| The True Archist: Christ or the State? | [Contents] || [Feedback] || [V&FT] |
Background
Civil Religion: Religion in the Service of the State
America is at War with Christianity
The State as God
: The "Support" OathSummary: Summers
The shift from Puritan Theocracy to Christian-American Civil Religion has already been examined. This essay examines the shift from Christian-American Civil Religion to Secular Humanist Theocracy.
We have seen that before the Constitution was ratified, every state barred atheists from taking oaths. This meant atheists could not testify in court, and because they could not take an oath of office, they could not hold any office or public trust. This was because early American statesmen were Christians, dedicated to establishing the Christian religion in the new world, and attempted to implement Biblical Law in society.
Although atheists were excluded from political leadership, great freedom was given to those who believed that God exists "and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). Even pacifists like Quakers were permitted to participate in political life -- if they should want to.
Christian Theocracy made America the greatest nation on earth. The Character of Christians, following God's Law, creates social order. Christians, with their total allegiance given to God, find their life and work blessed by God, and their nation secure. Christians do not envy, nor resort to violence when frustrated. This creates harmony and prosperity. It forms the bulwark against violent revolutions, stabilizing the political order.
Politicians used to understand this. Today, it is long-forgotten. This essay traces the memory lapse in now-secular courts. The Orwellian Memory Hole has been created by the religion of Secular Humanism.
The Christian Theocratic ideal was waning by the time the Constitution was drafted. There is evidence that the Constitution was designed by a minority of the Founders to repudiate Christian Theocracy. Christian terminology was used, but with a secular/rationalistic intent. A number of deists and other infidels who were quiet about their unorthodox beliefs were influential in American statecraft. The Sovereign Power in this country shifted from God to "We, the People." This essay traces the further evolution of this god from "we the People" to "we the State."
The 20th Century is incomprehensible except in light of America's explicitly Christian Theocratic history. Atheists, having been excluded from Christendom, seem to have a greater awareness of the Christian roots of this nation than Christians do. Atheists have worked for -- and have achieved -- a Secular Humanist Theocracy, and with rigorous logic, have excluded Christians and others who do not believe in the new god.
Christians have been legally declared to be "anarchists." They have been denied employment as attorneys, teachers, or public employees, and are not permitted to become American citizens.
This is not a mistake by the courts. This essay attempts to demonstrate that the Bible really does stand in opposition to modern American Government, and the secular courts realized this before most Christians (Luke 16:8).
One battlefront in this war is the oath to "support the Constitution." It is against the law for Christians to take an oath to "support the Constitution."
Obviously there are many Christians who have taken such an oath, and are now American citizens, attorneys, teachers, or public employees. But it is most likely the case that they never publicly declared themselves to be Christians, but simply took an oath to "support the Constitution" like atheists and other Secular Humanists. If an anti-Christian judge had known that they place their allegiance to Christ above their loyalty to the State, they would have been denied American citizenship or employment.
Growing numbers of Christians oppose the "New World Order." They oppose the political agenda of Secular Humanists. The more dedicated they are to such beliefs, the more of a threat they are to the Secular Theocracy, and the more likely they might be excluded from political functions. The author of this essay is a very radical opponent of the "New World Order." But any degree of Christian opposition to the State and allegiance to a rival Sovereign is enough to have you disqualified from participation in the "New Order," just as surely as atheists were excluded under the old order.
In a very real sense, Christians are Biblically required to be "anarchists." Consider the following:
While Jesus says not to resist our enemies (Matthew 5), the State is the political institutionalization of resistance to our enemies: the State is the use of lethal force or violence either to prevent someone from hitting our cheek, or to exact vengeance from the cheek-hitting party. The New World Order has killed over 1 million people in Iraq in order to resist the cheek-hitting Saddam Hussein. This contradicts Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount.
Support of the State as the institutionalization of violence also contradicts the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. There he says Christians are not to participate in "the legal system."[1] It is better to be defrauded, better to turn the other cheek, better to go an extra mile, than to seek vengeance using the power of the State.[2]
In fact, technically speaking, followers of Jesus are explicitly commanded to be "anarchists." If you look at the Greek text in Mark 10:42-45, you will see that Jesus characterizes the Gentile kings as "archists," but His followers are "not" to be such. Our English word "anarchist" is derived from two Greek words meaning "not an archist." Rather than seeking power over others (like the Gentile "archists"), Christians seek to be servants.
The Bible never commands us to set up a State. Those who do so are in rebellion against God.[3] The State is the instrument through which we evade God's Law and the command to be servants. Jesus, knowing he was going to be murdered, did not take up arms. This is the model to be followed by the Christian servant (1 Peter 2:21).
But also in a practical sense, we live in a nation which has legally and officially repudiated God. You may not think of yourself as an "anarchist," but epistemologically self-conscious courts will. You have not given your allegiance to the new god. The U.S. government has repudiated your God.
