USA Is A Nation of Christianity―It Is The Law!

7/29/2019 USA Is A Nation of ChristianityIt Is The Law!

1/31

1

USA, A Country of Christianity

It Is The Law!

2011 Cameron Rebigsol

1. The Sole Political Choice ..P2

2. Religion of either This or That Kind...P7

3. Upside down Logics..P11

4. The Sole and Indisputable Ownership of the Land..P14

5. Misread on the First Amendment...P17

6. Genuine Separation between Government and Faith...P23

7. Ownership of the Government....P26

8. Matter of Reverence.....P29


2/31

2

1. The Sole Political ChoiceWe the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Unionsecure

the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish thisConstitution for the United States of America.

With this preamble, the US Constitution binds the country built in the land of America withthe following immovable doctrines:

1. A union as a sovereign entity had been a reality before this document was established.2. What the Founding Fathers aimed at with this constitution was not to give birth to a

government for a new country, but to perfect the government for the same union, orcountry.

3. Therefore, this constitution cannot find in itself the legal power to name this country but apower to further guard and serve the country that already existed.

4. The country this constitution guards and serves is called the United States of America,which is a stile that some other document vested with earlier.

5. Indisputably, then, the document vesting this country with the name must enjoygrandfatherly reverence that this constitution cannot infringe. The Constitution can onlyadd perfection to this grandfatherly document other than overshadowing any part of it. Ifthe Constitution feels it needs to adjust or even abandon any part of this grandfatherlydocument to realize the perfection, it should have specific statement addressing so.However, it does not so happen. Instead, with clear statement, the American Constitutionso obliges this country in revering this grandfatherly document:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of thisConstitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as underthe Confederation. (Article VI)

The Confederation is the union that the US Constitution works to perfect. The Confederationis the union reined by the Articles of the Confederation. The Articles of the Confederation thenrecords the most sacred debt and engagement of the Confederation. It is the Articles of theConfederation that, with its First Article, is the grandfatherly document vesting the nameTheUnited States of America in this country:

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America".

The stile of a country is the topmost sacred engagement that a country can ever enter into!With the bold statement of its own Article VI, the US Constitution clearly tells people that itunconditionally inherits everything embodied in the Articles of the Confederation. Therefore,although awaiting perfection, the Articles of the Confederation (AofC from here on) is an activelaw body in this country. Anyone claiming the US Constitution has retired the AofC mustsupport his claim with a law document that was drawn later than and has the same weight as theArticle VI. With the words This Constitutionshall be the supreme Law of the Land, Article


3/31

3VI has made AofC an inseparable part of this Constitution. A document that can obscure ArticleVI and thus play the role to retire the entirety of the Articles of the Confederation must have alsoretired the nameTheUnited States of America. Then, miserably and drastically, the USConstitution will find no one to render its service to and must end its own life!

The original text of the US Constitution adopted in 1787 focused on governmentorganization details. It does not have covered too much about obligation and right. Withoutspecific explanation on obligation and right, a constitution would have missed a big part of itspurpose of existence and easily let a country run wild. To make up the missing, the first tenamendments were adopted in 1789 and later ratified in 1791. However, the most part of theseamendments only stress personal rights. To a lot of people, the obligation part is still notoutstandingly obvious in the Constitution. With the Founding Fathers unquestionable politicalwisdom, how is it possible for them to have missed this gravely important social component inthe Constitution? The fact is that they did not miss it, except that they just emphasized it withone concise statement. When emphasizing, their words paid more attention to governmentobligation other than personal obligation to a nation. Habitually and unfortunately, people

generally give less weight to anything that is not specifically involved at personal level. Theconcise statement of obligation is the first clause (paragraph) in Article VI of the USConstitution. With it, the US Constitution fully obliges the government with what is stated in thefollowing:

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with eachother, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual andgeneral welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, orattacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, orany other pretense whatever.

All these terms meet every sense of debt and engagement viewed by Article VI in the USConstitution, and one can exactly find them in Article III inThe Articles of Confederation. Onthe other hand, no other document with the same grandeur as a constitution has ever defined andconfined the content of debt and engagement stressed in Article VI of the US Constitution.Therefore, whatever the terms debt and engagement mean in Article VI of the US Constitutionmust be seamlessly matching those that are proposed in the AofC.

For a period that has been too long, American people are told that the AofC has beeninvalid. The fact is exactly the opposite. Because of Article VI in the US Constitution, no law-abiding citizen can find himself any excuse to deviate from the obligation so stated in the AofC.If American people allow themselves to believe that the AofC has been invalid, they must makethemselves ready to deal with two inconceivable political consequences. (1) They must acceptan upside down logic: The words from the US Constitution revering the AofC are not yet sosupreme, but something else can enjoy more supremacy and is able to discount the Constitutionsauthority. (2) Even far more dangerously, as already pointed out, invalidating the AofC mustlead to invalidating the name of this country and lead the US Constitution to lifelessness. Ifsomebody must insist that the AofC has become invalid, he must believe that he can rewrite thewordvalid in Article VI as invalid. So far, no law and no one can be so powerful.


4/31

4Defending the wellbeing of a nation is forever the biggest debt a government commits for the

nation it serves, regardless of how the ruling and the ruled may have different understandingabout the nation. With the debts and engagement that the US Constitution pledges to inheritfrom the AofC, the US Constitution must continue to defend what the AofC takes as priority fordefending. The number one account the AofC calls for defending in its Article III is religion.

Given that all signers of the AofC are followers ofChristianity, and given that all signers of theUS Constitution are followers of Christianity, logic must allow the word religion to meannothing else other thanChristianity.

The AofC appeared seven years before the Constitution was established. Eight years afterthe Constitution was established, George Washington told the nation: Reason and experienceboth forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religiousprinciple. Can anyone tell the nation that the religious principle in Washingtons mind isanything but exactly not the belief of Christianity? Can anyone replace the religious principlein his speech with the principle from Koran, Marx-Leninism, or evolution?

Christianity blew the breath into a document that is unprecedented in human history. Fromthe political womb of theDeclaration of Independenceof the United States this country began itslife. Therefore, all social evolvement in this land must carry the political gene encoded andpassed down by the Declaration of Independence. As we all can see, from the beginning to theend, the teaching ofChristianity permeates in this document. Although the word Christianity isnot specified in the Declaration of Independence, no one can explain the word God, Creator,Divine Providence in this document with equivalent figures from any other teaching. Anyequivalence shammed in from other ideology as explanation will not match what these fewwords should suggest in the Declaration of Independence.

The signatures endorsing the Declaration of the Independence further sealed this documentwith evidence of the teaching from Christianity. Prevailingly most of the signatories are churchgoers with sound evidence. Few of them may not have such evidence but they are buried in landprovided by Christian establishment. An extremely handful of them may show lacking obviousevidence of their Christianity background. However, they had imperatively chosen beingfollowers of Christianity when they signed the document with the term God revered by all otherChristians. If this handful few had any disagreement on any part of this document they signed,particularly the part of belief, they should have made separate expression about what they wouldnot go along with around the time they signed. However, they did not, not before, not during,not after. They signed the document in a duress free environment.

Suppose one minute that the American Revolutionary War came out as a failure. Regardlessof what church each of these signers had been associated or not associate with, they all were the

melons from the same vine in the Kings criminal court. Religious offense must be one of thecrimes in the list they would be charged with. Therefore, when all the signers pursued the samegoal set by the Declaration of Independence, all these signers were offenders holding the samebelief, which was only Christianity. No one can bleach their political and religious image in thatnature.

