Ted Weiland calls himself a "missionary" "to Israel" (by which he means Christians). He's on the warpath against the Constitution.
I believe every person who signed the Declaration of Independence would vote to abolish the U.S. Constitution were they here today. I can't think of a single signer of the Constitution itself who would not also vote to abolish that document and the government it created. I agree with them: the Constitution should be abolished.
But there are good reasons to abolish the Constitution, and then there are bad ones. Ted Weiland may give abolitionists a bad name. His essay is on the left, my answer is on the right.
| Why is it that Americans – Christians1 in particular – have such a love affair with the United States Constitution? Is it because we have been told repeatedly that it is one of the most important documents ever written by man? Is it because it was based upon biblical principles and is a great Christian document? Or is it because the victors in the culture war wrote our history the way they wanted us to perceive it? | The victors in the culture war oppose the
Constitution. They don't want Christians taking it seriously. As victors, their
objectives have been attained, and nobody takes the Constitution seriously.
"Love affair with the U.S. Constitution?" On what planet? |
| Most Americans never wonder about these things. They believe what they have been taught about the founding of our government and are quite content to leave it at that (Proverbs 14:15). With this book, I hope, at the very least, to motivate people to think about the Constitution, a document which few Americans have read and to which fewer yet have given any serious thought. More importantly, I hope to inspire you to study Yahweh’s2 laws and to esteem them as did the Psalmist, who declared his love for the law seven times in Psalm 119. I also hope to create a vision for Yahweh’s kingdom here on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10). |
Would Weiland say that a Christian had a "love affair" with Jesus without ever reading the Bible or giving Jesus "any serious thought?" |
| If this is ever to be accomplished, Americans must first recognize and repent of their national idolatry – their love affair with the humanistic, pluralistic, polytheistic, and antichristian United States Constitution. Although Christians expose and combat sin on many fronts, very few identify the U.S. Constitution as an idol of national prominence. Fewer yet understand the biblical solution. As Henry David Thoreau put it, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” The Constitution is not the only root of evil in the American system of government, but it is one of the more consequential ones. | Name one Signer of the Constitution who endorsed
"polytheism" or opposed Christ.
Probably not more than one out of one thousand Americans could correctly answer this question: "Which branch of government is created in Article 1 of the Constitution." "National idolatry?" |
| If you are a person who values truth above all else and who chooses to sacrifice doctrine on the altar of sacred truth – instead of sacrificing truth on the altar of sacred doctrine – your beliefs concerning the U.S. Constitution and the Holy Bible may be challenged and perhaps radically changed by what you read in the following pages. | |
| This book is dedicated first to Yahweh, the one and only God, King, Judge, and Lawgiver and to Yeshua,3 our one and only Lord and Savior. Secondly, it is dedicated to a future generation of our progeny, who will erect a theocracy based solely upon Yahweh’s perfect law. Lord willing, an irrepressible movement will one day sweep across the country in fulfillment of Matthew 6:10, 33: | The Constitution in no way prevented America from maintaining the Christian Theocracy that existed before the Constitution was ratified. |
| Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven…. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matthew 6:10, 33)4 | |
| Chapter 1 The Perfect Law of Yahweh |
|
| Before examining the United States Constitution by Yahweh’s laws, it must first be demonstrated that those laws are the perfect standard by which the U.S. Constitution should be judged: | I agree that God's Law is perfect. |
| [snip] | |
| If applied today, Yahweh’s law would set us at liberty. However, liberty must not be confused with freedom from our sins. Only Yeshua’s blood-atoning sacrifice can accomplish the latter. Nevertheless, the implementation of Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty would resolve every single problem facing America today. His law would liberate us from all of the following immoral and oppressive conditions: | Agreed. |
| Unchecked crime and immorality | |
| Infanticide14 | |
| Repressive government and crooked politicians | |
| A criminal justice system15 | |
| Corrupt justices | |
| Crooked lawyers | |