This repudiation began with the ratification of the secular Constitution (1791).[4] No Christian can support apostasy and rebellion. No Christian can "solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States." The Constitution has become the charter of a new religion and an anti-Christian Empire.
"Religion" is the inescapable moral foundation of law and government. Every law imposes a morality, and every morality is the product of a religion.[5] In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that the purpose of the pre-Revolutionary Founders of this land was "the establishment of the Christian religion."[6] That Court acknowledged that before the Constitution was ratified, no one could assume any public office unless they professed faith in Christ.[7] Legislators used to insert Biblical references in the margins of the statute books to prove the validity of their laws.[8]
But the new religious source of law in our country is the religion of Secular Humanism. The U.S. Supreme Court admits that Secularism is a religion.[9] According to the so-called "Lemon Test," every federal, state, and local law must be in conformity with the tenets of this religion. If it can be shown that the purpose of the legislature in passing a law was to advance a Christian ideal and not a Secular one, the law will be declared "unconstitutional."[10] The Christian presuppositions of lawmakers living before the Revolution (1776-91) have thus been completely overturned.
The United States Constitution[11] embodies what scholars call a "Civil Religion." Using Christian terminology, the Architects of the Revolution effected a stupendous change in the religious foundation of this country, from Theocratic Christianity to a Secular Humanist "theocracy."[12] The use of Christian rhetoric and concepts to support a Humanistic secular state is called "Civil Religion." "Civil Religion" sometimes sounds Christian, and may even quote from the Bible, but the Christians always lose in the courts of this "Civil Religion."
Though not involving Christians, the following cases used Christian rhetoric to justify a thoroughly statist decision. They show that Christianity is in conflict with the "Civil Religion" of the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. ex rel Turner v. Williams[13] The defendant in this case testified "that he has at no times been engaged as a propagandist of doctrines inciting to, or advising, violent overthrow of government," but "has at all times conducted himself as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen."[14] But defendant was deported as an "anarchist." The reason: he denied the moral legitimacy of a group of men getting together, taking money from other people under threats of violence or coercion, and seizing control over the businesses and families of others. Some people call such organizations "the Mafia." Defendant called it "the State." Defendant admitted that, technically speaking, this view made him an "anarchist," but he distinguished what is popularly called "anarchism" from what political scientists call "philosophical anarchism." He quoted Huxley:
"Anarchy, as a term of political philosophy, must be taken only in its proper sense, which has nothing to do with disorder or with crime . . . ."[15]
Although defendant denied "that he is an anarchist within the meaning of the immigration laws of the United States,"[16] the Court ruled against him. In analyzing the statute authorizing deportation of "anarchists," the Court held that
If the word "anarchists" should be interpreted as including aliens whose anarchistic views are professed as those of political philosophers, innocent of evil intent, it would follow that Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population . . . .[17]
What is "dangerous to the public weal," in the Court's eyes, is an Authority higher than the State; a "Law above the law." Of course, the Court denied transgressing the First Amendment, but the rhetoric of its reasoning showed the establishment of this new "Civil Religion":
We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself unconquerable, but this case does not involve these considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance; and as long as human governments endure they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here.[18]
In an unmistakable use of religious (Biblical) language,[19] the Court imposes its own interpretation of "the will of God" on a defendant who does not share the Court's religious faith in the New World Order. Any Christian who studies Edenic symbolism in the Scriptures[20] reaches an altogether different interpretation of Who possesses the "Keys of the Kingdom" and whom He admits to the Garden.[21]
Lopez v. Howe[22] The appellant in this case believed that the government's "orders should be obeyed," rejected violence and assassination as strategies of social change ("[O]ur ideals are founded on education."), and was "against killing and against destruction" ("We are to construct.").[23] But the appellant did not believe in the moral legitimacy of the Mafia or of the State, and so was deported under the Immigration Act which excluded "Anarchists or persons who . . . disbelieve in . . . organized government."[24]
The appellant believed that if the population practiced principles of moral conduct, the State would disappear. A great Christian statesman named Robert Winthrop similarly declared in 1852 that
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet.[25]
Faithful Christians have never relied on statist coercion ("the bayonet") to bring peace and prosperity, but rather the preaching and teaching of "all the counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). The Court's assessment of the appellant in Lopez chillingly fits any thinking Christian: "His theories, if they could be put in practice, would end the government of the United States . . . ."[26] This is why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the posting of the Ten Commandments in public schools "unconstitutional."[27] It is easier for an anti-Christian politician to extend his control over undisciplined, immoral people than over those who are governed by the Word of God. Widespread obedience to God's Law would end the reign of tyrants.
Abrams v. U.S[28] Defendants, who "did not believe in government in any form," were convicted of espionage for encouraging resistance to war.
