second personal position to any but the federal
government.
On the matter of conscience, Madison was consistently clear.
Whereas only the federal government was burdened not to establish a
national religion, as illustrated by the instance of Virginia, the states
were burdened not to violate the equal rights of conscience or the
freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.
It is worthy of note that in the final wording of the First
Amendment, the reference to ‘free exercise’ of conscience proved
redundant, and the reference to the state was dropped completely, as
these restrictions were not about the state.
It requires just a slightly closer look to further analyze the
material of which Jefferson’s Wall was built. A comparison of
Madison’s first draft with the final wording of the amendment
reinforces at least one point. This amendment was aimed at the
federal government and not the state. The motivation was clear – keep
the federal government, which would closely approximate the
monarchy of Great Britain, out of the establishment of formal
religious parameters as well as away from the possibility of
prohibition of free exercise of religion at the level of the individual.
Keep that motivation in mind and then apply the meaning of ‘thus’,
237
and what do we get? We get a wall built to separate the national

government from the church with the aim of protecting the church
from the national government.
The Wall – One-Dimensional
It is exegetically flawed to attempt to infer from the text that
Jefferson’s Wall is two-dimensional. Care must always be taken with
metaphors. According to the Internet resource Answers.com, a
metaphor is: “a figure of speech in which a word or phrase that
ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus
making an implicit comparison, as in ‘a sea of troubles’ or ‘All the
world’s a stage’ (Shakespeare).”
Metaphors have literal and factual bases, but somewhere between
base and application, they go through some unpredictable
metamorphoses. The reader must therefore ‘stay with’ the metaphor,
keeping our eyes glued to the essential attributes that are being
communicated. A woman looks with admiration at a strong, husky,
muscular Mr. Macho, and says, ‘You’re a tiger!’ It is only fair to
interpret her comment as being restricted to her perception of his
strength and possibly his prowess. However, it must not be extended
to suggest that he has four legs with claws at the end of his paws and
possessive of a strong animal body odor.
Walls are by description two sided, and yes, it would be an
oxymoron to say that Jefferson’s Wall was one-sided. Yet, the burden
of a metaphor is not to be consistent or applicable in every detail but
only to effectively convey at least one central point. Therefore, it
would be academically acceptable for Jefferson’s Wall to be ‘one-
sided’ if that is what he intended. Remember, a wall may be built to
‘keep out’ as well as it may be built to ‘keep in’. Very conceivable is
the possibility that a single wall could be designed to ‘kill two birds
with one stone’, and by so doing, keep out as well as keep in. Equally
common, and perhaps more so at the national level, a wall is
traditionally built to protect those within from those without.
Walls are for Protection
A part of the problem inherent in the interpretation of Jefferson’s
238
Wall metaphor is our default concept of a wall. Without scientifically

verifying this, I suspect that when we think of a wall, most of us
immediately think of a flat structure that runs from east to west or
north to south. However, let us give that some thought.
To be effective, most walls, when completed, form either a circle
or a square or an oblong or some other enclosed shape. After all, if the
wall does not form an enclosure, then what useful purpose does it
serve? Anyone who could not manage to climb over the wall would
simply walk around it. A functional wall at a national level creates an
enclosure. Hence, the city walls of Jerusalem or Jericho enclosed the
city. The gate in the wall was always as strong, if not stronger than
the rest of the wall, and was considered part of the wall. It is a
construction for protection. It serves to protect those within from the
enemy that is without.
Given the context of Jefferson’s era, this interpretation of his wall
must be the preferred interpretation. That solemn act of the whole
people of the United States of America, scared as hell as they were of
a powerful central federal government closely resembling the one
from which they had just purchased their independence with the
blood of their loved ones, protected the people on the inside from the
intruder from without. The Bill of Rights encircled and protected the
people of the individual states, who were the creators of the federal
‘monster’ from the created federal ‘monster’. Jefferson’s Wall was
designed to prevent the ‘monster’ from attacking its creators, and not
to prevent the creators from freely interacting with and influencing
their creation.
Was Jefferson’s Wall Original?
It is very useful at this stage to remind ourselves of some
collateral facts that may further assist us in accurately reconstructing
the wall that Jefferson had in mind. As indicated elsewhere in this
book, it is hardly likely that Jefferson’s Wall was an original wall.
Jefferson was easily one of the widest-read, and arguably the widest-
written of the Founding Fathers. The 18,000 plus documents credited
directly to his authorship is mind-boggling, even if that number were
cut in half. What would be the likelihood of Jefferson being aware of
239
the writings and utterances of the founder of one of the thirteen states
– Rhode Island? Moreover, when you consider that among Jefferson’s
preoccupation was religious tolerance and freedom, what is the
likelihood that Jefferson would not be very familiar with the life and
times and writings of the man who arguably best deserves the title
‘Father of Religious Freedom in Colonial America’?
Roger Williams
Reverend Roger Williams was born in 1603. He was educated at
Pembroke College, Cambridge, England. He was an ordained
clergyman of the Church of England, but identified with those who
felt that the Reformation in England had not gone far enough to rid
the church of its Romish errors. He responded to being sidelined by
his clerical colleagues by sailing to Massachusetts in 1631 to join
John Winthrop and other Puritan settlers in America. It was not long
before he realized that his radical views of religious tolerance found
little muster with Winthrop and even less with John Cotton. He was
convinced that religion was a matter of conscience and could not be
enforced on any man, and least of all by any civil authority.
After graciously declining the pastorate of the first Puritan
Church of Boston in Massachusetts, Williams moved first to New
Plymouth and then to Salem. He established very strong ties with the
American Indians and forged a relationship with them for which he
would not only become legendary, but which would ultimately tear
his heart asunder as his loyalties left him split between the warring
Narragansett Indians and New England settlers.
His Puritan colleagues in Massachusetts tried him for heresy in
1635 and found him guilty. Before he could be seized, Williams and
about twenty-one of his followers escaped to what became known as
Bristol, Rhode Island. A gift of land from the Indians he had
befriended was his start, and he later received a full charter of the
Colony of Rhode Island from Charles II, King of England in 1663.
All the Charters from England more or less stipulated that the
Colonies were being established to forcefully further the spread of the
Christian religion. However, the Rhode Island Charter was the first to
240
explicitly address the concept of religious tolerance by stating that no