| Rigged juries | |
| Election fraud | |
| Special interest groups | |
| Bureaucratic entanglements | |
| Licenses and permits | |
| Gun control16 | |
| Prisons and their exorbitant costs and myriad problems17 | |
| A fraudulent economic and banking system18 | |
| The Federal Reserve | |
| Oppressive taxation | |
| The Internal Revenue Service | |
| Eminent domain | |
| A socialistic welfare system | |
| An unethical insurance system | |
| Unlawful immigration19 | |
| Multiculturalism, pluralism, and polytheism | |
| All of this and much more would be eradicated with the implementation of Yahweh’s laws. The Psalmist informed us that “the law of Yahweh is perfect” and “in keeping [it] there is great reward” – Psalm 19:7-11. Why then do today’s Christians want to forfeit the perfect, never-changing, infallible law of Yahweh for man’s imperfect, ever-changing, fallible laws? For example, Pastor Chuck Baldwin (the Constitution Party’s 2008 presidential candidate) made the following appeal for a more pure Constitutionalism in his July 10, 2007, Internet commentary entitled “Can You Imagine This Country?”: | |
| Can you imagine a nation without the I.R.S.? Can you imagine a nation with little crime and where children were free to pray in schools? Can you imagine a nation where the father’s income was able to adequately provide for his household? Can you imagine a country with low divorce rates and where virtually everyone with a high school diploma could both read and write and was capable of earning his or her way in society? | |
| Can you imagine a nation without an A.C.L.U. or a N.E.A.? Can you imagine a country that did not legally murder its own unborn children and that would not pander to sexual deviants or criminals? Can you imagine a country that did not glorify, much less sponsor, gambling? Can you imagine a nation with strong state governments and a limited federal government? | |
| Can you imagine a country where you could order a firearm through a catalog and where there was no such thing as a B.A.T.F.? Well, you might not be able to imagine such a country, but that was the kind of nation our founders dreamed about, fought for, and bequeathed to their posterity. | |
| Unfortunately, since World War II, we Americans have seemed willing to squander the sacrifice and repudiate the principles of our ancestors. With the way things are going, can you imagine what this nation will look like in another 50 years?20 | |
| Why would we want to return to the document that created this mess? A document that Benjamin Franklin predicted (just before signing it on September 17, 1784, the last day of the Constitutional Convention) “[it] can only end in Despotism”?21 | Weiland obviously agrees with liberals who take an oath to "support the Constitution" and then create all these bureaucracies which are utterly without warrant in the Constitution. Nobody who signed the Constitution intended the creation of these agencies. |
| Other than Baldwin’s mention of public schools and state and national government, everything he offered is attainable through Yahweh’s law – and with no government interference. | |
| It is a sad commentary that the majority of Christianity, while giving lip service to Psalm 19:7, do not really believe it at all. If they did, they would relentlessly pursue Yahweh’s perfect laws in their personal lives, the lives of their families, their churches, their immediate communities, and on a national level. This is not to say that I favor federal government. Instead, I am referring to a theocratic government on the local level throughout what is presently known as the United States of America. After this is accomplished, we can look to the entire North American continent and beyond. | The Constitution does not prohibit obedience to God's Law. |
| Only Yahweh’s laws are perfect. Consequently, everything – including the United States Constitution – must be measured by this standard. Anything to the contrary is imperfect. | The federal Constitution does not prohibit obedience to God's Law in family, school, business, science, etc. It is a document of enumerated powers. |
| Most Constitutionalists base their Christian appraisal of the Constitution on the framers’ well-worn quotations (which often lack primary source documentation) and from a few Supreme Court declarations made years later. Many Constitutionalists claim that the Constitution reflects the teaching of Scripture, but never have I read or heard anyone provide anything from the Constitution itself to demonstrate that it is a Christian or biblical document. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Furthermore, the fruits of the Constitution reflect its full measure. | What could be a more authoritative source to
determine the meaning and character of the Constitution than the U.S. Supreme
Court? Why are Supreme Court Justices wrong and Weiland correct?