God creating human beings is one of the dominant beliefs found in all branches, ordominations, or sects worshiping Christianity. It is true that other teaching such as Koran also


5/31

5has similar expression. However, God mentioned in the Declaration of Independence can only bethe one from Christianity but not Koran. Two simple reasons support this view. (1) It isimpossible for the Christian signers to accept a non-Christian god in their worship. (2) What iscited in the following can match well with the teaching of Christianity but must be offensive inthe teaching of Koran:

all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certainunalienable Right, that among these are Life, Liberty

That "all Men are created equal must violate Korans teaching, which forbids any of itsfaithful followers from equating himself with an infidel. If we replace the wordmenwithpeoplein above quotation, the teaching of Christianity must enable both man and woman to be placed ateach side of a gender balance with political equality. Can Koran allow the same teaching andapply it to their men and women? No! Pursuing equality between men and women in the Islamicworld can be offensive, and too often it can be punishable and may even lead to case of deathpenalty, particularly for the women. In Koran, women can be regarded as property of a man. Of

course, then, their liberty is not directly endowed by a creator, but subjected to permission frommen.

Marxism-Leninism, or Socialism, is even more hostile to this idea of "all Men are createdequal. Socialism can only approve and accept forcible overthrow of all existing socialconditions so that someone can make themselves a ruler and have a world to win, althoughsometimes they may be kind enough to take some peaceful strategy. That all men arecreated equal is intolerably offensive to the socialists advocacy of class struggle. They cannotrest one day without ripping this idea of equality as being fake and deceptive. With the teachingof Socialism, the Socialists are able to set up one country after another that is dictated by familyinheritance. How all men are created equal in a world in which power can be inherited and thusmonopolized?

The Declaration of Independence sets such a punch mark in the political course of Americathat the other two supreme documents later must quote this document for each of their own birth:

In the Article of Confederation appears Done at Philadelphia in the State ofPennsylvania the Third year of the Independence of America

In the American Constitution appears Done in Convention by Unanimousand of theIndependence of the United States of America the Twelfth

All these should be simple enough to tell people that the spiritual principle guiding the

formation of America is unique by itself. All non-Christian beliefs must find the same principlerepellent. Right at the moment anyone first sets foot on this land, the word Creator, as well asdivine Providence, in the national birth certificate must remind him of that he is arriving at acountry that should be overwhelmingly religious. When anyone quotes all men are createdequal for any purpose except condemning it, he must have chosen to surrender to theChristianity teaching, being consciously aware of it or not. If anyone must put up an argumentthat America is not a country religiously shaped, he must first remove all the words referring to asupernatural from all the three most prestige documents in this country. If anyone cannot


6/31

6remove these words but must place himself under the protection of the US Constitution, he isindisputably looking for the blessing from Christianity. Saying otherwise is at least an exposureof ignorance, if not lying. Anyone who perceives himself to have a right to inherit anythingpolitically in this country, he must also inherit the belief that validates the idea of all men arecreated equal. No law provides separate inheritance in this regard in this land.

That the three most prestige documents have words referring to a supernatural but notspecifying Christianity does not mean they have allowed the throne for the supernatural to beshared by any non-Christian belief. The throne for God, or Creator, or Our Lord in thesedocuments is exclusively reserved for the topmost supernatural reigning in Christianity. Anyother understanding is unsupportive, and must fail. If someone does not agree with suchexclusiveness, he must first prove that the belief held by the Founding Fathers allows two ormore Creators to be identified. Doing so, he is to declare that the Founding Fathers areapostates, infidels, and religiously hypocritical. He who attempts so doing can only fail. Theexclusiveness can be further witnessed by the absolute absence in these documents the signaturefrom any other belief follower, such as Islam, Buddhism, and Sikhs, not to mention Socialism,

evolution.

Truly, the name of God in the belief of Christianity is not directly referred to in thesedocuments; but why should it be so needed? Why could or should a signature from a Christianbe regarded as endorsement of other beliefs? Can a signature by a Muslim be regarded asevidence that he has placed Jesus or Buddha as his Creator? When someone mentions hisgrandfather without explaining the existing nature of the grandfather, people will assume hisgrandfather as being a human being in his mind, but not a crow, not a serpent; what is sounnatural? If someone shows his family name as XYZ without mentioning his ancestral origin,people just traditionally assume the family name of his great-grandfather in the straight paternalline also to be XYZ; what is so unnatural?

Before we can move to next section, we must also forbid us from missing one vital doctrinefrom the Preamble. With the term Our Posterity, the Founding Fathers, all those Christianityfollowers, have defined the citizens of every generation in this country to be followers of thebelief the Fathers held dear.

Therefore, bound by history and bound by law of the topmost supremacy, the country ofTheUnited States of America is a country of Christendom through and through. Any actionescorted, or guarded, or even promoted by the US government but in violation of defending thereligion of Christianity is gravely unconstitutional.


7/31

7

2. Religion of Either This or That Kind

What is religion? That could be of any belief, any mindset, or any human faith, which agroup of people takes as unchallengeable and believes to have the power to guide them to

overcome difficulty in life. Because of the wide varieties of ideas in modern civilization, theterm religion therefore should cover both theistic and atheistic beliefs. Partisan politics is byitself a practice of religious mindset, although not necessarily in theistic nature.

Traditionally, people have been accustomed with the idea that religion is theistic and hassomething to do with supernatural. However, gradually, superstition on atheistic ideas began totake shape in the modern ideological world. The debut of Manifesto of the Communist Partyintroduced the drastic beginning of mindset of atheistic superstition. Although people holdingatheistic superstitious mindsets are not necessarily followers of the Manifesto, they all begin anera of having some gods walking on earth. They worship these gods in ritual style different fromthose of theistic ones. These gods may be either in human form or just in form of some

terminology. With violence or nonviolence, the atheistic people concentrate all political powerthey can find toward these godly figures. They hope other people also take it for granted to showsubmission to the same figures without question. Typically, in history and in human form, Marx,Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedonghave been all this kind of gods in the Socialist movement, or someless powerful one like Einstein in physics, or some even less powerful one like Charles Darwinand Gregor Mendel in evolution.

Duplicating the same procedure of god creation, a big population creates another kind of godbut in form of terminology instead of human being. For example, the term human rightpossesses more and more godly power nowadays. Other godly terms are something likedemocracy, freedom, fairness, American dream, and racist, discrimination. Many people are sosuperstitiously adhering to these terms that they believe all social problems should conform tothe measurement of these terms and come down to their approval. Typically, for example, boththe Republican Party and the Democratic Party in America would declare only its own policywould have positive contribution toward democracy. Without due procedure of law, people canuse these few godly terms to end someones political life or professional career in the court ofopinion but not the court of law. Conversely, human rightcan be a godly term that can spare thelife of a murderer or even extend his comfort that an innocent citizen may not be able to enjoy.

Examples how these godly term would work, condemning or preferring, are just too many.A law professor was seriously harassed by allegation in 2009 because he was involved indrafting some outline work in behalf of waterboarding. Someone claims that the water boardinghas compromised the human right of the enemies of US. Of course, those so accusing woulddeclare they are defending human right while they obviously ignore the human right of theinnocent lives destroyed by these enemies. A scientist intending to study mental powerdifference between races was threatened as being a racist and needed to be fired. Ironically, thoseso threatening were exactly those who insisted to promote these godly terms riding on the idea ofsurvival of the fittest in order to expel Christianity. With the idea of natural selection, differencemust exist between different living beings, mentally and physically. But to them, law should besubmissive to these godly terms they have mastered with. Today, any educator who dares to cite


8/31

8one Nation under God in a public school must prepare to lose job even before any court actioninitiates. He is easily accused of being in violation of freedom of religion set by the FirstAmendment, which has been contorted by people who liberally apply these godly terms. Inother fronts, someone is heard to propose to remove help me God or God bless Americafrom some governmental statements. Apparently, someone prepares to deprive the nation of the

Founding Fathers belief. To these people, the few godly terms should reign in this nation, notthe Founding Fathers belief.

