Read the Case for yourself:
Church of the Holy Trinity
vs. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)
The Updegraph case was cited in
another early US Supreme Court case which held that the public
schools "MUST" teach the Bible "as a divine
revelation." Read about it here.
The author of the unanimous Supreme Court
opinion in the Holy Trinity
Case was a Christian -- like most great jurists in the 19th
century. Read what others in his day said
about him.
Recent Supreme Court references to "Civil
Religion."
Recent Supreme Court references to "Ceremonial
Deism."
America's Founding Fathers believed our
nation should be "under God" and promote
Christianity.
Why a Christian cannot
be an attorney or hold public office if he repudiates
America's "Civil Religion." |
America used to be a Christian
nation. In 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States
acknowledged a truth universally understood at the time the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written:
[T]his is a Christian nation. . . . While because
of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom
been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v.
Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400 [1824], it was decided that,
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has
been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not
Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual
courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all
men."
Church of the Holy
Trinity vs. U.S., 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed.
226 (1892)
Atheists and others hostile to Christianity (including some who
publicly called themselves "Christians) opposed the official
recognition of Christianity which characterized America. They
worked quietly and persistently to secularize America. They did
not like the religion of Christianity. Their
religion is the
religion of Secular Humanism.
These Secular Humanists and atheistic "Christians"
have not entirely succeeded in secularizing America. But they have
de-Christianized it.
The Religion of those who dominated American public life in the
years preceeding the ratification of the U.S. Constitution has
been replaced with a new religion. It is called "the American
civil religion." It is also called "ceremonial
deism."
In some ways America's civil religion looks like Christianity.
In other ways it looks like the religion of Secular Humanism. It
is acceptable to lukewarm adherents of both religions, but not to
those who consistently and faithfully practice their religion.
This web page reflects the opinions of some who defend the
Puritan/Theocratic Christianity of the Founding Fathers. It urges
a consistent, thorough-going repudiation of "Ceremonial
Deism."
The author of this web page passed the California Bar
Examination but was denied his license to practice law because he
rejects "ceremonial deism" and defends the
"Theocracy" which once characterized this Christian
nation. Full details are found on
this web site. The purpose of this web site is to convince
Christians to reject Secular Humanism and Ceremonial Deism, and
adovate the religion of our Puritan forefathers. |
Jesus said He
likes consistent anti-Christian Secular Humanists more than wimpy
so-called Christians. Are
you an "extremist?"
Lukewarm Christians don't realize that when they take an
oath to "support the constituiton" and end by saying
"so help me, God," they are engaging in a practice which
an 1844 Suprme Court decision called a mark of faithlessness
(infidelity"). Are you an
"infidel?"
Under a "Civil Religion," the State tends to
be god, as many cases show
. |
It is now the case that
anyone who believes as the Founding Fathers did cannot become an
attorney at law, or hold any political office. A Christian cannot
even become an American citizen. In some jurisdictions, a
Christian who is an American citizen by birth cannot become a
licensed elevator inspector or draftsman.
This web site explains why Christians are
excluded, and advocates direct action to change this dangerous
trend. In fact, this website calls for the abolition of the United
States Constitution and the establishment of a decentralized,
non-political Theocracy.
- Religious Exclusion and Intolerance
is Inescapable
- The Question is not "Whether," the question is
"Who."
Why Christians are Now Excluded,
Rather than Atheists
Overview of Plan for Change
Religious Exclusion and Intolerance
is Inescapable
It is obvious that if we are going to form "A
Christian Nation," we would exclude
atheists from public office. We would ban polygamy, human
sacrifice, sex with children and other sins as defined in the
Bible even if some
"religion" claimed them as "divine commands."
Ultimately there is no such thing as "freedom of
religion." The survival of the nation depends on exclusion
and intolerance. As one Founder put it,
Lastly, those are
not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises,
covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can
have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but
even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by
their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no
pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of
toleration
— John Locke
Conversely, In the modern world of
"pluralism,"
"multiculturalism," "cultural relativism," and
"democracy,"
those who hold to moral and cultural absolutes are labled
"exclusive" rather than "inclusive" and
"intolerant" rather than "tolerant." They are
"threats" to a democractic and pluralistic society. They
will be excluded.