The Constitution is "quite the opposite" of Christian? Did the Christians who signed the Constitution know this? |
| While there may not be many at this time who share these sentiments, more and more people are recognizing the rotten fruit of the Constitution and speaking out. After I had preached several messages in the audio series that inspired this book, Yahweh led me to the book Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism by Gary North. This book extensively documents much of the true history of America’s foundations, including the little-known religious and social beliefs of the Constitutional framers at the time of the Constitutional Convention. North proves that the framers had neither Christianity nor the Kingdom of Yahweh in mind when they crafted the Constitution: | Read about the actions of the first Congress under the Constitution |
| There is no escape from this conclusion: the United States Constitution is an atheistic, humanistic covenant…. The Constitution is not a Christian covenant document…. While there have been many attempts over the years by Christians to evade this conclusion, they have all been unsupported with primary source documents….23 | Atheistic? Compare a truly atheistic constitution with America's. |
| What the framers, at any given time, said regarding their beliefs or lack thereof, is just as irrelevant as Aaron naming the golden calf “Yahweh” in Exodus 32:5. Their legacy – the Constitution – speaks for itself. What historians and politicians have said about the Constitution over the past two hundred years proves nothing. The Constitution must be assessed by the perfect laws of Yahweh; on this standard alone, it stand or falls as a Christian document. I have challenged Constitutionalists to provide me with evidence from the Constitution demonstrating it is a biblically-based document. To date, no one has been able to offer any proof for the simple reason that the United States Constitution is devoid of any biblical references and even conflicts with Yahweh’s law. | Where does the Constitution speak against Christ
or God's Law?
How does the Constitution conflict with God's Law? |
| In some of the ensuing chapters, we will be examining the United States Constitution article by article and amendment by amendment in light of the Yahweh’s perfect laws. Lord willing, it should prove unique in determining the biblical legitimacy of the United States Constitution. | |
| Click Here to Read Chapter 2 | That chapter does not answer the question above. It says: |
Among other more specific concerns,
the following unbiblical characteristics, embodied in the United States
Constitution, will be exposed in the chapters to follow:
|
Here
is the preamble:
Tell me again the name of the new god? Probably the answer is "the People," an argument refuted here. Nobody who signed the Constitution would agree with any of those criticisms. |
Weiland admits that:
Nothing in the Constitution changed this or prohibits this. To say it does is to concede the fundamental lie of liberals and the ACLU. Thirteen Christian Theocracies would not have ratified a constitution which abolished Christian Theocracy. |
|
| 1. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free. | |
| 2. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.* | |
| 3. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.* | |
| 4. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity’s sake. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used. | |
| 5. Where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.* | |
| 6. Even many alleged pronomians are, at best, two-thirds pronomian – that is, they are interested in restoring Yahweh’s commandments and statutes, but not His judgments. | |
| 7. Not only do most “New Testament Christians” reject the law component of the New Covenant, they also either ignore or dismiss the importance of whom Yahweh declared He would make His New Covenant with. For a more thorough explanation on the “who” of the New Covenant, the book The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now? may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $10 donation.* | |
| 8. Belief alone does not make justification in Yeshua a reality. Biblical faith is all encompassing and entails more than simply belief. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied in order to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free. | |
| 9. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “Licentious” (1828; reprint ed. San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967). | |
| 10. Webster, “Licentiousness.” | |
| 11. Although Jasher is not a part of canonized Scripture, it is cited in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18 and referenced in 2 Timothy 3:8. | |
| 12. See Appendix 1 for a list of specific pre-Sinai citations of Yahweh’s law. | |
| 13. See Appendix 2 for a more exhaustive list of Scriptures enumerating the blessings resulting from Yahweh’s law. | |
| 14. For more regarding infanticide, “The Sixth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.* | |
| 15. For more regarding the United States criminal justice system, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.* | |
| 16. By employing the term “assault weapons,” the anti-gun lobby deceptively attempts to associate all gun owners with criminal behavior. “Firearms: Scripturally Defended,” a treatise on the biblical mandate to be armed, may be read online. | |