Events at Waco and Ruby Ridge evidence the growing militarization of the secular state. We have replaced the Religion of the Bible with the religion of the bayonet, and the U.S. has become a police state, both domestically and internationally. During the debates on the ratification of the Constitution, we were promised that the Federal government would not become entangled in foreign disputes. We should not have believed this. Those who are truly in control of world affairs -- the bankers and other corporate oligarchs who "leave" the business world to become "public servants" -- use war as a tool to increase their power and to protect their investments.[29]
Christians should oppose these wars on this basis alone, to say nothing of the millions of innocent men, women and children who are maimed and killed in these wars to expand the New World Order.[30] Abrams was right (Luke 16:8): wise Christians also lack a faith in war, and similarly have "no interest whatever in the government of the United States."[31]
U.S. v. Schwimmer
[32] When the king of France declares war on the king of Spain, Christians should not take sides. The Kingdom of God is a Universal Sovereignty that transcends the petty and greedy interests of the politicians of earthly nations. The applicant in this case was a woman who refused to declare her willingness to take up arms against another country because she was an "uncompromising pacifist" with "no sense of nationalism."[33] The applicant was not permitted to take the oath to "support the Constitution" (even though she was willing to do so) because her beliefs were held to be inconsistent with the requirement to be "attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States."[34]The dissent raised First Amendment questions, but the majority was more concerned over defendant's "purpose or power to influence others" as a "lecturer and writer" to adopt her "anarchist" perspective, a purpose which every follower of the Prince of Peace shares. Every Christian is an "ambassador for Christ" (2 Cor. 5:20), a representative of a Rival Sovereign. Our citizenship is in heaven (Philip. 3:20) and we represent Christ even after the dictators of earthly nations cast us into prison (Eph. 6:20). The duty of an ambassador is to proclaim the Crown Rights of the True King, and urge the "signing" of an "unconditional surrender."[35] We have a Great Commission to go into every nation and assert the Lawful Reign of Christ the King (Matt. 28:18-20). The Gospel we preach is "Good News" to those who believe and have the heart of a servant, but "bad news" to those Gentile kings who love to rule over others.
A careful examination of human history and God's Law as recorded in the Bible suggests that God nowhere commands people to abandon the Patriarchy of our father Abraham[36] to form non-familial political structures. Families are commanded to educate their children, give them vocational training, care for their elderly, care for their ill, care for the familyless, teach the ignorant, and care for those who cannot care for themselves. If families dedicate themselves to all these things, you will have a "well-governed" society. But there will be no time for "government." Thus, there will be no reason to "support" a Constitution.
This case holds that Christians who believe such "revolutionary" ideas would be liars if they took an oath to "support the Constitution." Most people who call themselves Christians don't see the conflict. The courts of the New World Order do. Most Christians who swear to "support the Constitution" understand neither the Scriptures nor the law of the land. The loyalty of the Christian is to the Word of God, and the State says such people cannot "support the Constitution."
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the oath to "support the Constitution" implies an unqualified allegiance to the State and a willingness to obey all its laws. This is an impossible demand for a Christian. A Christian "must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). If the State passes a law requiring everyone to turn their Jewish neighbors in to the Concentration Camp Administration, true Christians will not obey this law; Christ said we are to give our lives rather than take the life of another (John 15:12-13). The following cases further demonstrate that Christians cannot "support the Constitution."
In Re Clarke[37] Does the "support oath" required of attorneys, teachers, public employees, and those seeking to become American citizens really require unqualified support of the Constitution and blind obedience to the laws of the State? Virtually no one believes this. All who have taken such an oath will admit that they do not agree with everything in the Constitution, and would not support a law which required evil or forbad righteousness.
This sounds comforting, at first, and you might be inclined to think, "Perhaps I'll just be honest with the system and tell them that when I say 'I support the Constitution' I do not mean to swear 'unqualified support' of the laws of the State, but only 'so far as they are in accord with the moral law of Jesus Christ.' " Will the system accept such a qualification? Will "full disclosure" help your cause?
In the case of In Re Clarke, the petitioner wanted to add those exact words ("insofar as they are in accord with the moral law of Jesus Christ") to his support oath, and his petition was rejected in the strongest terms. "No sophistry of illusionary reasoning can minimize the ordinary import of the oath," the court said, adding that a qualification of the oath would "open the door for further infractions and anarchy may stalk in unmolested."[38]
Anarchy! Oh, dear!
Christianity means allegiance to a rival Sovereign; or seen from the vantage point of the secular State, "anarchy." It cannot be tolerated. In this case religious freedom for Christians was denied and a religious faith in a secular State was established.
U.S. v. Macintosh[39] An Applicant for Naturalization was unable to take the "Support Oath." "[T]he position thus taken was the only one he could take consistently with his moral principles and with what he understood to be the moral principles of Christianity."[40]
Here, a Canadian Christian was required to take an oath to support the Constitution in order to become an American citizen. This should not be a problem, except that he was a Christian, and would obey the State only if doing so was not disobedient to God.