Why Christians are Now Excluded,
Rather than Atheists
I passed the California Bar Exam and was completely qualified
for admission to practice. I
have pretty good moral character; no criminal record. It is
required of attorneys to take an oath to "support the
Constitution," but it is also a rule, set
down by the United States Supreme Court, that Christians will
not be allowed to take this oath even if they want to. This rule
is completely logical, based on the premise that the United States
is no longer a Christian
nation. As a result, I am a Christian, but not an attorney. If
I were attempting to become an American citizen, I would be put on
boat back home.
To fully understand this state of affairs, it is necessary to
review American history, to understand
its Theocratic origins, and appreciate its modern character as
a Secular Humanist Theocracy, with Man
being the new god.
Those who understand and oppose America's decline from
Christian Theocracy to Humanistic theocracy are ready to consider
my proposed steps toward reconstruction.
Overview: A New Approach to Politics
Fighting the Battle where it Needs to be
Fought
Christians want to
influence politics. They want to see Christian values
replace selfish man-centered values which result in abortion,
homosexuality, illiteracy, and crime. They hope to elect Christian
statesmen, pass Godly laws, or win well-researched lawsuits which
will lead our nation to Godliness, peace, and prosperity.
Obviously they have failed.
Their greatest triumphs have been those occasions when they have
merely slowed down (temporarily) the relentless march toward
destruction. In election after election, they vote for candidates
who promise to return us to Christian values, only to have them
legislate the same secular "liberalism" once in office.
What is the answer? I would
like to suggest an answer you have never heard before. I would
like to suggest a return to the "test oath."
"Left" vs.
"Right" For decades, politics has
been a battle between Secular Conservatives and Secular Liberals,
with Christians on the sidelines waiting for the
"Rapture." More recently, the battle has been between
Secular Conservatives, joined by Secular Liberals, against
Christian Conservatives who think Secular Conservatives are their
allies.
The lines have been re-drawn. The battle in the next millennium
will be between Christians and Secularists. Christians will not
distinguish themselves by their membership in any political party;
they will be distinguished by their repudiation of 200 years of
secular constitutionalism and their willingness to take a
Christian "test oath" upon their public inauguration.
The Oath
The need for Christian statesmanship will be met when we return to
the doctrine of oaths which was held by our Puritan forefathers,
and then build upon it. In studying that oath, we will learn much
and be open to a new way of thinking.
In this Internet Monograph I argue that the oath of office is
as important as it is ignored. When Christians begin to take
seriously the Biblical requirements concerning the oath, it will
have a profound, radical effect on national politics and on our
quest for authentic Christian Statesmanship. It will turn politics
upside down.
This claim will certainly strike many as an exaggeration. The
oath is widely believed to be a mere formality. Even the
U.S. Supreme Court has said the oath is little more than an
"amenity."[1] But the Supreme Court
has been wrong before. Very, very wrong. The Bible proclaims an
altogether different perspective — as do diligent Christians
(like the Puritans) who study the Scriptures.
What is a "Test Oath?"
Doesn't the Bible forbid all
oath-taking?
Why should I take a "test
oath?"
What About the "Separation of Church and
State"?
Website Table of Contents
The Oath: The Key
Why do conservatives get involved in politics?
Clearly, they see a rise in crime, or a threat to traditional
values, and they seek to protect social order or prevent social
chaos.
Voting for candidates of the right political party is not the
answer, if those candidates do not understand The Key.
The oath is the key. The lock is the
Court-imposed "separation of church and state,"
which is really the obliteration of Christianity from the
public square.
George Washington reflected the views of
the overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers when he said
this in his "Farewell
Address":
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should
labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these
firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere
politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to
cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections
with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked,Where
is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the
sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which
are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And
let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,
reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.[No
Footnote]
If there are three items on every conservative's agenda, they
are here in Washington's Address:
- security for property
- politicians with reputations for Godly character
- pro-life policies.
The Father of his Country says to toss these out the window
if religion is ever separated from oaths.