If the godly-term promoters believe that infringement of freedom of religion isunconstitutional, they must explain how it is constitutional if somebody today infringes theFounding Fathers freedom of religion. One Nation under God well resonates with theFounding Fathers religious belief, but it has become a taboo in nowadays public schools. It thensimply means the Founding Fathers with their belief would be in trouble in our nowadaysschools if they ever lived today but didnt keep quiet. Some says that citing it in public schoolsor by anyone in public service, government or private business, violates the First Amendment.This country has left the same Constitution unchanged regarding freedom of religion after the

ratification of the First Amendment in 1791. Should the same reason rejecting one Nationunder God reject George Washingtons right telling this nation not to expect that nationalmorality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle? Or more dramatically, should the samereason also reject the legality of all the Founding Fathers religious expressions in the AofC andthe US Constitution, and further negate the more motherly document, the Declaration ofIndependence of America? All these are going to say is that intolerance of one faith is just toenthrone another faith. In humans ideological world, there is no vacancy allowed, intentionallyor unintentionally.

When Lincoln enriched the law documents of our nation with I invoke the gracious favorof Almighty God, has or has not he infringed the First Amendment? The same question mustalso be legitimately raised when he boldly told the nation that this nation, under God, shallhave a new birth of freedom. Inseparable from this statement, a speech emboldening agovernment of the people, for the people, by the people shall not perish has become one of themost precious political wealth this nation contributed to the world. How should the modernfreedom defenders deal with all these with the measurement allowed by the First Amendment?Time has changed, but the US Constitution has stayed the same today on the freedom of religion.In front of the same law, should the American citizens of today and the American citizens ofyesterday have equal right and responsibility? The US supreme law has a clear statement thatthe Constitution is mostly superior to any persons words, even the presidents. So,unexceptionally, the First Amendment must be superior to the sixteenth president. Now, basedon this sacred doctrine, governed by the same supreme law, in explaining one Nation underGod having become intolerable to the First Amendment, the country called The United Statesof America owes its citizens a list of answers in the following concerns:

1. Will this country nullify the legality of Emancipation Proclamation signed by Lincolnbecause it violates what the First Amendment approves?

2. Will this country retain the Emancipation Proclamation signed by Lincoln even if itviolates what the First Amendment approves?


9/31

93. Will this country allow any other politician or people involving in public affair to enjoy

the same immunity of law that Lincoln enjoyed if it is determined that Lincoln hasviolated the First Amendment? Or should each politician or any person involving inpublic affair be treated with preference but where is the law allowing such preference?

4. Will the untarnished staying of Emancipation Proclamation be a piece of evidence thatinvoking the gracious favor of Almighty God has had no part of the Constitution,including the first Amendment, violated?

5. Then, how could any law prohibit one Nation under God from invoking thegracious favor of Almighty God in the same land and in all schools of the United States?

If nothing out of these answers can support that the First Amendment should have restrictedthe politicians like Washington and Lincoln, the same amendment can restrict no one today fromgiving expression of the same religious nature. It is not giving such expression that isunconstitutional; it is restricting such expression that is unconstitutional. If someone must applythe First Amendment to restrict others from giving similar expression, he would have wrongfullyapplied this law. The wrongful application may be caused by his contorted understanding or,

worse, by a purpose needing this contortion. Either way, the effect is the same: unlawfullyexposing the Founding Fathers belief to perish. It is plain persecution, as much against theFounding Fathers as against modern citizens.

If the Founding Fathers belief is expelled, some other belief must fill in the ideologicalvacancy so left behind. No one can make any exception, and the new filler must beunquestionably of non-Christianity. Why is it more constitutional to allow a non-Christian beliefto replace a Christian belief? Far worse yet, why is it constitutional to allow a non-Christianbelief to replace a Christian belief in a country whose constitution obliges its government todefend Christianity? How is it answered without the wordconspiracy? How is it answered if thepower of this country has not been partially usurped by anti-Christian beliefs?

One typical example of the immediate ideology replacement is to have evolution displaceChristianity in the public schools. People siding with the displacing claimed that evolution is ascience and therefore secular, meeting what the First Amendment approves. There are a lot ofproblems raised by this claim. What kind of science is evolution? How is secular defined interms of law? Do people claiming their idea being secular have automatic entitlement of powerin explaining and applying law? How to decide that the First Amendment has been correctlyinterpreted? If a science, is evolution a natural science or a social science? Unfortunately, beforeany of these questions is answered, a distorted understanding on law has made a decision toallow evolution other than Christianity to enjoy government defending in America. An absoluteunconstitutional act easily snatches a constitutional crown. American law is so ruthlesslytrampled.

If evolution claims itself as a natural science, one topic can instantly kill such claim:Eugenics, no matter one is for or against it. The acceptance or rejection of Eugenics completelydepends on human faith, but evolution must sooner or later leads to its appearance. Human faithowns the entire spectrum of religions, theist and atheist. If there is no human faith, there wouldbe no religion; if there is human faith, there must be religion, although each religion expressesitself in different form. Unable to escape from relying on faith, evolution cannot resign itselffrom being a religion. Another evidence witnessing evolution as a religion is its inseparable


10/31

10alliance with the theory Big Bang. Bing Bang is a genuine theory of creationism with a creatorcalled Nothingness. (For more details on this evidence, a reader is cordially invited to refer toEvolution, a Creationism Veiled with Science by Rebigsol at www.huntune.net.) Is evolution asocial science, then? If it cannot show it independent of ideology, both on conceptualunderstanding and methodology, it must fail to pull it out of the tank of social science. What

social problem does evolution propose to solve? What civilization principle does it teach peopleto abide to? The only answer is survival of the fittest, a principle that no more aggressivelylegitimates power grabbing and thus a principle no more viciously destructive to our nationsmost essential principleall men are created equal.

Being a mental product, no human faith, belief, or ideology is free of human reasoning. Nohuman reasoning can be free of contamination of certain consideration of this kind or that kindbeing either too much in excess or too little in shortage. He who claims his idea must be secularalready shows to people that he has been arrested by bias. Therefore, there is no idea that isgenuinely secular. Besides, our law does not say that anything secular can automatically entitlepolitical power. But we do have a law, the Supreme Law, saying that Christianity descendantsown the Constitution of this country. We to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and

establish this Constitution, said the Founding Fathers.


11/31

11

3. Upside down LogicsIn every country, the constitution, if a country has one, is supposedly the topmost political

document. It is there only to guarantee certain principles. The principles, of course, are toguarantee how to distribute interest, rights, and responsibilities between people. Typically, for

example, the Communist Manifesto is not a law document but it preaches the principle ofexclusive power for the Communists. Then all countries adopting socialism must have itsconstitution to guarantee this principle of exclusive power. Another example is the constitutionfound in an Islamic country. Openly declaring or not, the constitution of an Islamic country mustguarantee the Muslims a government of the Koran, by the Koran, and for the Koran. All theseprinciples are of religious nature; none of them is secular, or religion free. All these principles ofreligious nature are the soul of the corresponding constitutions.

Contrasting to all other constitutions that must have their own soul, can the AmericanConstitution stand by itself without soul? But why should the American Constitution onlydeserve no soul while everyone else must have their own? A constitution is nothing else but a

mental product where concentrate the wisdom and intelligence of a big group of people, so anyconstitution must have a soul. Since the US Constitution is a mental product, like any otherconstitution, it must have its own soul. How can a soul be depleted from the AmericanConstitution? If the Declaration of Independence of America had never emerged in history, noone can dream of the ever existing of the American Constitution as it is read today. Therefore, ifone needs to empty the soul from the US Constitution, he needs to remove the Declaration ofIndependence. Conversely, to find the soul of the US Constitution, people can only look into theDeclaration of Independence but nowhere else.

The Declaration of Independence has a bold statement: We hold These Truths to be self-evident. By nature, holding anything to be self-evident is a firm, unchallengeable religiousexpression of faith. Based only on the idea of holding something to be self-evident, a personclaiming 1+1=3 and a person claiming 1+1=2 would have equal legitimacy. To have one ofthem to prevail over the other, certain form of convincing power must present. With the samefirm religious nature in expressing faith, Muslims can have a parallel statement that reads Wehold Koran to be self-evident. The Communists can also have expression equivalently read asWe hold exclusive power to be self-evident. Of course, wild animals, if they can ever speak,they can also have equivalent statement as We hold survival of the fittest to be self-evident.While the Declaration of Independence is not a law document today, what it held to be self-evident and what it demanded as support were the reasons for the American Constitution toappear. Therefore, the principles stressed with religiously confident faith in the Declaration arethe soul of the US Constitution.