The Court, restating the principles in U.S. v. Bland (below) and U.S. v. Schwimmer (above), imposed its religious views on the applicant:
When he speaks of putting his allegiance to the will of God above his allegiance to the government, it is evident in the light of his entire statement, that he means to make his own interpretation of the will of God the decisive test . . . . [True, w]e are a Christian people,[41] according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But,[42] also, we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose . . . government must go forward upon the assumption, and safely can proceed upon no other, that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land . . . are not inconsistent with the will of God.[43]
I trust you see, dear reader, that they are inconsistent. Christians "must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29); many of the New Testament epistles were written by an Apostle in jail. Christ and His Apostles suffered more than deportation for their religion. But deportation and crucifixion are both abridgments of the Christian's free exercise of religion, based on the establishment of a "Civil Religion," a rival interpretation of "the will of God." In Macintosh, the Court unmistakably rejects Petitioner's Christian religion and imposes its own interpretation of "the will of God" upon him, an interpretation which conveniently includes "unqualified allegiance" to the State.
The Court cites a case from the previous century which held that "we are a Christian people," and many Christians are thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court would acknowledge this. But the "Civil Religion" is at work here, and the Court ultimately ruled that anyone who "must obey God rather than man" cannot become a citizen of this nation. In other words, if your loyalty to Christ is greater than your loyalty to the State, you cannot become a citizen of this "Christian nation." That's what this Supreme Court case is all about. And their decision is the law. You cannot become an American if you are a Christian!
This case is a hungry, statist wolf wearing sheep's clothing so old it's see-through.
U.S. v. Bland[44] Under facts nearly identical to Macintosh[45] and decided the same day, an applicant for naturalization sought to qualify the "Support Oath" by adding "as far as my conscience as a Christian will allow . . . . Petition Denied."[46] The request is so simple; everyone assumes the existence of "freedom of conscience." The implications of the Court's denial are staggering. The State claims higher authority than Jesus Christ.[47]
In re Summers[48] Although his loyalty to the State was clearly subordinate to His allegiance to Christ, Clyde Summers was willing to take the "Support Oath" in order to become admitted to the practice of law. But the U.S. Supreme Court looked back to the Macintosh case, which had asked,
If the attitude of this claimant, as shown by his statements and the inferences properly to be deduced from them, be held immaterial to the question of his fitness for admission to citizenship, where shall the line be drawn? Upon what ground of distinction may we hereafter reject another applicant who shall express his willingness to respect any particular principle of the Constitution or obey any future statute only upon the condition that he shall entertain the opinion that it is morally justified? The applicant's attitude, in effect, is a refusal to take the oath of allegiance except in an altered form. * * * It is not within the province of the courts to make bargains with those who seek naturalization. They must accept the grant and take the oath in accordance with the terms fixed by the law, or forego the privilege of citizenship. There is no middle choice. If one qualification of the oath be allowed, the door is opened for others, with utter confusion as the probable final result.[49]
Summers was denied admission to the Illinois Bar.
Smith v. County Engineer of San Diego Co.[50] Even though by this time (1968) the American "Civil Religion" has so thoroughly indoctrinated the population that virtually no one thinks there is a conflict between Christianity and the Constitution,[51] the appellant in Smith sought to qualify his "support oath" with a public recognition of the subordination of the State to the sovereignty of Christ:
In taking this oath I make no mental reservation. I am a member of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and I declare that I owe a supreme allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in making that declaration I take the same God as my witness invoking His assistance to help me to render due obedience to my Country in all temporal matters.[52]
His qualification was little more than the oath of office required of every office holder before the Constitution. But his profession of faith was rejected at the price of his life's vocation. After "exegeting" a text from the Bible,[53] the court affirmed the new Civil Religion by saying, "Respondents [the State] properly refused to accept the oath encumbered and compromised by appellant's injection of an unauthorized potential qualification of its meaning and clarity."[54] The only "clarity" here is that Christians are not allowed to become Americans.
Petition of Williams[55] Fifty years after Macintosh, faithful service to the State is still an issue. In hearings before the naturalization examiner, Diana Williams
stated under oath that she believed in the Constitution of the United States, and the form of government of the United States; that she has never been arrested, but that she would not take the oath of allegiance. . . . Petitioner states that she has mental reservations about taking the oath in any form and stated that she would only obey those laws that did not conflict with her religious beliefs."[56]
"We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29).