You cannot separate religion from an oath
without destroying society.[2]
But notice: The myth of the "separation
of church and state" attempts to separate religion from every
area of government, including oaths, including the oath of office.
Courts have declared that oaths no longer have any religious
significance. Even the phrase "so help me, God" has been
declared to have "no theological . . . impact." It is an
instance of "ceremonial deism"
says the courts. (It is a violation of the Third Commandment, says
the Bible!)
What this website argues is that the oath of
office must again be religious; all oaths, in fact, must be
religious, and every area of government must
be religious. This is an all-or-nothing affair. It's a "package
deal."
If our commitment is to the Constitution alone, we are doomed.
Only a commitment to the God of the Bible can save us.
Go to Table of Contents
NOTES
Actually , every oath and every area of government is already
religious, and is always and inescapably religious. Either the
religion of Christianity, or the religion of Secular Humanism.
When Washington used the word "religion," he meant
"Christianity." The
Founding Fathers were not deists.
But neither was Washington a "theocrat." Nor were
most of the Founders. They "halted between two opinions"
(1 Kings 18:21). They admired the legal systems of Greek and Roman
Humanists, but they wanted Christianity to keep their Republic
from crumbling like Rome. This website in a nutshell: "You
can't have it both ways." [Back
to text]
If you want politicians to honor their oath to
"support the Constitution," you must be willing to
abandon the mythological doctrine of "church-state
separation." [Go there now.]
[Back to text.]
1. Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676, 685, 92 S.Ct.
1332, 1337; 31 L.Ed.2d 593 (1972). [Return to
Text]
2. Imbrie v Marsh, at 71 A2d 353,
18 ALR2d 243, citing Omcychund v. Barker, 1 Atk 21, 34 (Ch 1744).
("No country can subsist a twelve-month where an oath is not
thought binding; for the want of it must necessarily dissolve
society.") The oath to
"support the constitution" is no longer binding.
[Back to text]
This is not a footnote. If you want to "check my
sources" but don't have a copy of Washington's Farewell
Address somewhere in your home or office, or can't find it on the
Internet, shame on you! [Back to
Address]
TAKE A STAND FOR CHRIST!
Are you afraid to stand up in a court of law and announce that
you are a Christian?
When asked to swear that you "support the
Constitution," are you afraid to explain to your prospective
employer that your allegiance to Christ is greater than your
loyalty to the State?
When He had called the people to Himself, with His
disciples also, He said to them, "Whoever desires to come
after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and
follow Me. {35} For whoever desires to save his life will lose
it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will
save it. {36} For what will it profit a man if he gains the
whole world, and loses his own soul? {37} Or what will a man
give in exchange for his soul? {38} For whoever is ashamed of Me
and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him
the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory
of His Father with the holy angels."
Mark 8:34-38
Almost without exception, when Christians seek to place their
loyalty to the State "under God," they are denied
employment and even American citizenship. After passing the
California Bar Exam and all other hurdles for admission to
practice law, I asked the State Bar of California to allow me as
an individual to modify the oath required for admission to
practice law. I wanted to use the words from the 1776 Delaware
Constitution. This web site attempts to answer three questions:
- Why did I think it Biblically required to use the words from
the 1776 Delaware oath?
- Why did the California State Bar, the California Supreme
Court, and the United States Supreme Court all refuse to even
consider my First Amendment grounds for requesting this
modification? Why was I denied a hearing of any kind when
Quakers and New Agers are routinely granted modifications of
oaths?
- Why would I want you to make the same request
if you are ever required to take a civil oath?
My answer to the second question is: because my petitions went
to the heart of the mythology of "church-state
separation." My petitions argued that this nation is
ethically obligated to be a
Christian nation.
I hope that this web site will encourage you to stand up for
Christ, and also help you to do so by being as wise as serpents
and gentle as doves. Although I will never be able to practice law
in California, I believe the experience I gained will help you
become wiser and more gentle than I was during my appeals. I
believe it's possible to make a judicious appeal which will allow
you to be faithful to Christ and still keep your job.
Even if you disagree, I believe you'll find this web site
challenging, and I hope that you'll keep me in your prayers.
More about the Case
[Back to top]
|