Although the Declaration of Independence is not a law document today, it did serve theAmerican people with certain law function in the past in this land. Before the AofC could act asa law, it was this Declaration that rendered the legitimacy and power to American people to fightagainst the British King. It rendered the legitimacy and power to arm a troop for the Americanpeople. It rendered the legitimacy and power to a group of people to collect wealth from thepopulous to support the military action and other agendas. Without such lawfulness from theDeclaration being seen, some historians may possibly still term George Washington with a title


12/31

12no better than a chief of bandits. Encoding the political soul of this nation, enabling the severalstates to act like a sovereign nation in some manner for a period, the Declaration ofIndependence of America is the motherly document for this country by any measure.

Unfortunately, however, to quite a few of people today, they feel that time has come to an era

for them to strip off the reverence from this motherly document. A big number of eggheads tryto shovel down into peoples throat that the Declaration of Independence is merely a letter to theBritish King. With their academic training, they seem not even aware of that the Declaration hasno part expressing you like any letter. It plainly presents itself as a document ofannouncement hammered down with a gavel. To the least, it is a verdict of death sentence to theKings ruling on this land, not to mention it then announced the potential advent of anunprecedentedly new style of community in human history. These people so degrade theDeclaration for a purpose. If the Declaration lost its political supremacy, these people wouldhave faced one less road block in kneading the Constitution into a soulless document. They canthen sham in it a soul they choose without even needing to modify the Constitution. Indeed, ithas been this way for a while in America. Evolution replacing Christianity in the public schools

is one of the outstanding examples of soul shamming in wholesale scale. Constitution alone willnot tell people it is there to serve the lofty goal of all men created equal and to tell people topledge mutually their life, fortune, and honor for the support of this goal. The successfulremoval of the supremacy of the Declaration can create ignorance about the ideological sourcethat legitimates the goal and demands the pledge. In their speculation, the Constitution iseasily perceived as a religion free document. The First Amendment even stands out to separatereligion, the teaching of Christianity, from the government; so thought they.

Is the Constitution really as religiously blind as portrayed by those who oppose Christianitybeyond understanding but for a purpose? Not the slightest trace! It is not the Constitution that isreligiously blind. The people who are truly blind are those who are unable to find the followingclause from the Constitution when reading it:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Dayof September in the Year of our Lordone thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven andof the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof Wehave hereunto subscribed our Names.

Some may blur the religious stance of the Declaration of Independence by saying that theterms Creator or divine Providence are not exclusively from Christianity. However, hemust accept that the year counting governed byour Lordshown in this clause is exclusively fromChristianity.

Subscribing their names underneath our Lord, each of the signers must find himself humbleand submissive to no one but the Supreme Being our Lord in the belief of Christianity. Withwords as shown, if a signer happened to have come from other belief, he would have herebymade himself submissive to our Lord in the belief of Christianity, meanwhile slighting hisoriginal belief. With this closing clause, the Constitution clearly tells people that all time on thisland is governed and granted by God, Our Lord. All events in this land must be witnessed andrecorded in the time ofOur Lord. Indeed, American Constitution can only decide that it should


13/31

13have been unconstitutional to record any official document in this land with BCE and CE inplace of BC and AD. The clause hereby quoted also delivers a crucial message about the cascadeof dominance in this land. The order should be this: first, Our Lord; second, (the Declaration of)Independence of the United States of America; third, the document on which In Witnesswhereof We have hereunto subscribed. Anyone who is submissive to the Constitution must be

submissive to this message, even if he equates the Declaration with merely a personal letter.

A person must have been intoxicated with upside down logic or he is trying to promoteupside down logic if he claims that the American government must be free of religion. How canthe American government be free of the US Constitution? And, as shown, how is theConstitution free of religion as theistic faith is so boldly embodied in it? He who degrades theDeclaration of Independence as a personal letter just tries to reinforce the upside down logic.


14/31

14

4. The Sole and Indisputable Ownership of the LandWith the belief the Founding Fathers held, they viewed the world to have only two sets of

beliefs: Christianity and non-Christianity. Just because the Founding Fathers allowed freedomof belief on this land, it does not mean that they allowed any one to deprive them of what they

believed. Just because a generous home owner allows the free access to his refrigerator by avisitor, it does not mean that a visitors hunger has first priority to be satisfied in his house. Withthe words found in the Declaration of Independence, the AofC, the Constitution, Christianity isthe indisputable homeowner of this land, and all other beliefs are visitors andlatecomers. Christianity is the only religion to receive official defense of the governmentaccording to the supreme law. When conflict arises between Christianity and non-Christianity,the conflict is to be smoothed in manners that the teaching of Christianity feels no threat. This isso demanded by the three most prestige documents on this land. Allowing matters to be solvedin other way is literally a religion persecution against the Founding Fathers. This can be easilyderived from simple examples. If any of the Founding Fathers had ever appeared in the ruin ofthe Twin Tower after the calamity of September 11, should his firm reliance on the protection

of divine Providence only allow him to utter J ihad or Allah is great? If he had uttered helpme God and gestured a sign of cross, must someone fire this Founding Father from signing theDeclaration of Independence because the U.S. Constitution sees the firing as proper?

In Section 1, we mentioned that by using the term our Posterity in the Constitution, theFounding Fathers have defined citizens of every generation in this country their politicaldescendants, and therefore followers of Christianity. With this clever term, the Founding Fathersliterally monopolized the spiritual purity of all citizens of every generation in this land throughthe supreme law. And the Supreme Law is established for their Christian posterity. Can anyoneimagine that some Christian parents will not bring their children to the church on the way goingto worship God, but instead, leave them at the doorstep of a mosque or a Buddhist temple? Orthe other way around, will an Islamic family leave their children to a church but on their way toworship Allah? Therefore, with the word posterity in the supreme law, the Founding Fathersaccepted only that all the future generations of citizens in this land would be unexceptionallyfrom one Christian family. Then, whatever blessing needed to be secured with the Constitutionwill be the heritage handed down from generation to generation but within one family, aChristian family. The heritage of course includes everything, the country, the government, thebelief, the culture, the educationcovered by this law.

Legally, if anyone wishes to be a follower of other belief while keeping the Americancitizenship, he should openly announce his intention and complete his wish through a certainlegal procedure of conversion. Unfortunately, however, this country does not seem ever havingprovided corresponding laws. This is a big missing-out in the American law body. Of course,on the other hand, neither does this country have law allowing free relinquishing the belief ofChristianity when a citizen accepts the blessing of the American citizenship. In other words, hewho accepts the protection of the US Constitution as an American citizen is accepting to bedefined as a Christian unless he specifically declines it with law procedure.

It is time for us to come to tally the ideological and legal accounts grounding this countryunder the sole ownership of Christianity.


15/31

15

Each citizens unalienable right, if he deserves to hold it, is granted by hisCreator. This nation must have firm reliance on the protection ofdivine Providence. This nations time is bestowed and governed byour Lord. Whatever blessing needed to be secured is for the Founding Fathers and their

posterity.

All the terms meaning the supernatural dominating in the three most prestigedocuments can only be matched with the supernatural figure from Christianity. The Constitution begins with the preamble of a Christianity statement, ends with the

religious timing source only found with Christianity documentation.

The Constitution is in so much awe of the sacred authority of Sabbath (Section 7,Article I) that the Sabbath can extend schedule of law making. Message from thepresident on that day must wait, suffering from less priority.

The Constitution has an independent clause pledging the unconditional inheritance ofthe AofC , which, through its Article III, obliges the American Government to defendChristianity.

All the three most prestige documents are signed by only Christianity followers butnobody else.