| 17. The book Prisons: Shut Them All Down! may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.* | |
| 18. For more on the fraudulent economic and banking system, oppressive taxation, government-controlled welfare, eminent domain, and the unethical insurance system, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.* | |
| 19. For more on unlawful immigration and multiculturalism, “The Seventh Commandment” and “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the books Thou shalt not commit adultery and Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $6 donation each.* | |
| 20. Chuck Baldwin, “Can You Imagine This Country?” Chuck-Wagon Email Commentary, July 10, 2007, <http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com>. | |
| 21. Benjamin Franklin, Ormond Seavey, ed., “Speech in the Constitutional Convention at the Conclusion of it Deliberations,” Autobiography and Other Writings (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1998) p. 350. | |
| 22. Rousas John Rushdoony, Sovereignty (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2007) p. v. | |
| 23. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) pp. 403-04. | |
| *We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although there is a suggested price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send. | |
| Click Here to Read Chapter 2 |
>>>>> On Mon, January 26, 2009 6:39 pm, Al
Cronkrite wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.etherzone.com/2009/cron012709.shtml
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Accursed is that peace of which
revolt from God is the bond, and blessed
>>>>>> are those contentions by which it is
necessary to maintain the kingdom
>>>>>> of Christ." -- John Calvin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blessings,
>>>>>> AC
>>>>
--------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: "Kevin Craig" <KevinCraig@KevinCraig.US>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:15 AM
>>>> To: "Al Cronkrite" <fmsinfla@cex.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: Commentary
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know why you continue to promote
>>>>> the ACLU myth that "the Constitution is
>>>>> a secular document."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://vftonline.org/EndTheWall/secular.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> http://KevinCraig.us/secular.htm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin Craig
>>>>> Powersite, MO 65731-0179
>>>>> www.AnarchistBibleBet.com
>> From: "Kevin Craig" <KevinCraig@KevinCraig.US>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:27 PM
>> To: "Al Cronkrite" <fmsinfla@cex.net>
>> Subject: Re: Commentary
>>
>>> On Wed, January 28, 2009 8:25 am, Al Cronkrite wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin,
>>>>
>>>> Good to hear from you.
>>>
>>> Thank you. I consider us to be on the same side,
>>> and don't want any criticisms I offer to be
>>> interpreted as hostility.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Ted Wieland's commentary on the Constitution ---
>>>
>>> Weiland and I agree on 90% -- 9 out of the
>>> 10 commandments. Weiland believes he can
>>> violate the Ninth Commandment with respect to
>>> the Founders. Weiland and I agree that America
>>> is an apostate Christian nation, flooded with
>>> lawlessness, iniquity and immorality. It's
>>> evidence of God's Grace that we both oppose
>>> the culture, because we are both a product
>>> of that culture. If the Founding Fathers were
>>> to see our culture, they would be a hundred
>>> times more shocked, offended, alarmed, and
>>> outraged that we are. We are polluted by our
>>> culture, like it or not. We are desensitized
>>> to things that offend God because we see
>>> them day after day and get used to them.
>>> We are more tolerant of evil than America's
>>> Founding Fathers would have been if they
>>> could travel through time and see our world.
>>> Where Weiland and I part company is that
>>> Weiland blames the Founders for our evil.
>>> He says America's immorality is the "fruit"
>>> of the Constitution. That is simply a false
>>> thing to say. The Constitution does not
>>> authorize -- much less require -- abortion,
>>> homosexuality, atheistic schools, pornography
>>> from the National Endowment for the Arts,
>>> etc., etc., etc. The only thing that would
>>> shock America's Founders more than the level
>>> of sin in our society would be the accusation
>>> that it's all their fault! They would certainly
>>> blame us for today's evils.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most neo-Constitutionalists base their Christian
appraisal of the
>>>> Constitution on the framers' well-worn quotations
(which often lack
>>>> primary source documentation).
>>>
>>> I use primary sources. See:
>>> http://VFTonline.org/EndTheWall/secular.htm
>>> http://KevinCraig.us/secular.htm
>>>
>>>> Many Constitutionalists claim that the
Constitution
>>>> reflects the teaching of Scripture,
>>>
>>> I believe every constitution violates God's Law as
>>> seen in 1 Samuel 8. But America's Founders believed
>>> that God commands human beings to form "the
State."
>>> If you grant the truth of that premise, then the
>>> Constitution is a Scriptural way to create a
>>> confederation of states.
>>>
>>>> but never have I read or heard anyone
>>>> provide anything from the Constitution itself to
demonstrate that it
>>>> is a Christian or biblical document.