one would be persecuted for any differences in opinion in matters of
religion. At the highest level possible, Roger Williams had established
himself as the ambassador of religious tolerance in America.
Roger Williams reduced much of his revolutionary philosophy to
writing, and was in part spurred by the hostility of Clergyman John
Cotton. Williams wrote The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause
of Conscience (1644), Queries of Highest Consideration (1644), in
which he argued for complete separation of church and state; The
Bloudy Tenent Yet More Bloudy (1652); The Hireling Ministry None
of Christ’s (1652); and George Fox Digg’d Out of His Burrowes
(1676).
Rev. Roger Williams is the man who, to the best of my
knowledge, introduced the metaphor of a ‘wall of separation between
church and state’. According to the best accessible sources, this is
what he wrote.
When they have opened a gap in the hedge of or wall of
separation between the garden of the church, and the
wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall
itself…and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And
that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and
paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly
unto Himself from the world.
Williams’ wall was clearly one-directional and was designed to
protect the church on the inside from the state apparatus and more on
the outside. His wall was designed to protect the church from the
world of which the state apparatus would just be a part. There is no
Christian minister in his right mind that would ever suggest or imply
that it is the will of God that the world or the state be protected from
the church. There is nothing in the known writings or philosophy of
Williams that suggests he thought something or someone needed to
be protected from the church.
Jefferson was undoubtedly familiar with this metaphor. He was
now addressing the leadership of the Danbury Baptists, who were
241
very likely to be familiar with the writings of Roger Williams. After

all, the Baptists, and especially the Connecticut Baptists, were very
familiar with persecution in colonial America. Ancestors of the
Danbury Baptists would undoubtedly have been among those persons
who took refuge in Roger Williams’ Rhode Island. It would have been
meaningless for Jefferson to be writing to Baptists, making use of a
metaphor first used by a prominent Baptist minister, even though he
identified with the Baptists for only a short period, and intending to
convey a meaning that was different from the original meaning.
Word Sequence Clue
Finally, could it be that at least one more clue can be uncovered
from an examination of the material with which both Williams’ and
Jefferson’s Wall of separation was built? When discussing
‘protection’, there is a sequence of words that appears in the related
sentences that is uncannily consistent. Something or someone is
always the protector. A second ‘something’ or ‘someone’ else is
always being protected. A third ‘something’ or ‘someone’ else is
always necessitating the protection or being protected from ‘someone’
or ‘something’. In every instance, the first and second ‘somethings’ or
‘someones’ are interchangeable in sentence construction.
Let us consider the protection a father provides for his child. We
may say, ‘The father (protector) protects the child (protected) from
the bully (necessitator).’ However, an equally valid construction is,
‘The child is protected by the father from the bully.’ Significantly, for
the ‘necessitator’ to appear before the protector or the protected in a
sentence would require a rather unwieldy linguistic construction. We
would need to say, ‘From the bully, the father protects the child.’ In
poetry, with its contrived constructions, one may get away with the
latter word sequence but not in standard, everyday communication. In
this sequence construct, the rule appears to be that the ‘necessitator’
or ‘enemy’ is always mentioned last.
In the case of Jefferson’s Wall, the protector is that solemn act of
the whole people, and more specifically the declaration that Congress
shall make no law respecting religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The protected is the church and the ‘enemy’ is the state, or
242
government. In the case of both Williams’ wall and Jefferson’s Wall,

the need for separation is clearly motivated by the need for protection,
and in both cases it is the church that must be protected.
At another time and in another place, the church’s need of
protection may well be debated. Does the church need constitutional
protection? Does the church need any protector other than its Lord, its
Redeemer, and its Savior Jesus Christ? The answer must be an
unequivocally resounding ‘No!’
In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ has demonstrated repeatedly
that it has the ability to flourish under persecution, and like a precious
stone, to be perfected under pressure. This would make the
insinuations of both Williams and Jefferson wrong. However, that is
not at issue here. The fact is that this is what they said, and apparently
what they meant.
However, does the government or the state always have to be a
threat to the church, regardless of its ability to withstand that threat?
Do the perceived interests of governments always have to be contrary
to those of the church?
Inter-relationship: Government & Church
We have already seen in an earlier chapter that God has identified
the government as His minister or servant to do God’s will. The Bible
goes as far as to command Christians to obey the government by
doing what is right or face its wrath. God has chosen to raise up
human governments for the specific purpose of punishing those who
are called by His Name. The Assyrians were so identified as servants
of God authorized to punish God’s people until the time for their own
punishment arrived.
Since God reserves the right to raise up civic authorities to
punish His people, He most certainly reserves the right to raise up
civic authorities to protect His people. This is the manifestation of the
presence of God in the so-called Godless Constitution. The framers of
the Constitution of the United States of America, wittingly or
unwittingly, set up a government that was so structured as to be
obliged to protect the Church of Jesus Christ.
243
Ecumenicalism
In the gospel of Mark 9:38-40, we read the following words:
Now John answered Him, saying, "Teacher, we saw
someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your
name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.
But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a
miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me.
For he who is not against us is on our side.”
Much as I hate the concept of dividing members of the Body of
Jesus Christ into denominations, it is hard to believe that Jesus did not
know that this development would take place. Since He did know that
it would take place, then would He not have given us even a small
indication of his approval, disapproval, or indifference to the subject?
In Mark 9:38-40, I see a thinly veiled reference to the tragedy of
denominationalism. There was no doubt in the minds of John that this
unnamed man was doing something good, and he was doing it in the
name of Jesus. Yet, concerns were raised because he “does not follow
us”. In today’s context, John would probably have said, “He is not of
our denomination.”
Matthew 12:25-30 tells us of an occasion when Jesus was
accused of casting out demons in the power of the Beelzebub or
Satan. Jesus’ logical retort was that it was not practical for Satan to be
casting out Satan. The rationale was that a house divided against itself
could not stand. By the same logic, this stranger in Mark 9:38-40
could not have been casting out demons in the power of the Devil,
and neither did he claim to have done so. The evidence therefore
seems to suggest that he was casting out demons in the name of Jesus,
and consequently could possibly be a legitimate follower of Jesus,
although he was not one of the twelve disciples. Jesus concludes with
a classic ecumenical statement. “For he who is not against us is for
us.”
If Jesus was therefore alluding to the possibility of different sets
of people doing the work of God, even possibly using meaningless
and slightly different approaches, then He was saying that the
244
kingdom of God is large enough to accommodate these differences.