The court noted that Petitioner's "religious beliefs and training prevent her from voting, becoming active in politics, serving on a jury, bearing arms, or serving in civilian service deemed to be of national importance," but noted as well that "petitions have been granted to those people who refuse to perform these obligations based on religious beliefs and training."[57]
The courts have held that attachment and favorable disposition as used in the statute relate to mental attitudes. Allan v. United States, 115 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1940). However, the courts have also noted that patriotism ". . . is not a condition of naturalization" and "that attachment is not addressed to the heart, demands no affection for or even approval of a democratic system of government, but merely an acceptance of the fundamental political habits and attitudes which here prevail, and a willingness to obey the laws which may result from them." United States v. Rossler, 144 F.2d 463 at p. 465 (2d Cir. 1944).[58]
But these contradictory cases were not resolved in favor of the Petitioner.
It is, therefore, apparent that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that a person be "attached" to the principles of the Constitution as well as willing to take the oath of allegiance without mental reservations. In the instant case, the petitioner not only refuses to perform the moral obligations of citizenship, but expresses an intention to disobey any law which conflicts with her Christian conscience and interpretation of the Bible, irrespective of the nature or subject matter of such law. Petitioner, therefore, is unable to take the oath of allegiance without mental reservations as to the pledge contained therein to support the laws of the United States. . . . [P]etition . . . denied. . . .[59]
All good Christians likewise have a "mental attitude" and cannot take a similar oath.[60]
In re De Bellis Petition for Naturalization[61] The facts in this case parallel those in Williams, above, and the court's conclusion is laced with "Civil Religion":
In this case, petitioner has testified that she alone will decide which laws she will obey and that she will not take the . . . oath without qualification."
Plaintiff explained her philosophy by referring to the Bible, John 17:16 and James 1:27. Perhaps Congress, when it enacted the naturalization statutes, had Luke 11:21 to 23 in mind. I do not know, but in any event, since petitioner cannot take the oath without mental reservation, naturalization must be denied.[62]
Applying Christ's description of Himself[63] to the State as a means of justifying military service to the State[64] may or may not be blasphemous under Canon Law, but certainly reveals that the underlying issue is sovereignty: The State vs. God.
* * * * *
Let us review by re-examining the case of In Re Summers.[65] This case is a Paradigm. It clearly shows the conflict between Christ and the secular State. Although willing to take the oath to "support the Constitution," Summers was not permitted by the State Bar, the Supreme Court of Illinois, and ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court, to do so, because he could not do so in "good faith," given his religious disagreements with certain provisions of the Illinois state constitution.[66] He was otherwise qualified for admission to practice law.[67] Justice Black, dissenting, stated the issue clearly:
The fact that petitioner measures up to every other requirement for admission to the Bar set by the State demonstrates beyond doubt that the only reason for his rejection was his religious beliefs.[68]
Three important points are illustrated in this case:
Biblical Faith rejects coercion, force, or violence as individual and collective means of self-preservation.
In formulating his views on the State, Summers took the Sermon on the Mount into consideration. While Jesus says not to resist our enemies, the State is the political institutionalization of resistance to our enemies: the State is the use of violence and force either to prevent self-injury or to exact vengeance from the injuring party. This contradicts the Sermon on the Mount.
This belief comes also from the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11. There he says Christians are not to participate in "the legal system." It is better to be defrauded, better to turn the other cheek, better to go an extra mile, than to seek vengeance at the hand of the secular State.[69]
The "Support Oath" establishes a religious faith in violence and the New World Order.
When the Illinois State Bar heard these kinds of views from Clyde Summers, it refused to allow Summers to take the "support oath" and be admitted to the practice of law. The State Bar said Summers could not swear his "support" for such a constitution in "good faith" because of his religion, which caused him to question parts of the constitution.[70] Based on the Sermon on the Mount, Summers questioned the legitimacy of the Empire's use of war and violence.
Summers appealed the decision of the State Bar. This was Summers' argument in his petition before the Illinois Supreme Court:
The so-called "misconduct" for which petitioner could be reproached for is his taking the New Testament too seriously. Instead of merely reading or preaching the Sermon on the Mount, he tries to practice it. The only fault of the petitioner consists in his attempt to act as a good Christian in accordance with his interpretation of the Bible, and according to the dictates of his conscience. We respectfully submit that the profession of law does not shut its gates to persons who have qualified in all other respects, even when they follow in the footsteps of that Great Teacher of mankind who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. We respectfully submit that under our Constitutional guarantees even good Christians who have met all the requirements for the admission to the bar may be admitted to practice law.[71]
The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the State Bar's rejection of Summers.