>>>
>>> When I pay for parking in a parking lot,
>>> I get a little ticket that says "THIS IS
>>> A CONTRACT. READ YOUR RIGHTS." Is this
>>> a Christian document? It doesn't say so.
>>> If it's not a Christian document, is it sinful
>>> to pay for a parking space in a parking lot?
>>>
>>>> In fact, it is quite the opposite.
>>>
>>> The Constitution is OPPOSED to Christianity?
>>>
>>>> Furthermore, the fruits of the Constitution
reflect its full measure.
>>>
>>> What exactly are "the fruits of the
Constitution?"
>>> Weiland can't prove his case.
>>>
>>>> While there may not be many at this time who
share these sentiments, more
>>>> and more people are recognizing the rotten fruit
of the Constitution and
>>>> speaking out.
>>>
>>> Are they really "recognizing" something, or
just
>>> imagining it? Sin is real, but not the link to
>>> the Constitution and the Founders.
>>>
>>>> After I had preached several messages in the
audio series that
>>>> inspired this book, Yahweh led me
>>>
>>> Yahweh Himself, eh?
>>>
>>>> to the book Political Polytheism: The Myth
>>>> of Pluralism by Gary North. This book extensively
documents much of
>>>> the true history of America's foundations,
including the little-known religious
>>>> and social beliefs of the Constitutional framers
at the time of the
>>>> Constitutional Convention. North proves that the
framers had neither
>>>> Christianity nor the Kingdom of Yahweh in mind
when they crafted the
>>>> Constitution:
>>>
>>> Several hundred men had a hand in creating and
ratifying
>>> the Constitution. Gary North and his ilk only discuss
>>> certain personal and private ideas of Franklin and
Madison
>>> (as distinguished from their public statements, and
it's
>>> public and official pronouncements that determine the
law,
>>> not private speculations) rather than the objective
legal
>>> pronouncements that really determine the official
character
>>> of the government. The vast majority of the Founders
>>> operated in a Christian Framework, and laid a
foundation
>>> which could have been made even more Christian over
the
>>> decades, but instead was ignored, torn down, and
repudiated
>>> in favor of immorality and leftism.
>>>
>>>> There is no escape from this conclusion: the
United States
>>>> Constitution is an atheistic, humanistic
covenant.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. This is what the ACLU says.
>>>
>>>> The Constitution is not a Christian covenant
document..
>>>> While there have been many attempts over the
years by
>>>> Christians to evade this conclusion, they have
all been unsupported
>>>> with primary source documents..23
>>>
>>> I supported my claim with primary source documents.
>>> Weiland has not.
>>>
>>>> What the framers, at any given time, said
regarding their beliefs or lack
>>>> thereof, is just as irrelevant as Aaron naming
the golden calf "Yahweh" in
>>>> Exodus 32:5. Their legacy - the Constitution -
speaks for itself.
>>>
>>> The Constitution and the prescriptions of the
Founding
>>> Fathers have been ignored. Immorality and iniquity
are
>>> not a result of consistently adhering to the moral
>>> and social vision of the Founding Fathers.
>>>
>>>> What historians and politicians have said about
the Constitution over the
>>>> past two hundred years proves nothing.
>>>
>>> It proves that the ACLU has ignored what Courts said
>>> 200 years ago. Courts in the 19th century
consistently
>>> held that America was a Christian nation, with a duty
>>> to observer God's Law.
>>>
>>>> The Constitution must be assessed by the
>>>> perfect laws of Yahweh; on this standard alone,
it stand or falls as a
>>>> Christian document.
>>>
>>> Where does the Constitution violate God's Law?
>>> (Except on the issue of creating "the
State"
>>> in the first place.)
>>>
>>>> I have challenged Constitutionalists to provide
me with
>>>> evidence from the Constitution demonstrating it
is a biblically-based
>>>> document.
>>>
>>> Is the parking lot contract a Biblically-based
document?
>>> Is it therefore sinful to pay for a parking space?
>>> Mark 9:40
>>>
>>>> To date, no one has been able to offer any proof
for the simple
>>>> reason that the United States Constitution is
devoid of any biblical
>>>> references and even conflicts with Yahweh's law.
>>>
>>> What is the conflict?