He was actually saying much more. Jesus was saying that there are in
effect only two categories of people. There are those that are for Him,
and there are those who are against Him. It follows therefore that
everyone who makes it into the category of those who are for Him are
to be equally accommodated and respected by all others in the same
category. This does not mean that Christians are not to be discerning.
This does not mean that Christians are not to ‘test the spirits’ to see
whether or not they are of God. This does not mean that we ought not
to pay careful attention to the ‘fruit’ that is borne by those who
profess to belong to Jesus. This does not mean that God may not
make some distinctions, but man is forbidden to even attempt to be
the judge of those distinctions.
Framers’ Foresight
Prior to the framing of the US Constitution, there was widespread
discrimination along denominational lines among members of the
Body of Jesus Christ. Congregationalists were persecuting Baptist
Christians at one point and some colonies made one Christian
denomination appear to be superior to others by establishing that
Christian denomination. The framers of the Constitution, without
disturbing the practice of religious establishment at the state level,
drew the line in the Constitution and decided that establishment
would not raise its ugly head in the federal government. In so doing,
not only were the Founding Fathers placing pressure on the already
suspect practice of religious establishment at the state level, they were
also enshrining a bedrock principle of Jesus in the American
Constitution.
Of course, the framers of the Constitution, in providing for equal
treatment of all sects of the Christian faith, have made it possible for
all religions to benefit from the same provisions. Moreover, in
prohibiting Congress from interfering with the free exercise of all
sects of the Christian faith, Congress is equally forbidden from
interfering with the free exercise of the Muslim faith, or even Satan
worship for that matter.
245
Privatization of Christianity
There is, however, a huge difference between the constitutional
provision of non-discrimination and non-inhibition on the one hand,
and the extermination of Christianity in the public square on the other
hand. The first is constitutional; the other is diabolical and constitutes
a blatant act of aggression against the Body of Jesus Christ. The
church’s response is our responsibility.
The logical conclusion is that God has chosen to provide equal
protection for all religions and not just for the Christian faith or any
sect thereof. It would not be the first time that God has authorized the
wheat and the tares to grow together until the day of harvest. This
then reduces the American Christian’s advantage to one of potential.
Success or failure, victory or defeat in the assignment, now depends
on what we do with that potential.
Moreover, lest the numerical strength of the Christian majority in
America lull us into a state of complacency, just remember that on the
world scene, Christianity is subscribed to by less than 30% of the
world’s population according to CAIR (Council on American-Islamic
relations) (1999). Although by similar measurements, Muslims
account for less than 22%, the latter is growing by a whopping 2.9%
per year. According to the present trend, it is projected that there will
be more Muslims than Christians in the world by the close of the first
quarter of this century.
The time for Christians to be modest and humble and silent about
their faith and the claim of Jesus Christ on the people of this world
has expired. The time to become militant has come.
246
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
The Wall – The Supreme Court’s Reconstruction
T he Supreme Court knows that it has deliberately and deceptively

reconstructed Jefferson’s Wall to mean what neither Jefferson
nor Williams nor Madison intended it to be. However, more
significantly, the Supreme Court knows that its present convenient
interpretation of Jefferson’s Wall is inconsistent with the Constitution
of America, and specifically the First Amendment to the Constitution
of America. And just in case you find this conclusion to be radical and
possibly even inappropriate, then consider the conclusion arrived at
by one of the longest serving Supreme Court justices, the late chief
justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, William
Rehnquist.
Dissenting in Wallace V. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) Justice
Rehnquist said:
It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine
upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but
unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly
freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor [separation of
church and state] for nearly 40 years…
The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a
metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved
useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and
explicitly abandoned.
I do not concur with some of the premises in the full text of Chief
Justice Rehnquist’s dissent, and some of his historical details are
flawed. However, I do agree with the vast majority of his stated
reasoning, and definitely with his conclusion. For the record,
247
Rehnquist finds himself among a large group of American leaders, in

and out of the judiciary, who share his conclusion.
The Wall – Jefferson’s Interpretation
Regardless of the percentage of historical accuracy in all of
Rehnquist’s argument, it is eminently more difficult to argue with
Jefferson on the subject. After writing his letter to the Baptists, a few
days later he could be seen enjoying the sermon of his friend Rev.
John Leland in the halls of Congress where weekly church services
continued to be held for upwards of the next six decades. As a matter
of fact, it is hard to deny the possibility that the exchange of letters
between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists may have directly or
indirectly influenced Jefferson’s newfound habit of going to church,
and doing so at the Capitol Building.
We know that prior to the Danbury/Jefferson letter exchange,
Jefferson was not known to be a churchgoer. We know that his
political opponents in the Federalist Party, who until then had
monopolized the Congress and the presidency, constantly and
publicly accused him of being an atheist. We know that they did so
not just because he did not attend church, but also because he refused
to proclaim public days of fasting and other religious observances as
did his predecessors, Washington and Adams. We even know that the
print media in his day frequently hurled anti-religious innuendos at
him with both their editorials and their cartoons.
The next thing we know is that Rev. John Leland delivers a
specially built 1235lb cheese to Jefferson on Friday, January 1, 1802.
This the same day that Jefferson responded to the Danbury Baptists,
and two days before Jefferson attended church for the first recorded
time in a very long time. We cannot be sure whether it was the Baptist
minister’s cheese or the Danbury Baptists, or even both, that
influenced Jefferson to attend church in the Capitol Building on
Sunday, January 3.
However, we do know that Jefferson attended, and his friend the
Rev. John Leland preached the sermon entitled, ‘Behold a greater
than Solomon is here.’ We know that Jefferson never stopped
248
attending church for the duration of his presidency. We also know that
Jefferson, himself a talented musician, had taken special interest in
the Marine Band. On his instructions, we know that the Marine Band
played for the worship services held at the Capitol for as long as the
congregation could tolerate them, since they did not do an
outstanding job at following the hymns.
Would it be fair to say that today’s Supreme Court, if transported
to Jefferson’s days, might have ruled the close entanglement of the
church and the state to be unconstitutional? Quite possibly!
Nevertheless, since the chief justice at that time would have been the
Great Chief Justice John Marshall, he would have practiced the same
wisdom in such an instance as he practiced in Marbury v. Madison.
He would have kept his mouth shut rather than run the risk of being
ignored by President Jefferson.
Interestingly enough, at the close of his reign as chief justice,
John Marshall grew careless and ruled against President Andrew
Jackson in Worcester v. Georgia (1832). The president acknowledged
the chief justice’s ruling and then challenged him to enforce it if he
could. Clearly, the great chief justice, who enjoyed the power of
neither purse nor sword, could not enforce his ruling. Those were the
days when presidents presided and the judiciary opined.
The Wall – Leland’s Interpretation
Let us not leave Rev. Jon ‘Mammoth’ Leland so fast. Who was
he? John Leland, born May 14, 1754 was a celebrated religious
liberty preacher. He spent much of his nearly seven-decades-long
ministry preaching in Massachusetts and Virginia. He was also a
prolific writer, though not nearly as prolific as his friend Jefferson.
Nevertheless, their sentiments on religious liberty are remarkably
similar. According to Wikipedia, Leland is quoted in A Chronicle of
His time in Virginia as saying:
The notion of a Christian commonwealth should be
exploded forever...Government should protect every man in
thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse
another. The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The
249
very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some