In the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling of the Illinois State Supreme Court was upheld. The Court held that an applicant who had such disagreement with the Constitution as Summers did could not take the support oath in "good faith," even though he was willing to do so.[72]
There was no misunderstanding. The Sermon on the Mount is at odds with every concept of "the State." In fact, the Illinois Bar was quite astute in sensing the implications of Summers' pro-Sermon on the Mount position. Although there is no record of Summers' views on 1 Corinthians 6, the position of non-violence taught in the Sermon on the Mount is quite consistent with the position the Apostle Paul takes against using the non-Christian legal system to solve problems (or to remedy our frustration over having not solved our problems). In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says plainly that Christians should not sue in secular courts. If everybody took the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Corinthians 6 seriously, there would be no "law" (i.e., no "State") as we know it. It is easy to suspect that the Illinois State Bar recognized this ominous fact. In unofficial correspondence with Summers from the Secretary of the Bar, the would-be attorney was told,
I think the record establishes that you are a conscientious objector. Also that your philosophical beliefs go further: you eschew the use of force regardless of circumstances. But the law[73] which you profess to embrace and which you teach and would practice is not an abstraction observed through mutual respect. It is real. It is the result of experience of man in an imperfect world, necessary we believe to restrain the strong and protect the weak. It recognizes the right even of the individual to use force under certain circumstances and commands the use of force to obtain its observance. * * * I do not argue against your religious beliefs or your philosophy of non-violence. My point is merely that your position seems inconsistent with the obligation of an attorney at law.[74]
The establishment of one religion results in the restriction of the freedoms of a minority based on their exercise of a rival religion.
The Secretary's judgment is a consistent application of a non-Christian political paradigm; Summers may not have been consistent to his.[75] The Summers case stands in a long line of cases holding that religious belief in the politically orthodox use of violence is required even of those who would defend others against such violence. The "Support Oath" establishes a religion contrary to the First Amendment and contrary to Christianity.
One would think that every Christian's beliefs include those of the applicant in the Summers case -- they would thus be barred from taking an oath to "support the Constitution" under that holding. Summers' petition was rejected for his failure to support only one "delegated power." As defenders of a Biblical Social Order (Patriarchy), Christians, after comparing Biblical Law with the Constitution, are unable to support the delegation of any Christian responsibilities to the State as is found, e.g., in the enumeration of congressional powers in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution; Christians believe each of these responsibilities, if morally legitimate at all, are duties which families cannot delegate, or need not delegate monopolistically (i.e., only to a "State"), and in any case cannot fund through the theft of taxation[76] or inflation.[77]
When the decentralized Patriarchal (Family-centered) social order of the Bible is compared with the political (polis-centered) order of every constitution, we see the conflict between two religions and two kingdoms: the religion of the Bible and the religion of Greco-Roman "classicism," a religion we today call "Secular Humanism;" the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of man; Christianity and America: a nation which is a "re-incarnation" of the Empire which enslaved the Hebrew children, pictured on the back of a one-dollar bill as a "NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM," and which we now call the "New World Order."
The Word of God in the Scriptures, not any Constitution, is the foundation of law, order, peace, and prosperity. We have, for too long, been relying on the latter and disregarding the former, and our nation is crumbling in violence and immorality.
America and its Constitution are the heart of the New World Order.
Christians can no longer be Americans.
(1)
See generally Buzzard and Eck, Tell it to the Church, 1985; Sande, The Peacemaker, 1991.(2) Cf. Romans 12:2,14,17-21.
(3) Cain: Genesis 4:17; Lamech: Genesis 4:23-24; Nimrod: Genesis 10:812; Babel: Genesis 11:19; Israel: 1 Samuel 8. The Bible says we are to pay our taxes. The United States of America was formed by men who refused to pay, choosing rather to shoot and kill officers of the British Occupational Government.
(4) The true anti-Christian nature of the U.S. Constitution is exposed in Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism, by Gary North (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989). Or as the Bible-believing Patrick Henry put it, "I smell a rat in Philadelphia."
(5) See R.J. Rushdoony, "Can We Legislate Morality?" in Law and Liberty, Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1974.
(6) Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 at 466, 12 S.Ct. 511 at 514 (1892).
(7) It took decades for these explicitly Christian oaths of office to be removed from the statute books after the Constitution was ratified.
(8) For an example, see John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641, Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835 in 2 The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117 (No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law").
(9) Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495n.11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 1684n.11, 6 L.Ed.2d 982, 987n.11 (1961).
(10) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 93 S.Ct. 1463, 36 L.Ed.2d 151 (1973).
(11) and other founding documents of the Revolution.
(12) "Theocracy" means "the reign of God." The question is not, "Shall we have a theocracy, or not?" The question is always, "Who shall be the god of our theo-cracy?" The god of the religion of Secular Humanism is "Man," "Mankind," or "Humanity," which in practice has a funny way of becoming "the State."
(13) U.S. ex rel Turner v. Williams 194 U.S. 279, 24 S.Ct. 719 (1904). An attorney was disbarred under this holding in In re Margolis, 269 Pa 206, 112 A 478, 12 ALR 1186 (1921).
(14) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 280-81, 24 S.Ct. 720.
(15) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 293, 24 S.Ct. 723.