>>>
>>>> In some of the ensuing chapters, we will be
examining the United States
>>>> Constitution article by article and amendment by
amendment in light of
>>>> the Yahweh's perfect laws.
>>>
>>> Those chapters are not yet on line, apparently.
>>>
>>>> Lord willing, it should prove unique in
determining
>>>> the biblical legitimacy of the United States
Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> Blessings,
>>>> AC
>>>
>>>
>>> Weiland and the ACLU are wrong.
>>> The Constitution was not designed to
>>> secularize a Christian nation and promote
>>> immorality. All those who put the Constitution
>>> into effect would be appalled at what Americans
>>> have allowed the ACLU to do in the name of
>>> the Constitution.
>>>
>>> Please stop blaming the Constitution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin Craig
>>> Powersite, MO 65731-0179
>>> www.VFTonline.com
>>> www.KevinCraig.us
>>>
> On Thu, January 29, 2009 5:05 pm, Al Cronkrite wrote: > >> Kevin, >> >> IN SIMPLE TERMS please explain to me why all of the State Constitutions >> began with mention of The Savior but the national Constitution did not. > > Because they didn't want the federal gov't to have > any authority in the area of religion. > > That's the simple answer. > Now do some mental exercises: > > 1 Corinthians 13:5-7 says Love assumes the best > about an enemy. Hopes all things and does not > assume evil. So if the states that ratified the > federal constitution are your enemy, ask yourself > why they ratified the federal constitution if > every one of their state constitutions were theocratic? > Don't assume evil. Assume the best. > Why would South Carolina, for example, > whose state constitution explicitly makes > "Protestant Christianity" the "established religion" > of the state, reject a proposal by Maryland (a > predominantly Catholic state) for federal recognition > of Christ? > Wrong Answer: South Carolina was "polytheistic" > and "humanistic" and "opposed to Christianity." > Right Answer: S.C. didn't want to give the impression > that the federal gov't leans toward Romanism. > > Baptists rejected Presbyterian proposals, > Independents rejected Episcopalian proposals. > Nobody wanted the federal government to have > ANY authority over the states in the area of > religion because of the risk that this would > establish one denomination over the others. > > As it turns out this "right answer" was the > wrong answer, because it was based more on > ecclesiastical rivalry than a future-oriented > vision of how the ACLU would interpret a > constitution without a generic reference > to Christ in the preamble (although there > is one at the end). > > But Weiland is wrong to say it represents > a desire on the part of the Founders for > today's immorality. > >> Also, please explain how our God, Who demands exclusivity, >> is honored by freedom of religion. > > It's freedom from **federal interference**. > Not freedom for cannibalism, abortion, homosexuality > and human sacrifice. Again, assume the best. > There was no ACLU-type "freedom of religion" > in the states. The First Amendment says > the federal government cannot interfere > with the administration of Christian Theocracy > in the states. It does not say the feds have > the right to impose humanistic theocracy > on the states. > > If I rent a parking space and I demand that > the little contract say "Parking Garage shall > make no law respecting an establishment of > religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," > that's because I don't want the parking garage > compelling me to worship the Virgin Mary in > exchange for a parking spot, not because I'm > a "polytheist." Good grief. I'm a Theocrat. > The States were all Theocratic. 1 Cor 13:5-7 > says ASSUME THE BEST, not the worst. > > Weiland assumes the darkest, conspiratorial worst. > >> >> I deplore the ACLU and I am sure Ted Wieland does too. >> Attempting to correlate >> the ACLU position with ours is slanderous and grossly unjust. > > They are exactly the same. > Weiland and the ACLU assume that the states were > trying to get out from under God's Control, rather than > stay out from under federal control so that they would > remain free to obey God. > > In the 20th century, it was truly evil people > who persuaded courts and legal authorities > that the Constitution was humanistic rather than > Theocratic. Tragically, their efforts were not > matched by stronger efforts on the part of Christians > to remind the nation that America remained a > Christian Theocracy after the Constitution was > ratified. Weiland is unwittingly on the side of > the ACLU. > > (By the way, to my knowledge there were no > proposals for recognition of Christ in the federal > constitution during the constitutional convention. > Nobody, but nobody, even thought in terms of > allowing the federal government to be the national > leader in religion. Several states threatened to > derail ratification without the First Amendment > keeping the feds out of religion. The State > Constitutions were seen as more important and > more definitive than the federal constitution. > They wanted to keep it that way.) > > > > Kevin Craig > Powersite, MO 65731-0179 > www.AnarchistBibleBet.com > >