All these religiously ironclad doctrines enthrone Christianity with the sole ideological reignover the United States of America. Yes, it does not mean that nothing can be changed.However, if America is a country of law-reigning, the change can only happen after certain lawis changed but not before. On this issue, some people do attempt to legitimate a realityreformation without law changing but still camouflage themselves with law-abiding rhetoric.For their argument to change Americas religious nature from Christianity to non-Christianity,these reformists quote the Article 11 from the Treaty of Tripoli, which reads:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on

the Christian religion,as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws,religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],and as the said States never entered

into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by

the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an

interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

These peoples main point focuses on a castrated phrase America is not, in any sense,founded on the Christian religion. They also stress that this document received unanimousratification in the Congress. So doing, they have allowed the following missing-out to fail theirown purpose in big time.

(a) A treaty serving foreign affairs is a strategy for a country; it therefore must besubmissive to the doctrines that guide a nation in both domestic affair and foreignaffair.

(b) Whatever affirmed in a treaty can only bind the member countries that sign the treaty,not necessarily universally applicable to any other country that has nothing to do withthe treaty. This is what strategy is about and it is what politics only allows.


16/31

16(c) Treaty of Tripoli automatically perished as one of its only two beneficiaries already

vanished with a fact that the vanished beneficiary did not appoint heir.(d) The more complete statement that the reformists castrate is the Government of

the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.It is so unfortunate to them that no one can find this statement written as the

Country of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on theChristian religion. As everybody knows, government is not the entirety of a country,which has far more social components than a government.

To these reformists quoting the Treaty of Tripoli, it is so unbelievable that, if not for apurpose, they would miss the second Treaty of Tripoli. Superseding the first one, the secondone, signed at Tripoli Jun 4, 1805 had its Article 14 in place of the Article 11 of the first one.Article 14 of the second one reads:

As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character ofenmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States

never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any MahometanNation

In this statement, the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" appearingin the first one is left out. Someone from America drafting the second one detected the necessityof dropping out this phrase! Indeed, at this point we cannot help to ask again the same questionwe already previously ask. How can the American government be free of the US Constitutionand how can the Constitution have been free of faith that is religiously emboldened in all thethree most prestige documents? The clear fact is that, without these three documents, the UnitedStates of American would not have been on Earth. With these three documents, the FoundingFathers have placed this country in the hand of the Christians. Nothing can change it.


17/31

17

5. Misread on the First AmendmentNo word from the three most prestige documents ever mentions to separate the US

government from Christianity, not even to mention to separate this country from Christianity.Almost the only source of law that may arouse the dream of separation for some people is the

First Amendment, which, being not a part of the original text of the Constitution, so states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise thereof

This simply says Congress will not exert power overestablishment of religion. It then rejectsanyones dream that the Congress can exercise no power over religion! Religion andestablishment of religionare not equal, they are different.

As a law, does the First Amendment play any role intending to force the Founding Fathers topolitically and ideologically disown their Posterity? No is the firm answering! If our Posterity

faces no discount of political value from new law carrying the weight as a constitution,Christianity as one of the qualities of an Americans citizenship stands untouchable. Then,Christianity needs no more law to earn respect, and no law can prohibit it at any extend either.

About the time of the establishment of the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers sawonlyone religion overwhelming this land: Christianity. No evidence showed that this amendmentwas devised because of the existence of and possible interference from Islam, Buddhism, orSocialism. Their view of a single religion reining this land was further evidenced by thestatement in the original Constitution: no religious Test shall ever be required as aQualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. With the politicalsurrounding they felt confident of, they had good reason to assume that everyone allowed to

preside over the office was their posterity and therefore a Christian. Requirement ofreligiousTest not only became redundant, but it also improperly hinted a candidate possible religiondenouncing, or even betrayal, before taking the office.

In their era, the Founding Fathers had no concern if the government power would besnatched by any religion like Muslim, Buddhism, and evolutionother than Christianity. Whatthey were concerned with was the possible polarized dominance of government power by someparticular branches or denominations within Christianity. The First Amendment on the religionissue was to prevent such power polarization from forming. Because of this concern, thisamendment was not found with a single word religion in place of a phrase establishment ofreligion. In other words, in the political landscape they projected, religion was of only one,

while establishment of religion was of many. The Founding Fathers are great politicians, but notprophets. They could not predict how they would be betrayed and abused by some futuregenerations. Indeed, it may even be out of their imagination that someone inheriting themagnificent country they created would betray them at all.

The First Amendment is a law to secure the harmony of co-existence of all different groupsof posterity holding different understanding about the Bible. It is not a law to provide reason forpeople to disrespect Christianity. Neither is it a law providing reason for people to cleanseChristianity from inside the US government. The First Amendment did not hinder Lincoln from


18/31

18invoking the gracious favor of Almighty God. But the teaching from Christianity did enableLincoln to be the same president telling the nation with malice toward none, with charity forall at the dawn of a huge victory. Because of Lincolns benevolence to humans nurtured byChristianity, this nation escaped a potential calamity caused by persecution that political revengemust encourage. History does not give us too many examples that victor would not exert

revenge on the conquered. Lincolns Christian faith provides such a rare and extraordinaryexample. Contrasting to what Lincoln could do, Christianity becomes a straitjacket to allgovernment workers today because of the contortion on the First Amendment. The USgovernment nowadays has flooded with religions of non-Christianity, among which Socialism isthe most typical one. What people can see today is the more and more madly enforcement ofmalice toward the successful, with charity for all losers through fair share of tax and abusivewelfare programs. Some descendants of those long gone slaves even menacingly swear toavenge today. Indifferently, their target is at all those people who look like in the same race asthe slave owners who have also been long gone. The Socialist idea makes them so happy toignore that far bigger number of people in the same race as the slave owners sacrificed their lifeto remove the slave owners for their fore-parents and subsequently for them as well.

Except a few amendments, the US Constitution has stayed the same for more than twohundred years. That the supreme law must stay the same is even officially guaranteed every fouryears by the Presidents oath. However, in less than two and a half centuries of dominance ofthe same Constitution, America has dramatically evolved. From a vigorously creative country,America has become a country with a big population whose business is earnestly waiting for orprofessionally forcing handout from the government. Along with this change is a population ofnear all Christians to a population of around 70% of Christians today. People must wonder whathas made the evolvement possible while the supreme law stays essentially unchanged. Theanswer is the successful contortion forced on the First Amendment by some people. The key forthe success of the contortion is an equal sign shammed between establishment of religion andreligion. Before the contortion became legitimated, Lincoln could invoke the gracious favor ofAlmighty God. After the contortion successfully stays, one Nation under God becomesoffensive in our public schools. The equal sign confuses peoples understanding on twodifferent political entities. In the mud of confusion, some people effortlessly force the idea thatthe First Amendment is a law separating the religion from a state, and they then quietly glueSocialism with the government. Socialism is an ideology glamorizing governmental robbery forthose who have power to control the government. But the American government is one thatderives its just Power from the Consent of the Governed. Political steering by handoutrecipients is then so easily realized.

Can the separationists, who insist the separation between religion and state, answer what theFounding Fathers portray as religion?

When the First Amendment was debut, Communist Manifesto was something in thefuture. Telling people that Christianity was no better than opium, Marx had many statementssternly placing Christianity at the target to receive his venomous loathing. Vowing to win theworld through violence, Marxs Communist Manifesto tied Christianity and bourgeoisie togetherin the list to be executed. Had the Communist Manifesto emerged in America when theFounding Fathers drew the First Amendment, would they still make no law prohibiting the


19/31

19free exercise of the religion of Socialism? This is of course what the modern separationistsfervently long for happening but impossible for the Founding Fathers to accept. Any faithopenly challenging their faith all men are created equal by their Creator is to make itself anenemy to the Founding Fathers.