have a pre-eminence above the rest to grant indulgence,
whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and
Christians.
In addition, L. F. Greene, in his edition of The Writings of John
Leland, quotes from Leland’s ‘July 4th Oration [1802]’:
Never promote men who seek after a state-established
religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is
turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to
establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion
into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into
merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between
church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful.
Finally, in 1802, Rev. Leland also said:
Gentlemen, you have taken notice that some men are
always contending for the energy of government, while
others are pleading for the rights of the people. On this I shall
remark, that man has no right which stands in opposition to
his social duties; no right to exercise his liberty to destroy the
right and property of his neighbor; no right that frees him
from his proportionable part of the burdens of government,
and the restraint of just laws.
Clearly, neither man understood their zeal for separation of
church and state or separation of religion and government to mean
that the president of the United States and other public servants could
not use government property for the propagation of sectarian religious
beliefs. In fact, not only were the halls of Congress used for church
services, but so were the Supreme Court Chambers and the Treasury
Building, both before and after it was burnt by the British in 1814.
The Wall – Interpretation of Host of Early Leaders
As an even more significant matter of fact, not only was
Jefferson a regular weekly participant in church services held in the
halls of Congress, but so were several other leaders of government.
Jefferson was frequently seen with not only his private secretary and
250
family in church, but also with Vice President Aaron Burr and other
senior government officials. When Madison became president, he
continued to worship at church in the halls of Congress.
In the narration associated with the June 1998 Library of
Congress Exhibition dubbed ‘Religion and the Founding of the
American Republic’ we are told:
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in
Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson
(1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state
became the church. Within a year of his inauguration,
Jefferson began attending church services in the House of
Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson’s example,
although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church
in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four.
There is also evidence that John Quincy Adams attended Church
in the Capitol from as early as 1806 while Jefferson was still
president. Among others, Adams sat under the ministry of Reverend
James Laurie as early as 1806 in a church service conducted in the
Supreme Court Chambers on the ground floor of the Capitol. As
president, John Quincy Adams attended church in the Capitol and on
at least one occasion sat under the ministry of Catholic priest, Bishop
John England on January 8, 1826.
Church services at which heads of state attended were held in the
Capitol and executive buildings until after the Civil War. Information
gleaned from the rare Book and Special Collections Division of the
Library of Congress and forming part of the Exhibition on Religion
and the Founding of the American Republic tells us that:
Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the
House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First
Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at
that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime, the
church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding
services ‘at the Hall of Representatives’ where ‘the audience
is the largest in town…Nearly 2000 assembled every
251
Sabbath’ for services, making the congregation in the House

the ‘largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United
States.’ The First Congregational Church met in the House
from 1865 to 1868.
In addition, even before Jefferson, President George Washington
was an Episcopalian vestryman and President John Adams described
himself as “a churchgoing animal.”
Clearly, neither Washington, nor Adams, nor Jefferson, nor
Leland, nor Madison nor Burr nor Quincy Adams believed that the
principles for which they stood forbade them from supporting prayers
and Bible reading and the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
venues and facilities paid for by taxpayers’ dollars. Why then does the
US Supreme Court now feel that it can interpret Jefferson’s ‘Wall of
Separation’ to mean that prayers cannot be said in public schools?
It is worthy of note that the early presidents’ support for religion
in the very halls of Congress and the Supreme Court Chamber was
consistent with the constitutional principles of the First Amendment
as they understood it. Attendance was voluntary and there was no
visible discrimination against religious sects. Baptist, Presbyterian,
Congregational, Catholic and even female preachers were facilitated.
The first woman to preach in the Capitol Building was English
evangelist Dorothy Ripley, who conducted a service on January 12,
1806.
Madison to the Rescue
It is sometimes claimed that although not as popularly quoted as
Jefferson, Madison was a more formidable proponent of the
separation of church and state. However, the real challenge is to
determine what was the practical model that Madison intended to be
erected because of his philosophical construct. We have already seen
that Madison’s concept of ‘separation of church and state’ or
‘separation of government and religion’ did not cause him to prevent
prime government property from being used by the people for
sectarian religious observances. Not only did he not object, but also
he participated in these observances while he was president.
252
However, there are specific things that Madison did do that definitely
give an indication of how he viewed separation of church and state.
He scores no points for actually piloting the Virginia Statute for
Religious Freedom through the Virginian legislature since it was
Jefferson who wrote it. However, Madison wrote the Memorial and
Remonstrance and the Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations,
Ecclesiastical Endowments all by himself. So let us scour them for
some clues that could help us understand what the Supreme Court has
relied on for their interpretation of ‘separation of church and state’ as
understood by Williams, Jefferson and Madison.
Memorial & Remonstrance
First, we will look at Madison’s 1785 Memorial and
Remonstrance. The context of the Memorial and Remonstrance is
important. Patrick Henry and others were attempting to push through
the Virginia legislature – a bill that would require contributions to be
made for the support of teachers of the Christian Religion. This would
have been after the established Episcopalian Church had been
dethroned and its derived powers revoked.
Madison not only strenuously objected to this bill, which would
have the effect of ‘establishing’ a Christian sect, but he had been
awaiting an opportunity to push through Jefferson’s bill which sought
to legally enshrine religious freedom in Virginia. Remember that as
we comb through Madison’s words, we are looking for anything that
suggests that Madison understood separation of church and state to
mean that the government was not to be directly influenced by
Christian principles, or even general religious philosophies. We
expect to find Madison objecting to everything that suggests that the
government is establishing a particular religion or Christian sect as
the official religion by which all shall be bound and for which all
shall financially support. We even expect Madison to object to
anything that seeks to replace ‘singular establishments’ with ‘multiple
establishments’. Let us now read selections from his Memorial and
Remonstrance.
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such
253
homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.

This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of
obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.
Here Madison makes the point that man’s duty to God takes
precedence over man’s duty to civil society.
Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil
Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour
of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with
a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.
Here Madison reinforces the point that man is first the subject of
God and then a member of civil society. Anything that man does
because of his membership in civil society must be so done as not to
jeopardize his relationship with God.
Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the
Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the
Legislative” Religion cannot be subject to the legislative
powers of society.
Above all are they to be considered as retaining an “equal
title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates
of Conscience.
Here Madison emphasizes the right of all to freely exercise their
religious beliefs.
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is
a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ
Religion as an engine of civil policy.
Here Madison comes closest to the possibility of supporting the
allegation that the First Amendment necessitates government not
being influenced or guided by religious or even sectarian Christian
considerations. He is effectively saying that the civil magistrate is not
a competent judge of religious truth. He is also saying that the civil
magistrate may not employ religion as an engine of civil policy.
Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not
requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that
254
it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for

every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this
world:
it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this
Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the
support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from
them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but
long after it had been left to its own evidence and the
ordinary care of Providence.
Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not
invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been
supported, before it was established by human policy.
Here Madison pays the highest possible homage to the Christian
religion. Unlike Jefferson, who was intellectually confused about the
origin and originator of the Christian religion, Madison demonstrates
from this statement alone that he is not. Madison is saying that the
Christian religion exists at an infinitely superior level to civil society
and human government and therefore the former cannot be dependent
on or supported by the latter. However, implicit in Madison’s
reasoning is that the latter (civil society) can be dependent on and
supported by the former (Christian religion).
Detached Memoranda
Now let us look at another of Madison’s writings, Monopolies.
Perpetuities. Corporations. Ecclesiastical Endowments, written
sometime after he left office in 1817 (Detached Memoranda). In it
Madison says:
Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion &
Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of
encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by
precedents already furnished in their short history.
In this clip, Madison is stating that the separation between
religion and government is strongly guarded. In fact, Article 6 Clause
3 of the Constitution of the United States of America says:
255
But no religious Test shall ever be required as a

Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.
This does not amount to a strongly guarded separation. On the
contrary, it suggests that religion should never be used to separate
anyone from his or her right to hold office or public trust in the
Government of America.
The First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion…
Again, this cannot amount to a “strongly guarded separation”.
The only thing that Congress is forbidden to do is to make a law
respecting an establishment of religion. Congress is therefore free to
make any law relating to religion on condition that the law in no way
‘establishes’ that religion. Moreover, we ought not to have any
difficulty understanding what is meant by ‘establish’. It carried the
same meaning as the 200-year practice of state-appointed religions.
Accompanying ‘establishment of religion’ was direct taxation of the
citizens for its support, either with or without regard to whether or not
every taxed citizen conscientiously supported that brand of religion.
There is evidence that, at least in Virginia, it was the clear
intention that religious freedom was not to be limited to practitioners
of the Christian religion. It was to be enjoyed by all. Because of the
central role that Madison played in both the passage of the Bill for
Religious Freedom in Virginia and the First Amendment in the Bill of
Rights, I readily concede that it was the intention of the First
Amendment to extend this inability to have their religion established
to all men of all religions. The separation between religion and
government begins and ends at the government’s inability to establish
religion.
However, the First Amendment does not stop there. Congress is
barred from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and obviously so
at the level of the individual as well as that of the congregation and
that of the wider community. Could this be the strongly guarded
256
separation of religion and government of which Madison speaks? I

hope not. You see a command not to prohibit cannot by any rational
rules of interpretation be construed to include a prohibition not to
support or aid.
So what do we have? Congress can relate to religion and
religious issues in every way other than respecting an establishment,
as clearly understood by the framers and consistent with their
contemporary history. Congress must not prohibit the free exercise of
religion but may encourage and facilitate it. It is therefore
unacceptable to talk about a ‘strongly guarded separation between
religion and government.’
Nevertheless, Madison saw fit to imply, if not allege, such a
‘strongly guarded separation’. For identifying his ‘strongly guarded
separation’, at least two possible reasons suggest themselves. The
first reaches back to his reasoning immediately before making the
statement, and this we shall look at first. After warning of the dangers
inherent in ‘this just and this truly [Christian] principle’, Madison
moves into exhortation mode:
Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions
or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of
religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or
joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise &
purify your systems…
Madison clearly establishes what is the ‘ought’ as well as what is
the ‘ought not’ in recommended behavior and practice. First, we
ought not to give to Caesar or human government what belongs to
God. Secondly, we ought not to join together what God has put
asunder, a clear reference to religious establishment. Breaches of
either of these two ‘ought-nots’ are described by Madison as
aberrations from the sacred principle of religious liberty.
The ‘oughts’ follow logically from the ‘ought-nots’. We ought to
give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar. Secondly, we ought to give to
God what belongs to God. Thirdly, we ought to keep separate what
God has separated. Worthy of note is the fact that Madison’s
257
philosophical structure did not proscribe giving to God what belonged

to Caesar. For, since God was infinitely greater than Caesar, then all
that was given to Caesar either already belonged to God or should be
given to God.
A possible second reason for Madison’s use of the term, ‘strongly
guarded separation’, establishes for him the foundation upon which
he can lay his allegation of encroachment. In Madison’s own words:
The most notable attempt was that in Virginia to establish
a Genl assessment for the support of all Xn [Christian] sects.
So let us get one thing out of the way. What we are about to look
at is ‘the most notable’. It is not either of the two religious bills that
Madison vetoed in 1811. Neither was it the attempt in Kentucky to
exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.
The Church of England, known in the colonies as the Episcopal
Church, had always been a symbol of the authority and tyranny of
England in the colonies. Using its legislative influence, dissenters
were routinely punished in the most demeaning of ways. Baptist and
other dissenters helped paint a gruesome picture as they preached
their sermons from behind prison walls.
In 1776 the new Constitution of Virginia declared in section 16
of its bill of rights:
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator,
and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by
reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore
all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion,
according to the dictates of conscience.
That provision effectively started the process of disestablishment
of the Episcopalian Church in Virginia by suffocating its income from
taxes. However, Episcopal influence and domination, which had
lasted for a century and a half, did not curl up and disappear
immediately, and arguably exerted diminishing amounts of energy
until 1784.
In 1784, Patrick Henry attempted to pass a religious assessment
258
law captioned ‘A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the

Christian Religion’. If passed into law, this bill would give tax dollars
specifically to teachers of the Christian religion only and to no others.
Madison found this move by Patrick Henry and others to be a
retrograde step in light of the general move towards religious
freedom. As a direct result, he mounted a massive counter campaign
with his main weapon being his Memorial and Remonstrance Against
Religious Assessment. This is the encroachment by ecclesiastical
bodies to which Madison refers in his Detached Memoranda.
Again, it is obvious that the forceful language of Madison is
directed against an attempt to reverse the revolution and to reestablish
one form of religion or another. The objection to establishment had
nothing to do with which religious sect was established. Whether it
was the Episcopal or the Congregational or any other sect,
establishment resulted in an abrogation of the natural right of man to
freedom of conscience, freedom of worship and freedom of religion.
Madison, Jefferson, John Leland, and many others were rightly
opposed to any form of compulsory compliance with, support of, or
attendance at any religious observances or events.
Electoral Remedy to Ecclesiastical Encroachment
Of interest is the observation that this ‘most notable attempt’ by
‘ecclesiastical bodies’ to encroach, presumably on the government,
was thwarted by resorting to the will of the people. Arguments were
put forward on both sides and the people overwhelmingly opposed
Patrick Henry’s religious assessment bill. In the same breath,
Madison successfully used the tidal wave of objection to Patrick
Henry’s Bill to waft into law Jefferson’s Statute for Religious
Freedom, which had been languishing in the legislature for seven
years. Now, pardon me, where was the crisis? This could never be
even part of the rationale used by our Supreme Court for accusing
Madison of underpinning contemporary interpretation of
constitutional provisions for the separation of church and state.
But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion &
civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded
against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the
259
capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical

corporations.
Madison can be referring only to the establishment period when
he speaks of ‘the danger of a direct mixture of religion & civil
government’. That danger has been well documented and almost
universally accepted. However, it is intellectually unfair to refer to a
past danger as though it were present after you have permanently
removed the possibility of a re-enactment of that historic scenario.
Remember that Madison was writing sometime after he demitted
office in 1817. Assuming the earliest possible date of writing of his
Detached Memoranda, the 1784 ‘encroachment’ would have occurred
at least thirty-one years before. Not even the legislative inroads made
by ecclesiastical bodies and vetoed by Madison were as significant in
Madison’s mind as was the 1784 ‘dangerous’ non-starter.
Indefinite Accumulation of Property
Besides this danger, Madison says:
“…there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in
the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of
holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.”
I suggest we reserve discussion of the relative value of Madison’s
conclusions for another time. However, there is no doubt that there is
a tremendous amount of validity in his observations. Worthy of note,
however, is that Madison’s comments did not include an accusation of
dishonesty or wrongdoing. He opined that although the ecclesiastical
bodies were acting within the law and were in fact using the law to
accumulate wealth in perpetuity, this practice was neither good for the
ecclesiastical bodies, nor for the rest of the society.
Wait a minute. Again, this could not be part of the alleged
Madison foundation for current Supreme Court two-dimensional wall
interpretation of separation of church and state. For the next words of
Madison relegate his allegation to nothing more than a relevant
observation. He writes:
The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this
respect.
260
Congressional Appointment of Chaplains

In his Detached Memoranda, Madison continues:
Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of
Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure
principle of religious freedom? In strictness, the answer on
both points must be in the negative.
Madison was a wonderful man. He has somehow managed to
earn himself the title ‘Father of the American Constitution’ and even
his greatest detractors must give him credit for being among those
who played a leading role in authoring this great document and in
fathering this even greater nation. However, Madison can readily be
identified with a wider range of views on any one subject than could
many of his contemporaries. Close to the end of his natural life on
earth, and definitely after the end of his public life, Madison
concluded that the appointment of taxpayer paid chaplains to
Congress was inconsistent with the Constitution, and with the pure
principle of religious freedom.
In his Detached Memoranda, he details his objections.
Nevertheless, not once does Madison refer to his role in the
subcommittee of the First Congress that appointed the first chaplains
to Congress and intentionally set the precedent for other Congresses
to follow.
I have not been able to find the records of the debates of that
subcommittee. However, because of the relatively small size of the
subcommittee, it is unthinkable that Madison’s views could have been
lost on the outcome of the debate. After all, he had recently
successfully pushed through the Virginian legislature the Statute for
Religious Freedom and had also played a very visible role in the
Constitutional Convention. Had Madison opposed the appointment of
chaplains, it is reasonable that his opposition alone may have made
the debate so contentious that even if it was resolved against him, his
objection would have become known.
It seems strange that there does not appear to be any record of
Madison objecting to the appointment of chaplains prior to the one
261
now under consideration. Surely, when Madison was president, even

if at no other time, he would have had many opportunities to register
his disapproval of the appointment of chaplains. On the contrary,
what do we find? We find Madison attending these services and
clearly exercising his prerogative of choice.
Madison’s Selective Memory
Worthy of note is the fact that in the Detached Memoranda, in
condemning presidential proclamations, Madison remembered that as
president he issued proclamations. He then attempted to justify his
actions and pointed to a substantive difference in the wording of his
proclamations. Why then would he not refer to his presumably
affirmative role in the decision to appoint chaplains in 1789 in light of
the fact that he now condemns the idea?
The concern is further enhanced by the discovery of a single
occasion on which Madison recognizes the constitutional blunder of
Congress in appointing chaplains, but he mysteriously distances
himself from the act. In a letter to Edward Livingston, on 10 July
1822, Madison writes:
I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken
of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every
case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public
peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and
it was not with my approbation, that the deviation from it
took place in Congs, when they appointed Chaplains, to be
paid from the Natl. Treasury.
Worthy of note is Madison’s reference to the Congress of which
he was a member as ‘they’ instead of ‘we’, after denying that he
approved or sanctioned the decision. Actually, Madison does not even
admit that he was a member of the committee set up to deal with this
issue of the congressional chaplaincy. All he says is that the decision
taken did not meet with his approbation.
I believe the 1822 date of the letter to Livingston to be accurate,
but I have no way of knowing for sure whether the Livingston letter
pre-dated the Detached Memoranda. If the letter was written first,
262
then the ‘Memoranda’ ought to have included the reference. If the

‘Memoranda’ was written first, an explanation for its silence on
Madison’s involvement would still be lacking, but at least the
consolation would be that he regained his memory on the subject at a
later date.
Authentic Madison – Flip or Flop Trivia
However, we are obliged to accept the fact that Madison
experienced a ‘flip-flop’ on the issue of Congressional chaplains. The
question that must be determined is whether the ‘flip’ or the ‘flop’
was authentic Madison. When would Madison more likely be
qualified to interpret the Constitution he helped to write? Would it be
in 1789 or would it be in 1822? Unless Madison claimed that the
writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was divinely inspired,
he would have no basis for a claim of progressive revelation of its
meaning. Put another way, given that the Constitution reflected the
conscious thinking of the framers, regardless of their motivation or
influence, Madison is more likely to be accurately aware of its
meaning immediately after writing it, and in this instance, in 1789. If
this logic stands, then a later contradictory interpretation is likely to
be invalid, although he would have reserved the right to have
subsequently changed his opinion. If on the other hand he genuinely,
and appropriately strenuously, yet futilely objected in the
subcommittee, then his subsequent silence on the subject must be
interpreted consistently with his description of the subject in 1822 as
being trivial.
However, could all this have been much ado about nothing,
especially given Madison’s silence on the matter throughout his
public career? Listen to how he concludes his comments on the
subject to his friend Livingston.
As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that
can now be done, may be to apply to the Constn. the maxim
of the law, de minimis non curat.
So long as the Latin remains untranslated, all might be well.
However, when it is translated, what do we read? “The law does not
263
concern itself with trifles.”