(16) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 281, 24 S.Ct. 720.
(17) Ibid., at 194 U.S. 294, 24 S.Ct. 724.
(18) Id. (emphasis added).
(19) Genesis 3:24. Cf. C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History, Phila: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1964, p. 35.
(20) See generally, David Chilton, Paradise Restored, Tyler, TX: Reconstruction Press, 1985.
(21) See Revelation 22:14; Jesus, not the State, admits us to the Garden.
(22) Lopez v. Howe, 170 CCA 337, 259 F. 401, 12 ALR 192 (1919).
(23) Ibid., at 259 F. 403-404, 12 ALR 195.
(24) Ibid., at 259 F. 402 n.1, 12 ALR 193 n.1.
(25) Robert Winthrop, Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1952) p. 172 [from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet."] Cited in David Barton, The Myth of Separation, p. 254.
(26) Lopez., at 259 F. 404, 12 ALR 196.
(27) Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 101 S.Ct. 192, 66 L.Ed.2d 199 (1980).
(28) Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, 40 S.Ct. 17 (1919).
(29) Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. World War I produced legislation ("The Trading with the Enemy Act") which was conscripted for duty in Roosevelt's "war" against the "Great Depression." Congress approved his Executive decrees which essentially declared all those who might believe in a Free Market to be "enemies" of the State, and the gold of all these "enemies" was confiscated. The "limited government" rhetoric of Constitutional conservatives has no effect during a time of "national emergency."
"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. [H]undreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers . . . which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the county without reference to normal constitutional processes. ... A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule. For 40 [now (1995) 60] years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. [A]ctions taken by the Government in times of great crises have -- from, at least, the Civil War -- in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."
Emergency Powers Statutes: Provisions of Federal Law Now in Effect Delegating to the Executive Extraordinary Authority in Time of National Emergency; Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, U.S. Senate, 93rd Cong., 1st Session, iii, 1, (1973).
World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, and Iraq also resulted in a number of "emergency" measures.
To "solemnly swear to support" a Constitution which has been suspended for 60 years is -- either knowingly or ignorantly -- to rubber stamp the corporate-martial law that replaced it. [Note as well that the Constitution was suspended by those who swore to "support" it.]
(30) The Secular States of the world are responsible for the murder of approximately 200 million people in the 20th century alone. R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, 1994. The United States of America is the only secular nation thus far to have targeted and delivered nuclear weapons on innocent civilian populations.
(31) Ibid., at 250 U.S. 618, 40 S.Ct. 17-18. See note 75, below.
(32) U.S. v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889 (1929).
(33) Ibid., at 279 U.S. 644, 49 S.Ct. 448.
(34) Ibid, at 279 U.S. 646, 49 S.Ct. 448.
(35) Gary North, Unconditional Surrender, Tyler, TX: Geneva Press, 1981.
(36) Galatians 3:7,9,14,28-29; Romans 4:13,16; 9:8.
(37) In re Clarke, 301 Pa 321, 152 A. 92 (1930).
(38) Clarke at 152 A. 95.
(39) U.S. v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed 1302 (1931).
(40) Ibid. at 283 U.S. 619, 51 S.Ct. 573.
(41) The Court here refers to an 1892 case (Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457,470,471, 12 S.Ct. 511,[516], 36 L.Ed. 226) which is a throwback to the pre-Revolutionary days. The Macintosh Court is using the Christian rhetoric of this case in a most deceptive way, reaching a wholly opposite conclusion. This is "Civil Religion" at its finest. (Or worst.)
(42) . . . the language of reversal!
(43) Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, at 625, 51 S.Ct. 570, at 575 ("his own interpretation," Court's emphasis; all other emphasis added).
(44) U.S. v. Bland, 283 U.S. 636, 51 S.Ct. 569 (1931).
(45) U.S. v. Macintosh 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed 1302 (1931).
(46) Bland, at U.S. 636, S.Ct. 570.
(47) Bland and its companion case, Macintosh, were later overruled in Girouard v. U.S., 328 U.S. 61, 66 S.Ct. 826, 90 L.Ed. 1084 (1946). Congress passed a law which said that people who refused to take up arms for the New World Order, could become American citizens if they would work for the government (but they wouldn't have to kill anyone directly). Thus, Naturalization of Brakel, 524 F.Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1979) noted that "these decisions were overruled (on strictly statutory grounds) in Girouard. . ." (at 301, emphasis added), suggesting that the religious underpinnings of Macintosh-Bland-Schwimmer were left untouched. Macintosh is still cited by courts.
(48) In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 65 S.Ct. 1307, 89 L.Ed 1745 (1945); reh. den. 326 U.S. 807, 66 S.Ct. 94, 90 L.Ed. 491 (1945). See below.