Even to some religious activity going on under a symbol of Cross, the Founding Fathers maynot stay idle and make no law prohibiting the free exercise. At their time, had somethingsimilar to what happened in Jonestown and Waco, no one can tell the Founding Fathers not toprohibit the activity there because of the First Amendment. Neither can anyone tell them that, ifthey had interfered with armed action, they would have jeopardized the entire religion ofChristianity. If they would choose to be idle while facing all these events, they must have chosento betray their own vows they wrote in Article III of the AofC. Therefore, the power overreligion is unseen in the First Amendment. Its power only focuses on some individual materialunit, or the so called an establishment, not spiritually on a religion. Government actionempowered by the First Amendment cannot go beyond individual establishment. As to religion,Christianity has been enthroned in America by the US supreme law! Nobody can slightly dent it.

If the First Amendment is to check the entire religion, it must first make itself powerfulenough to obscure the first clause in Article VI of the original Constitution. Then, of course,Article III of the Aof C is paralyzed. The First Amendment has not even a slightest suggestionto endorse the separation of religion and the state. When the modern separationists insist such aseparation, they never apply the same idea between partisan politics and government. Instead,they engulf themselves with the zeal of infiltrating the government with the party they choose.Partisan politics in America is the biggest scale of hypocrisy against the First Amendment. If agroup of people cannot dominate the government with the Christianity faith, why can a group ofpeople holding other faith dominate the government? Where is the law for the discrimination?Applying the First Amendment but exercising the power it never has is openly unconstitutional.Americans have allowed such open thief of constitutionality for too long. The thief of

constitutionality veiled under the equal sign between establishment of religion and religion hasdamaged America big, economically, ideologically, morally and culturally.

A political party, theistic or appearing as atheistic, is just simply a people assemblysupporting the same mindset, or belief. The particular faith inside any party just works the sameway in parallel to those doctrines working inside the theist religions. Believing atheism itself is areligion because it is an unchallengeable doctrine to those who reject any theistic figure, in spiteof evidence, question, and logic presented by others. Probably in our time no one would arguethat Mr. Stephen William Hawking is one of the most pronounced natural scientists in theworld. His more and more apparent atheist attitude has enabled him to declare that he is "notreligious in the normal sense". This just means that he has been religious in some special

sense. On the one hand, he suggested the existence of God was unnecessary to explain the originof the universe in the bookThe Grand Design. On the other hand, in some TV interview, hestressed that "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself fromnothing. A universe is created from nothing! Dont the atheists represented by Hawking justspell the name of God, the Creator, with only different letters?

In the US supreme law, no one can find any statement suggesting atheistic faith with morepolitical supremacy over theistic faith. Assuming entitlement of government power by the


20/31

20quality of being rational and secular is an aggressively preemptive robbery of power. It is a sternchallenge to the Founding Fathers, placing their Christian posterity under the power of those whoare against Christianity. If Lincoln lived today, he must be victimized by this power robbery,making himself in violation of the First Amendment. Isnt openly violating the supreme law areason for impeachment?

As soon as people group together to look for interest, they already destine and biasthemselves with a faith. They must lose rationality here and there, making them themselvesimpossible to be secular. When one group of people thinks they are rational and secular, peopleholding opposite idea must judge otherwise. Simply, between pro-choice and pro-life, which ismore rational and secular? Between supporting death penalty and abolishing death penalty,which is more rational and secular? Is allowing buying suffrages with government money morerational and secular than buying suffrage with private fund? Or more directly to the bottom line,why the quality of being rational and secular can take it for granted to dominate the government?Who controls the measure of such quality? What we can see is that, wearing a tag of beingrational and secular, some people have made the First Amendment into a political revolving doorof nearly all the government buildings. They bar certain religion, Christianity in particular, from

entering, but then abusively let in other religions, such as Socialism and evolution to fill in thevacuum thus left behind. Unfortunately, the brainwashing riding on the contortion of the FirstAmendment has been tremendously successful for the modern separationists. The contortion hasmade a big number of American youth misunderstand that infiltrating the government with non-Christian religion being essential to democracy. All this infiltration has been more and moredragging our Congress to do what the First Amendment objects. It is even seen that Islamshonor killing law gets endorsement in some of our courts, the courts handed down by theChristian Founding Fathers!

The word establishment in the First Amendment is not capitalized. It therefore cannot evenmean a large collection of authority. Before the adoption of the First Amendment, all nouns in

the three most prestige documents were capitalized. Only few years later, the same grammaticalusage stopped even in law documents as important as the Bill of Right. Instead ofEstablishmentof Religion, we read establishment of religion in the First Amendment. The Founding Fathermust have considered the difference that may surface up whether establishment had beencapitalized or not. Without the letter ebeing capitalized, an establishment of religion may meana branch, a denomination, a sect, or a church but will not mean the entirety of a religion. If theFounding Fathers must mean a religion, they could have used a concise single word religion inplace ofan establishment of religion. They were not low educated rednecks but outstandingpoliticians who published the Declaration of Independence, a document that has immeasurablyinfluenced the world for centuries to come.

Not capitalized, the phrase an establishment of religion stressed a world of materials,including something such as altars, costumes, symbols, buildings, rituals, offering, and people.The word religion stressed something in spiritual world, such as mindset, idea, belief, dogmas,faith, and the soul. Although the recognition of a religion must rely on something from thematerial world, the materials thus used are not an exact replica of a religion. A particular treestump may mean a lot from the superstition world to a certain local people, but a visitor may justsee it no more than a stump until he is told about its sacred loftiness. On the other hand, thevisitor may have been told about the sacred belief dominating the local people but he may not


21/31

21have been able to relate it with some particular tree stump until he is shown. Therefore, anestablishment of religion and a religion are two different political entities. Taking anestablishment of religionasreligion is as ridiculous as taking an embalmed tiger as a live tiger.

If the First Amendment must have power to rule over religion, it would have to denounce allreligious terms from residing in the three most prestige documents, especially the original text ofthe US Constitution of 1787. Venerating the Sabbath, how the original text of the USConstitution of 1787 is not the topmost document violating the First Amendment?Emancipation and the Speech of Gettysburg Address must altogether be condemned and scrapedbecause they rely on God to call on the people. If all these became real according to the ideas ofthose secular defenders of our Constitution, the country called the United States of Americamust prepare for her new fate. According to them, this country has never earned legality toexist, because the US supreme law is permanently in violation with the FirstAmendment and this amendment is empowered to remove the supreme law.

Truly, separating government and religion can prevent the government from being dominatedor even abducted by a religion. However, the separation should only be limited to the exercising

of governmental power. It cannot extend to separating ideology from what a governmentpursues to satisfy. As previously pointed out, no ideological world of any country can escapefrom being filled with this kind or that kind of faith, belief, and religion. No one can create avacuum. Anyone claiming he can create an ideological vacuum is only to prepare space forcertain faith to move in, purposely or not. Indeed, it is exactly what has happened in Americatoday. Those who veil themselves being secular are madly paving the way for Socialism orsome other non-Christian religions, such as Islam, evolution. To them, any ideology works, solong as it can entrap Christianity with mayhem. What they diligently chase after is to make theFirst Amendment read asCongress shall make no law respecting Christianity, or prohibiting thefree exercise of anti-Christianity.

If an equal sign can be shammed between establishment of religion and religion, letsquestion if people can remove the difficulty caused by the shamming. Why the word religion inArticle III of the AofC and in Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is not written asestablishment ofreligion? Why does the First Amendment have establishment of religion in its text but notreligion? The difficulty is solid. Replacing religion with establishment of religionwould makeArticle 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli a statement of nonsense. Replacing religion withestablishment of religion in Article III of the AofC is to make reason calling on civil war.Replacing establishment of religion with only religion in the First Amendment will make thisamendment a lamed duck until it is also furnished with the power to remove any religiousexpression including Article VI in the text of the Constitution. Therefore the laws themselvesprovide unchallengeable evidence rejecting the existence of an equal sign between religion and

establishment of religion.

Logic, legality, history, and rhetoric all forbid us from understanding the First Amendment asa law that can sanction religion. Let no one humiliate and persecute the Founding Fathers withcontortion on the ideas that the Founding Fathers left behind.