Madison’s 1811 Vetoes
For purposes of this book, which is not intended to be an
exhaustive analysis of any one factor in American history, let us look
at two more actions of Madison in an attempt to learn what could
have informed the Supreme Court’s interpretation of separation of
church and state.
According to the Journal of the House of Representatives of the
United States, Volume 7 pages 565 – 610. On February 21, and on
February 28, 1811, President Madison vetoed two separate bills, both
of which had been approved by both Houses of Congress and had
been delivered to him to be signed into law.
First Veto
The first to be vetoed was ‘An Act incorporating the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of
Columbia’. The president vetoed this bill on the grounds that it was a
violation of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause in
particular. In explaining the grounds for his veto, Madison stated that
if the bill had become law:
This particular church, therefore, would so far be a
religious establishment by law, a legal force, and sanction
being given to certain articles in its constitution and
administration.
Madison explained that when looked at from a different
perspective:
…the bill vests in the said incorporated church an
authority to provide for the support of the poor and the
education of poor children of the same, an authority which,
being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the
result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to
religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into
effect a public and civil duty.”
Madison’s veto appeared to have surprised many of the
264
legislators who immediately saw a similarity between this Bill and

another act that they had renewed every year since the ratification of
the Constitution. Can you guess what that act was? These legislators
likened the bill to the one that authorized the selection of
Congressional chaplains and the payment of these church officers
from the public purse. They also identified other acts which they
thought were similar and that had been passed by President Jefferson.
Nevertheless, two days later, they reconsidered the bill and, with very
little debate, rejected it by a vote of 29 Yeas and 74 Noes the same
day it was reconsidered.
The principle is clear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion…” The fact that Madison was guilty of a
small sleight of hand could be forgivable in this instance. He quoted
the First Amendment as prohibiting Congress from making any law
respecting a ‘religious establishment’ and not ‘an establishment of
religion’. The difference is painfully obvious but one that ultra
separationists may not be expected to observe. For therein lies a
preferred interpretation of our contemporary Supreme Court.
In 1811, Congress came as close as it could get to making a law
that would have legally established a particular church, and the
Episcopalian Church at that. That would have been a breach of the
Constitution and President Madison did well to arrest it in the breach.
However, his action does not in any way suggest his support of a two-
dimensional wall of separation between church and state or religion
and government. The wall was designed to keep the government out
of the ordinary affairs of the church, and that was exactly what
Madison enforced on this occasion.
Second Veto
On February 28, 1811, Madison vetoed a second bill entitled ‘An
Act for the relief of Richard Tervin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis,
Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem
Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory’. It is not immediately
clear why the provision for the land for the Baptist Church was
annexed to the bill. As was evidenced by the subsequent passing of
the bill when the handicapping section was removed, the land
265
transactions for the five men named in the Bill were perfectly legal.
However, for the Baptist Church, there was actually no provision in
law, and as such no law on which Congress could rely. Congress was
therefore deliberately or ignorantly trying to create law, as is their
right. However, the watchful eye of President Madison having already
been re-focused just a week before, easily detected the flaw and
vetoed the bill. On March 2, 1811, the bill was reconsidered and
rejected by a vote of 33 Yeas to 55 Noes.
Again, the case is crystal clear and probably even clearer than in
the instance of the first veto a week before. Congress included a
complete misfit by way of a fee-less grant of land to one branch of
one religious sect without even attempting to present a rational of any
sort for the grant. On the surface and without any evidence to the
contrary, the actions of Congress appear to have been highly irregular
and would have opened Pandora’s box, even in the absence of the
First Amendment. The Baptist Church is not to be impugned in any
way for the most they could have done was to request the grant, an
activity that will never be outlawed in Christian circles. This did not
appear to be anything more than asking with the expectation of
receiving. The question to be answered, if any, is why did Congress
grant what clearly was not in their power to grant?
Once again, President Madison’s actions fail to provide us with
even the slightest evidence of a two-dimensional wall of separation
between church and state or religion and government. In both cases,
President Madison proved to be vigilant and alert and took advantage
of his intimacy with the First Amendment to correctly interpret it. In
so doing, he prevented Congress not only from acting potentially
unethically, but also from using the power of government to legally
bequeath a substantial benefit to an entity whose only identification
could be as a church, and which, unlike the other beneficiaries of the
bill, appeared to have not intended to exchange material consideration
for the land.
As an interesting aside to this second veto, President Madison
received a letter and an endorsement from what appears to have been
sister branches of the Baptist Church whose application for the land
266
had been frustrated. In exchange for their approbations of the

president’s actions in denying their fellow Baptists the requested land,
President Madison graciously indicated that he had no doubt that had
he not vetoed the bill, the Salem Baptists would have willingly paid
for it.
President Madison was a gentleman. As we say goodbye to
Madison, it is no doubt a good idea to leave with some good advice as
given by James Madison to his friend William Bradford in 1772 and
preserved in the The Papers of James Madison, edited by William T.
Hutchinson.
[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we
are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we
neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.
267
Prognosis
CCCCCCCCC
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Prognosis
S o... what is the prognosis? How possible is it for America to

respond positively to the proposition to Put Him Back? I say it
is very good. The American Constitution remains one of the greatest
documents ever written. The separation of powers of government
into legislative, executive and judiciary is excellent. However, for it
to work to the benefit of the people of America, every citizen, and
especially every Christian citizen, must be vigilant. America was
conceived as a Christian nation. For more than a century America
was perceived to be a Christian nation. Every effort must be made to
return America to her roots in God and Christianity. However, even
more importantly, Christians in America must arise and, under God,
militantly share the good news of salvation and declare the vested
interest that God has in America and Americans. The good that is
being achieved by the church must be improved on. Areas of
weakness must be reinforced.
The Bible, every psychological textbook, and almost all of our
experience tells us that we must train up a child in the way it should
go, and then assures us that if we do, when that child becomes older
it will not depart from the training. The future of America is to a
large extent embedded in its children. How they are trained will
determine what they will become.
I am therefore very happy to report that once again, the Bible
can be taught in public school buildings after scheduled classes are
over. Let me quote directly from the Missouri-based Child
Evangelism Fellowship.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 in Good News Clubs
268
v. Milford Central School that Good News Clubs can meet

in public schools after school hours on the same terms as
other community groups. After-school Good News Clubs
are an asset to schools and do not add any cost or liability to
the school district. Children who wish to participate stay
after school one hour per week and must have a signed
parental permission slip. Parents and guardians arrange for
transportation home.
Christianity, and especially that important component of
Christianity that requires a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,
cannot be imposed on anyone. We are therefore happy with the
status quo as far as after-school Bible exposure is concerned.
However, what is unfortunate is that not nearly enough Christians
have been taking advantage of this ruling. I take my hat off to the
Child Evangelism Fellowship. However, when I recently visited
their headquarters in Missouri, I learnt that there is still a lot of
underused capacity for Good News Clubs in schools. Christian
strategists must spend at least an equal amount of resources in
pursuit of their advantages as is spent on reversing their
disadvantages. And although the Supreme Court ruling was secured
by Child Evangelism Fellowship and for its Good News Clubs, it
equally applies to any other organization or individual who wishes
to share God’s Word with willing children in the context of an after-
school setting.
This is not the only good news in the struggle to return God to
His rightful place in the nation of America. In the sequel to this
book, I anticipate being able to identify hundreds of other rays of
light. God has been good to America. America has been good to
Americans. Now it is time for Christian as well as all well-thinking
Americans to help save America by helping to put God back in His
rightful place in America.
For now... the United States of America can still claim to be the
greatest nation on earth, although others are fast rivaling her for that
title. However, even if America is surpassed economically or even if
she is surpassed militarily, she must not be surpassed spiritually. Let
269
Prognosis
not ‘In God we trust!’ be a mere platitude. Cause it to permeate the

philosophy of the God-blessed nation of the United States of
America.
CCCCCCCCC
270
The Star Spangled Banner