On Thu, January 29, 2009 6:35 pm, Al Cronkrite wrote: > Kevin, > > I do not believe your argument holds water. The result of not allowing > the > "federal government to have any authority in the area of religion" is a > secular government. You may BELIEVE this, but it is not legally or historically true. You're putting your subjective motivations ahead of objective facts. Nobody who had a hand in ratifying the federal constitution intended to create a federal government which would secularize the states. No court for over 100 years even suggested that this was the legal effect of the First Amendment. Every single person who participated in the creation and ratification of the Constitution would be shocked and possibly angered by YOUR accusation against THEM when they would say it is YOU (by that I mean "20th century Americans") who allowed THEIR constitution to be used to secularize America, contrary to THEIR intentions. You have to look at this through THEIR eyes, not your own. > I agree there were a number of different religions > being practiced in the states at the the time of the Constitutional > convention and encoding any one of them would have created lots of > conflict. > However, the fact remains that the United States government under the > Constitution has always been a secular institution You may BELIEVE this is true, but it is legally and historically false. The U.S. government has NOT ALWAYS been a secular institution. The U.S. Supreme Court in a number of cases during the 19th century acknowledged that the U.S. is a Christian nation under the federal constitution. NOBODY intended otherwise. > in spite of the fact > that > there were Biblical elements involved. My Bible does not allow neutrality > - > one must either be for it or against it! Not true. (Mark 9:40) And you don't practice what you preach. How many contracts have you signed that didn't mention Christ? Are you therefore guilty of "Neutrality?" or "Polytheism?" The federal constitution was not designed to supplant or supersede the state constitutions. (like the ACLU says it was). It was more like signing up with a home security service. The federal gov't would provide security for the states, not tell them that they would be Baptists rather than Presbyterians, and certainly not to abolish laws against abortion. If you signed up with Brink's Home Security would you demand some reference to Christ in the contract? Then why demand it of the states? > > The ACLU is a pagan organization who claims the Constitution is secular > because they seek a secular nation. And you agree with their interpretation of law and history, although for different subjective motivations. Which, I believe, is the same as violating the Ninth Commandment with respect to the Founders, though with self-exculpating subjective motivations for not telling the truth about them. There may be some sincerely deluded members of the ACLU who sincerely believe the constitution is secular, because they have been raised in government schools and are victims of propaganda. But the first people who advanced the argument that the Constitution requires secularism were anti-Christian liars. Their excuse for telling lies about the Constitution was their desire to obliterate laws against homosexuality, etc. What's your excuse for propagating lies? > I believe the Constitution is a > secular document and fails to support the nations Christian base There is NO SUCH THING as "the nation's Christian base." There were 13 sovereign states, each with their own Christian base, and they did not want the federal government to change it. There is nothing unBiblical about that. Nearly everyone of the Founders would say you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the Constitution for believing that there exists any such thing as "the nation's Christian base." France had its religious base, Spain had its religious base, South Carolina had its religious base, and Pennsylvania had its religious base. They were all equal. Each jealously guarded its sovereignty. There was no "national base" that governed France, South Carolina, or any other sovereign state. You're looking at the Constitution like statist liberals look at it. Wholly inappropriate and contrary to its Founders' intentions. > because I > want our nation to be controlled by the One True God - I think Ted does > too. > There is a major difference which you choose to ignore in an attempt to > produce DISHONEST guilt by association. You are GUILTY of imputing to the Founders motivations which they did not have, and you are propagating falsehoods about the way that the federal government behaved itself for the first 100 years after ratification. The first attempts by ALCU types to de-Christianize America were rebuffed by courts who knew that the federal constitution was not a secular document. You are buying into ACLU lies. You are spreading ACLU lies. Your motivation for doing so does not change this fact. > > > > Blessings, > > AC Kevin Craig Powersite, MO 65731-0179 www.AnarchistBibleBet.com