22/31

22It is clear that even the First Amendment promises no power to sanction religion. No one

should have power from any part of the Constitution to expel Christianity from our publicschools but to install evolution there. Doing so, someone is satisfying the demand fromestablishment of non-Christian religion with a power no one can lawfully find from anywhere.The unconstitutional act then converts our schools into establishment of religion of anti-

Christianity. If America is truly a law-abiding country, the Congress should immediately consultexperts on Christianity teaching regarding how to reinstate the reverence of Christianity in thepublic schools. America has excellent tradition to respect thoughtful ideas. If evolution does nothave open words provoking the removal of God, people feel dear about Christianity would haveno problem to tolerate its existing in the same school in the name of science study.


23/31

23

6. Genuine Separation Between Government and Faith

How genuine and sincere is the separation in the mind of those modern separationist whopromote the separation between religion and government? The way to find out is simple. Just

ask whether they would support the following idea: Before each government employee,including all elected legislators, assumes the office, he must take oath to disassociate himselfwith any nongovernmental organization, atheist and theist. The dissociation will forbid thecandidate and the organization from benefiting each other in any way. This will not violate noreligious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under theUnited States. The reason for not violating is simple. (1) The oath will not require thecandidate to testify what organization he has been from or associated with. (2) The oath will notask him to give up what ideology he feels sacred to him or accept what he wants to keep adistance. (3) Without touching his belief, the oath only asks him to cut off any mutual supportbetween himself andany non-governmental organization. If the modern separationists believethe doctrine they get from Socialism, evolution, Party A, Party B, Party C are not religious,

they have no reason to decline this idea. Within a certain period after the government employeeleaves the office, the same oath would further forbid him from taking part in any activity held byany non-governmental organization. The only exception for this oath is for a governmentemployee going to church, and church only, on Sunday. This is the privilege the Sabbath gives tothe government employee according to the Supreme Law. But even so, the employee cannotattend any management gathering of the church or give public address in behalf of the church. Isthere any way better than this to keep the government from being dominated by anyestablishment of religion, theist and atheist?

No word from the US Constitution says that it forbids political party from controlling agovernment office. Neither does it have word to legitimate such controlling. Any doctrine thatany organization holds as unchallengeable is of religious nature. Any political party must haveits own unchallengeable doctrine. Therefore, any political party is an establishment of religion,theistic or atheistic. With the US Constitution, any number of people holding any belief canform political party to compete peacefully for a government office. However, with the words asshown, the Constitution would value an establishment of Christianity with higher legitimacy incontrolling the same. The veneration found in the US Constitution toward Christianity allows noone to discriminate Christianity with unfavorable terms.

If someday a party in America openly titles itself with Christian terms, what law will makethis party less lawful than the Republican Party or Democratic Party in competing for the sameoffice? Barring this party bearing a Christian title from competing for government office is anexact violation of the First Amendment. If a candidate aims for a government office with an ideaof realizing what God teaches, how is his action different from what Lincoln did in principle?Article VI in the US Constitution and subsequently Article III in the AofC fully guarantee hisright in so doing. When a Christian establishment feels the doctrine from Christianity havingbeen threatened by some non-Christian establishment, the US government must take action toremove such threat. The First Amendment may not have power to remove the non-Christianestablishment, but the non-Christian establishment must adjust its expression or behavior to asave level according to law.


24/31

24In American history, there are three big waves of separationists. The first wave is a classic

one, represented by people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The second wave appearsduring the Civil War, promoting separation on issue that has very little to do with theisticreligion. Therefore this second wave will not be in our discussion in this article. The third one isthe modern one. In the name of separating religion from the state, what the third wave of

separationists looks for is actually to crush Christianity.

While the first wave of separationists tried to install a political wall between the church andstate, they did not denounce Christianity. They themselves were Christians. Thomas Jeffersonaffirmed his believing the existence of Almighty God who created the humans body and freemind. Whatever religion some modern separationists try to label him with, his words fullyvenerated a Creator who was theholy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body andmind. If no one can identify the holy author in his mind with a supernatural figure from otherreligion, such as Islam, Buddhism, Socialism, the holy author in his understanding can only befrom Christianity. Madison, revered as the father of the US Constitution, is an Episcopalian.What he pursued in his separation between church and the state is purity other than persecution

against any religion. In his word, religion and government will exist in greater purity, without(rather) than with the aid of government. The modern separationist is not anywhere near hislofty vision.

Nevertheless, what Jefferson and Madison said was their opinion, not law, no matter howinfluencing their idea may have been. Whatever their influence could have reached in theassembly of the Founding Fathers, such influence must have met influence from others. All suchinfluences condensed together to form the Supreme Law. In other words, the Supreme Law weread today contains the wills directed by more than one idea. No any individuals will can carrythe weight heavier that what the law allows. We cannot tell whether the first clause of Article VIbeing a result of compromise or being a common ground all Founding Fathers felt the need to layfor this country. Whatever it is, it comes out as an unconditional pledge inheriting the Articles ofthe Confederation. With their superior mastering in law and rhetoric, it is impossible forpoliticians like Jefferson and Madison to have missed how Article VI in the Constitution wouldcontinue to vitalize the AofC. Rather, it is even more possible that they especially enactedArticle VI to continue to vitalize the AofC. They needed to go one step ahead that in the futureno one could present reason to humiliate the religion of Christianity in the name of separatingreligion and state. If neither of these considerations was the reason for the appearance of ArticleVI, the reason could only be that the will of the group insisting Article VI prevailed. The endresult was that every Founding Father accepted the first clause of Article VI as an indispensablepart of the supreme law and handed it down to their posterity.

For the purpose of the modern separationists, they try to contort what the Founding Fatherssaid in any way the separationists feel fit, including even to bleach the religion background of theFounding Fathers. While failing to find any support from the Constitution, the separationistslimited the debt and engagement in Article VI to mean treaties with foreign countries. In sodoing, they conveniently convert the US governments responsibility of defending Christianityinto persecuting Christianity. Threatening to fire a football player for praying before each of hisgame is only a small incident of persecution comparing to forcing evolution in the entire publicschool system. Today, the US public academic establishments have become establishments of


25/31

25religion of anti-Christianity. The religion in these establishments worships a Creator ofNothingness for the universe, survival of the fittest, and fairness without proper contribution.The final goal of this third wave of separationists is to enable individuals interest to prevail overa nations interest. Their end effect is to help someone to build the strength in grabbing thepower of this nation. Conspiracy? You bet!


26/31

26

7. Ownership of the Government

No human can escape from flesh desire. If every human being can only listen to this animal

instinct in making decision, only the rule of jungles would govern our civilization. To have agenuine civilized society, we need morality to restrain each persons animal instinct. For this,the Founding Fathers chose the set of morality from the teaching of Christianity for them and fortheir posterity. Their wisdom led them to have devised through the Constitution a politicalmachine with populous voting. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their justpowers from the Consent of the Governed, so thought they with their devising. Unfortunately,the message of morality from the ballot box is not always clear. For example, a propositionof raise or lower property tax may make the property owners and tenants to form good allies atthe poll, but a proposition of rent control may distance them apart widely at the poll, too.

The morality a government displays is only as good as how the population being ruled can

herd it. Nearly every politician must surrender to one moral code: to get more power. To getmore power, he must speculate. Almost all those being ruled, or the voters in all Westerncountries, must also obey one moral code: to get better interest. At where populous voting isavailable, to get better interest, a voter will choose a politician who makes speculation in thevoters behalf. All these kinds of moral codes have their roots from animal instinct. In America,if all these kinds of moral codes are not refrained by Christianity teaching during ballot casting,the voters just herd the government to satisfy more animal instincts. The result must be thatcorruption opposed by people in normal sense earns legal halo to dominate our society. Typicalexample is some politicians buying suffrages with government money through the abusivewelfare system. Another one is their earning ballot counts through compromising law, land, andsovereignty of a nation to the formidable troops of unarmed invaders. In other words, publicvoting alone cannot be an effective political tool to rein the government unless the posteritythemselves can rein their own decision with teaching of Christianity.