(49) Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605 at 626, 51 S.Ct. 570 at 575. There is certainly logic here, given the Humanistic paradigm presupposed by the oath; why make a law if you're just going to invite a bunch of cocky Christian law students to come in and re-write the law with their own variations? But the "utter confusion" which the Court fears is actually the collective attempt of those with rival faiths to hammer out an oath which is "narrowly drawn" and satisfies the "legitimate interests" of the State without establishing a vague faith in the reigning political orthodoxy. Alas, it is an impossible task (Luke 16:13-14).
The Girouard case did not claim to overrule the Summers case.
(50) Smith v. County Engineer of San Diego Co. 266 C.A.2d 645, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 (1968).
(51) and "anarchists" don't seem to be as numerous as they were before the Great War
(52) Smith, 266 C.A.2d 645 at 648, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 at 503.
(53) Smith, 266 C.A.2d 645 at 657, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 at 509. ("Apposite is the admonition, 'render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.' (Matthew, xxii, 21).") See Singer, above.
(54) Smith, 266 C.A.2d 645 at 657, 72 Cal.Rptr. 501 at 509.
(55) Petition of Williams 474 F.Supp. 384 (D. Ariz., 1979).
(56) Ibid., at 385.
(57) Ibid. at 386.
(58) Id. (emphasis added).
(59) Ibid., at 387. (Emphasis added.)
(60) See also In re Petition for Naturalization of Matz, 296 F.Supp. 927 (E.D. Cal., 1969). In the Mormon Polygamy Cases, of the late 1800's, defendants who claimed a "Law above the law" had their "religious freedom" abridged because Christianity -- ostensibly the established religion of the nation -- frowned on polygamy. In Williams and Matz, however, the established religion is the survival of the State, which frowns on the unwillingness to participate in the "national war effort."
(61) In re De Bellis Petition for Naturalization 493 F.Supp. 534 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
(62) Ibid., at 536. See also Naturalization of Brakel, 524 F.Supp. 300 (N.D. Ill. 1979).
(63) "He who is not with Me is against Me. . . .
(64) and as a basis for denying citizenship and, arguably, admission to the Bar
(65) In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 65 S.Ct. 1307, 89 L.Ed 1795 (1945).
(66) Summers, at 325 U.S. 565, 65 S.Ct. 1310.
(67) Summers, at 325 U.S. 563, 65 S.Ct. 1309.
(68) Ibid., at 325 U.S. 573-74, 65 S.Ct. 1314.
(69) Cf. Romans 12:2,14,17-21.
(70) In Re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 at 565, 65 S.Ct. 1307 at 1310.
(71) Ibid., at 325 U.S. 570, 65 S.Ct. 1312. Emphasis added.
(72) Cf. American Communications Ass'n CIO v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 at 405, 70 S.Ct. 674 at 687 (1950).
(73) that is, the law of the polis, the State, as opposed to the "law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2), which, it may be inferred, would be considered "an abstraction."
(74) Summers, at 325 U.S. 563 n.3, 65 S.Ct. 1309 n.3.
(75) Why should someone who opposes the use of force be given a license to "practice law," i.e., use the institutionalized force of "the law" (the Sheriff's gun) to get people to do what he could not persuade them to do through logic or love? And why should Summers even want to wield a gun ("practice law") when he professes to follow the "abstraction" known as Christianity? For Christians, the answer is found in the Biblical commands to defend individuals oppressed by statist violence, whether initiated by the State or other individuals. (Proverbs 31:8-9; Isaiah 1:17; Job 29:12; Jeremiah 21:12; 22:3,16; Isaiah 59:4,14; Zechariah 7:9; Psalm 82:3-4; Proverbs 24:11.) These commands are not written for politicians alone. They are in fact directed to Christians, who are the true governors and kings of the land (1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 5:10; Psalm 72:1-2,4,12-13; Proverbs 29:14.) Thus, while Christians join Abrams (see case above, p. 2) in saying they do not "support" the Constitution, and have "no interest whatever" in using the statist bayonet, in another sense, it is only Christians who really care about the government of our nation.
(76) Art. I, § 8, para. 1 ("collect taxes"); Amend. XVI.
(77) Art. I, § 8, para. 2 ("borrow money").
The word "anarchist" comes from two Greek words, a, meaning "not" or "without" and archist, meaning "ruler."
Jesus Christ is an "archist." He is the beginning, the First Principle of the Universe (Colossians 1:18). He is the ruler of the Gentiles (Romans 15:12). Christians are not "anarchists."
Satan tempted man to "be as god" (Genesis 3:5). This was the temptation to be an "archist," for which temptation men have fallen. Jesus said the kings of the Gentiles are those who strive for political godhead; they want to be "archists" (Mark 10:42-45). But Jesus commands His followers not to be "archists." Christians reject the temptation of Satan, and the ways of earthly archists. That means that in the eyes of demonic kings and power-grabbers, Christians are "anarchists."