O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hail’d at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro’ the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watch’d, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro’ the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen thro’ the mists of the deep,

Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore

That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand

Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation;
Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the heav’n-rescued land
Praise the Pow’r that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
271
272
Bibliography
(Short list)
• A History of the Supreme Court by Bernard Schwartz – Oxford

University Press
• America Adrift by Jim Nelson Black – Coral Ridge Ministries
• In Caesar’s Grip by Peter Kershaw – Heal Our Land Ministries
• America’s Christian Heritage by Gary Demar – Broadman & Hol-
man Publishers
• America’s Christian History: The Untold Story by Gary DeMar –
American Vision Inc.
• America’s God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations by
William J. Federer – FAME Publishing Inc.
• America’s Providential History by Mark A. Beliles & Stephen K.
McDowell – Providence Foundation
• August Kling – University of Florida Press
• Courting Disaster by Pat Robertson – Integrity Publishers Inc.
• Courting Justice by Joyce Murdoch and Deb Price – Basic Books
Publishers
• First Among Equals by Kenneth W. Starr – Warner Books
• Handbook of Denominations in The United States (11th Edition)
by Frank S. Mead & Samuel S. Hill, revised by Craig D. Atwood
– Abingdon Press
• In God We Trust by Timothy Crater and Ranelda Hunsicker –
Chariot Victor Publishing
• Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence: Reprint
of an 1848 original by B.J. Lossing – Wallbuilder Press
• Right Wing Justice by Herman Schwartz – Nation Books
• Silent No More by Rod Parsley – Charisma House
• Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History, developed by
Rosalie J. Slater – Foundation for American Christian Education
• The Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers by David
Wootton – Hackett Publishing Company Inc.
• The Foundations of American Governemnt by David Barton –
Wallbuilder Press
• The Libro de las profecias of Christopher Columbus, translated
273
and commented by Delno C. West &
• The Majesty of the Law by Sandra Day O’Connor – Random
House
• The Myth of Christian America by Mark Weldon Whitten –
Smyth & Helwys Publishing Inc.
• The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United
States of America by Kermit L. Hall – Oxford University Press
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas
E. Woods, Jr, – Regnery Publishing Inc.
• The Rehnquist Choice by John W. Dean – The Free Press
• The Rewriting of America’s History by Catherine Millard – Hori-
zon House Publishers
• The Role of Pastors & Christians in Civil Government by David
Barton – Wallbuilder Press
• The United States and Britain in Prophecy by Herbert W. Arm-
strong – Worldwide Church of God
• What if America Were a Christian Nation Again? By D. James
Kennedy – Thomas Nelson Publishers
• Why The Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church
& State by Robert Boston – Prometheus Books
CCCCCCCCC
274
What Others Say...
“The book is fascinating. Godfrey McAllister has a more intimate

knowledge of the history of what made America great than most
native-born Americans do. His insights are right on target. America
has lost its way but "Put Him Back . . .America!" certainly identifies
what our nation must do to recover our founding direction.”
Dr. Woodrow Kroll
President – Back to the Bible Broadcast
http://www.backtothebible.org/
“I believe Put Him Back…America is a must read for educators. This

is a great supplemental resource to the often sanitized textbooks being
used on our public schools.
With a culture that has tended to believe the lie of Separation of
Church and State, this book could open the eyes of a generation not
realizing the intent of our forefathers and the expectation of our Lord.
As a professional association for Christian educators in public and
private schools, we encourage all our members to integrate their faith
in all aspects of their lives including the workplace for educators, the
classroom.”
Finn Laursen
Executive Director
Christian Educators Association International
www.ceai.org
CCCCCCCCC

Put Him Back... America!

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Put Him Back... America!

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Front Cover thumbnail

Back Cover thumbnail

Godfrey E. McAllister, Ph.D

Click on Arrow to go to Contents

Copyright © 2008 Kingdom Investments Unlimited International,

All rights reserved by the copyright owners. No part of this

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008908796

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

• 3ABN TV, J.D. Quinn – Department Head

America owes you a debt of gratitude!

I am also grateful to my 95-year-old mother Maude and to my

To all others, including my immediate family, Dr. William Hall, Dr.

Click onCCCCCCCCCto jump back to Contents

The Star Spangled Banner.......................................................272

What Others Say…

O beautiful for spacious skies,

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,

O Beautiful for patriot dream

E xactly who is the ‘HIM’ in Put Him Back…America? That Him

But why talk stars when a galaxy is a large-scale combination of

when He said: “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our

Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee

The People’s God

I t was appreciation of the breathtaking view from Pikes Peak,

declarations to the mass of organic utterances

My country,’ tis of thee,

My native country, thee,

Let music swell the breeze,

Let rocks their silence break, the sound prolong.

Our fathers’ God, to thee,

God bless America,

Land that I love,

Moreover, up until today, throughout the United States of

Message to Non-Christian Americans

expense of a militant stand for Jesus and an effectively forceful

violent forms of jihad are admirable.

bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a

The People’s Government – The Executive,

Congress Founded First

T he courts have a clear role to play in the government of

Judiciary Perceived as Third

The American system of government elevates one person above

What had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was immediately

legislature or the judiciary is taking the country is inconsistent with

Madison on Men and Angels

people the ultimate power. Through the 14th Amendment, Congress

both houses. Noticeably, this provision is absent in the 1821

In Federalist #81, Hamilton warns that any recognized attempt by

accountable to the people. Between 1799 and 2005, eighteen federal

misdemeanors.” Nevertheless, this classification of grounds for

an illustrious English heritage with which many of the Constitution’s

practice or neglect of duty’, but not without arousing Madison’s

Understandably, the mix of specific and non-specific grounds for

Congress, or face the political consequences at the polls. A conviction

subscribe to the rule of law.

Therefore, since it is a duty of the judiciary to examine laws in

and certainly from court composition to court composition. This

V also stipulates two sections of the Constitution that cannot be

it represented the first change to the Constitution. Seventeen changes

judiciary, then the least that must be demanded is a sworn allegiance,

spiritually adrift, ‘Original Intent’ provides the best reference point

other American, are considerably brighter than most, and are

to the executive or legislative branches.