How is the Christian reining to be measured and by whom? For this, the posterity of theFounding Fathers are in need of an institution to monitor how well the government has defendedChristianity. The preamble of the US Constitution strictly defines the ownership of theAmerican government to the posterity of the Christian Founding Fathers. The institution mustconsist of people of firm believer of Christianity, with branch or denomination background beingirrelevant. Such institution should be powerful enough to monitor the working behavior (but notthe working details) of all government employees and present such information to the public.When the institution finds an employees working behavior intolerable, the institution canrecommend, and recommend only, certain government office to take action. However, thisinstitution would have no power to interfere any government policy making, governments dailyoperation, and officer installing or removal, except the following one. If an incumbent officer,Congressmen alike, looks for another term that is permissible by law for the same office, and ifthe institution finds satisfaction from his working record, this institution should be able to ask thelegislature to provide fund for him to launch election campaign. This power is provided on theassumption, as mentioned in section 6, that each elected government employee has taken oath tohave himself dissociated with any nongovernmental organization. However, this institution


27/31

27cannot suggest new candidate to any office. Because of the absence of an institution similar towhat is hereby suggested, the US government just has gotten used to a free will not to listen to itsowner, the Christian Founding Fathers posterity. Instead, the government has more and morelistened to outcry of flesh desire. The poll has been more and more bought out by groups ofspecial interest. So many people have complained about the influence of lobbyists. No one can

effectively curb the influence of lobbyists until the posterity have their own institution and areable to force the oath to dissociate every government employee from non-governmentalorganization.

Who can form such institution? Believers of Christianity, of course! Each member of thisinstitution may be voted into the office by a population of Christians or be drafted to enter thisinstitution similar to jury duty. All members forming such institution can only serve one term ina life time; each term must have year limit. All members forming this institution must also takeoath to dissociate themselves from any political party, organization, club, but only to retainhis/her Christian identity and the privilege going to church on Sunday.

How will this institution attain the power? Frankly, the documents for such an institution toform and to attain such power have been in our law for full 234 years. It is up to how much theposterity of this generation is willing to flex their muscle. On any piece of land owned by, orunder the jurisdiction of, the American governments of all level, the free exercise of Christianityshould face no legal confrontation but full escort of law. It is so pledged by the Constitution.The formation of the institution may involve with the drafting of a new amendment and takessome time. But the following issues should deserve immediate attention from the government.

1. All legal decisions infringing the free exercise of Christianity should be re-valuatedaccording to the pledge found in the first clause of Article VI of the Constitution. Amongall these re-evaluations, restoring the right of free exercise of Christianity in the publicschools should have top priority. Even up to today, the public schools are still supportedby tax money mostly from Christians.

2. No legal decision on any allegation about religion discrimination over other belief shouldbe and can be made against the teaching of Christianity. Any such decision but againstChristianity is a religion attack that is intolerable by the pledge made by the Constitution.Other than that, however, when an actual crime is committed, no one can have preferencefrom law regardless of his religious background.

Of course, it must be unimaginable that no one would place obstacle in front of the followersof Christianity in the course of restoring their dignity in this nation. If the Christians continue tostay divided, they just continue to allow their ownership of the government as well as thiscountry to be usurped. They either let Gods teaching prevail or let other teaching prevail overthe teaching of their God, there is no third choice. Unfortunately to the Christians, allowingother teaching to prevail only means the ultimate loss of their country. The Founding Fatherscreated a magnificent country for their posterity. It is the sacred responsibility of this generationto relay the same to the future posterity of their own as well as the Founding Fathers. We mustfeel heartbroken if we ever know that any of our future generation in this land, while biting lipswith tear held back in eyes, needs to stare the following statues getting scrapped into museum of


28/31

28history, or worse, trash dump: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, J ohnKennedy, Ronald Reaganand finally, Statue of Liberty!


29/31

29

8. Matter of Reverence

Respect is the key for any law to have truly any weight of law; without respect, no law islaw.

In many superstitious rituals, a piece of stone, or a tree stump, or an animal can be read withunlimited law messages by people who are faithful to a particular superstition, casting theirrespect to the object they consider sacred.

Communist Manifesto has not been taken as law in any country. However, openlydenouncing it is a punishable crime in any Socialist country.

All power to the Soviet is only one sentence from Lenin. However, this sentence toweredover any law in Russia in those days that Communism pounded on that land.

Every word from Chairman Mao is truth; One sentence from Chairman Mao weighs morethan one myriad of sentences (from others). Objecting to these claims or objecting to whatChairman Mao said could easily lead one to death penalty in the red land of China when hewas alive.

Without one word changed, but with respect being washed away, beginning Dec. 25, 1991,the same law body of the Soviet Union was in the trash dump. The same law body, however,once backed a small group of people to devout tens of millions of lives at will since Nov 7, 1917.

Freedom of speech, rally, press, and peaceful assembly is recorded as all citizens right tobe guaranteed in every Socialist countrys constitution. Without backing power fromanywhere, anyone insisting such right in any of these countries is committing a crime, which canbe easily associated with treason in some cases. Law just ironically works in opposite directionwhen respect is also displayed in opposite direction. The power that puts up such stipulatedrights is only to make the promise a trap door to entrap its prospective enemies.

No document should have been more venerated than Declaration of Independence of theUnited States in America. Without the support of the firm reliance on the protection of divineprovidenceshe provides, no one canhold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are createdequal Unfortunately, some people of special ambition have been able to manipulate thisdocument to be regarded as only a personal letter. Together with the contortion of the FirstAmendment, the act of degrading the Declaration gradually chips away the ideologicalprominence of Christianity in this country. More and more Americans have developed adelusion that everything they enjoy comes from the Constitution and Constitution only. Notonly those ambitious people have reversed the seniority between a mother document and adaughter document in law sequence, but they also sham in their lies in the name of defending theConstitution. Their lie portrays that the Constitution has destined this country with no nature ofChristianity. If their lie can further succeed, they would eventually realize their conspiracy ofcomplete purge of the reverence that Christianity deserves according to law. Reverence of


30/31

30Christianity removed, the current Constitution must be threatened, risked, or even scraped for ithas too many words and ideas rooting in Christianity.

No matter how the liars lie, the Constitutions preamble stands firm on that every generationof posterity in this land first comes from a big Christian family before each of them comes from

anywhere else.

In modern days, can anyone find himself more convincing than President AbrahamLincoln? If not, then let us all be submissive to his teaching.

if you have been taught doctrines conflicting with the great landmarks of theDeclaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take awayfrom its grandeur, and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have beeninclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rightsenumerated by our chart of liberty, let me entreat you to come back. Return to thefountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the Revolution. Think nothing of me

take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoeverbut come back to thetruths that are in theDeclaration of Independence.

do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity, the Declaration of AmericanIndependence. (Senate contest speech on Aug. 17, 1858 in Lewistown, Illinois)

If an American citizen considers him having a right guaranteed by the Constitution, Lincolntold him that the spiritual source of the right is from the Declaration of Independence of theUnited States. Only if the morality found in Christianity is adequately empowered to herd thepoliticians can the posterity expect to have a government of the people, by the people, and for thepeople. Without that, neither the voters can restrain their politicians nor will the politicians

restrain themselves. All of them, voters and politicians alike, will only look for the short termsatisfaction on power and interest urged by human greed, an animal instinct, leaving behind forthe posterity a government of the power, by the power, and for the power.

The might of a coalition aiming at crushing Christianity is mounting daily. Unless Christiansare able to form a more consolidated union on time, they may eventually lose their power inresisting the attack from such a hostile coalition. Must the Christians end up disappointing theirGod and their Founding Fathers? The task to form a more perfect Union once called on theFounding Fathers, now it comes to

USA Is A Nation of Christianity―It Is The Law!

Documents