The Deception Of The U.S. Constitution

Richard Anthony

The founders of America (the Puritans) intended to establish a new world, they intended to create a "city on a hill," a society governed by God’s Law, giving glory to God, and spreading the gospel across the globe. The original intent of the settlers and founders of the New World was to form a Godly nation. In order to make sure that the Government would foster Christ’s teachings and not atheism, it was prohibited for any but the followers of Christ to hold political office. (If you want to create a Godly society, such a requirement only makes sense).

Godly Leaders for a Godly Nation

In the Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643, it begins with the following, "The Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of the Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut, and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith: Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and whereas in our settling (by a wise providence of God) we are further dispersed upon the sea coasts and rivers than was at first intended, so that we can not according to our desire with convenience communicate in one government and jurisdiction..."

The Delaware constitution of 1776 established a Godly State by requiring, in Art. 22: Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust . . . shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: "I ________, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scripture of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration." Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776), 1 Del. Code Ann. 117 (Michie, 1975). Commended by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 at 469-70, 12 S.Ct. 511 at 516 (1892). The Constitutions of All the States According to the Latest Amendments, Lexington: Thomas T. Skillman, 1817, p. 181, cited in D. Barton, The Myth of Separation, 23 (6th ed., 1992).

In other words, only followers of Christ could hold any public office under the Delaware constitution. Delaware's oath of office is called a "test oath." It requires the one swearing to affirm - either explicitly or implicitly - a particular religious belief. This was the case in virtually all of the states, in varying degrees of doctrinal specificity. It was done because the Bible was understood to require it. Legislators used to insert Biblical references in the margins of the statute books to prove the validity of their laws (For an example, see John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641," Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835 in 2 The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117, No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law").

Pennsylvania Frame of Government, Section 10. And each member [of the legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governour of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked, and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration." Sources and Documents Illustrating the American Revolution 1764-1788 and the Formation of the Federal Constitution, 166 (S. Morison, ed., 1923). Cited in Barton, Myth, p. 23.

In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court announced with pride that the purpose of the Founders of this land was "the establishment of the Christian religion," (Rector, etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S, 143 U.S. 457 at 466, 12 S.Ct. 511 at 514, 36 L.Ed. 226 (1892)) and this ideal was universally held. The men who signed the Constitution understood the Biblical requirements, and they acted in terms of them. Governments were established to spread the Faith.

VIRGINIA CHARTER, 1606: [Issued by King James I] "To make Habitation . . . and to deduce a colony of sundry of our People into that part of America commonly called Virginia . . . in propagating of Christian religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness . . . [to] bring . . . a settled and quiet Government." (Historical Collections: Consisting of State Papers and other Authentic Documents: Intended as Materials for an History of the United States of America, Ebenezer Hazard, ed. Philadelphia: T. Dobson, 1792, Vol. 1, p. 50-51; cited in Barton, page 84).

VIRGINIA CHARTER, 1609: "Because the principal Effect which we can desire or expect of the Action, is the Conversion …of the people in those Parts unto the true Worship of God and Christian Religion." (ibid page 85).

NEW ENGLAND CONFEDERATION, 1643: [Composed of Mass., Conn., New Plymouth, and New Haven] "We all came into these parts of America, with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Documentary Source Book of American History, 1606-1889, Wm McDonald, ed. NY: Macmillian, 1909, p. 32; cited in Barton, p. 88).

WILLIAM BRADFORD, 1647: [Referring to original Pilgrim intents] "[A] great hope & inward zeall they had of laying some good foundation, or at least to make some way therunto, for ye propagating & advancing ye gospell of ye kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of ye world." (Wm Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856, p. 24; cited in Barton, p. 86).

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." (John Jay, first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court).

Soon after settling, the Puritans began building great universities to educate young men who would propagate the Gospel; universities such as Harvard. University students were required to do the following:

HARVARD STUDENT PAMPHLET, (Rules for the Students, established by the University Administration) c. 1635:

"2. Let every Student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life, Joh.17.3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and Learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisedome, Let every one seriously set himselfe by prayer in secret to seeke it of him. Prov 2,3. 3. Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day, that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein." (Peter Mode, Sourcebook and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History, Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub. Co., 1921, p. 74-75; cited in Barton, p. 91. In 1796, according to David Barton, any Harvard student who doubted the inspiration of Scripture was to be expelled).

The example of New England is striking. The Statute Books of the Government were annotated with Biblical references to show that the laws of the State conformed to the Laws of God. (John Cotton, "An Abstract of the Laws of New England, as they are Now Established, Printed in London in 1641, Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1798); reprint of 1835 in 2 The" Journal of Christian Reconstruction 117, No. 2; Winter, 1975-76, "Symposium on Biblical Law").

NEW HAVEN COLONY LAW, 1644: "The judicial laws of God as they were delivered by Moses…[are to] be a rule to all the courts in this jurisdiction." (Russ Walton, Biblical Principles of Importance to Godly Christians, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1984, p. 356; Barton, p. 88).

NORTH CAROLINA CHARTER, 1662 (QUAKER): "Excited with a laudable and pious zeal for the propagation of the Christian faith . . . in the parts of America not yet cultivated or planted, and only inhabited by . . . people, who have no knowledge of Almighty God." (North Carolina History, Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed., Chapel Hill: Univ. of NC Press, 1934, 1956, p. 16; cited in Barton, p. 86).

RHODE ISLAND CHARTER, 1663: [Granted by King Charles II] "That they pursuing with peace and loyal mindes, their sober, serious and religious intentions . . . in the holy Christian faith . . . a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained grounded upon gospel principles." (David Barton, The Myth of Separation, p. 87).

The Biblical vision for society is not understood in our day because people in our day are utterly unfamiliar with this passionate desire to establish all people's action - including governments - on "gospel principles." Today there is a notion - as pervasive as it is heretical - that the "gospel" has nothing to do with Godly, law-abiding behavior.

NEW JERSEY SEAL, 1665: "Righteousness exalteth a nation." - Prov. 14:34

PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENT, 1682: " . . . Make and establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and civil liberty, in all opposition to all unchristian . . . practices." (Peter Mode, Sourcebook and Bibliographical Guide for American Church History, Menasha, WI: George Banta Pub. Co., 1921, p. 163; cited in Barton, p. 89).

PENNSYLVANIA'S FIRST LEGISLATIVE ACT, 1682: "Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the good of Mankind, is the reason and end of government, and therefore, government in itself is a venerable Ordinance of God, therefore, it is the purpose of civil government to establish such laws as shall best preserve true Christian and Civil Liberty, in opposition to all Unchristian, Licentious, and unjust practices, (Whereby God may have his due, and Caesar his due, and the people their due), from tyranny and oppression . . . ." (Charter to William Penn, and Duke of Yorke's Book of Laws (Harrisburg, PA: 1879). The Preamble and Chapter I of the Great Law can be found in, Remember William Penn: 1644-1944; (Harrisburg, PA: The William Penn Tercentenary Committee, 1944), pp. 85-86; cited in America's Christian History: The Untold Story, by Gary DeMar (Atlanta, GA. American Vision 1995), p. 77).

The Founders of this nation attempted to carve out a Gospel Garden out of a pagan wilderness. Two hundred years of flourishing charity, education, agriculture, science, and gospel preaching would rise up and totally denounce the view that Government is supposed to be neutral or secular.

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1776: [May 16, anticipating full-scale war with Britain] "The Congress . . . Desirous . . . to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely . . . on his aid and direction . . . Do earnestly recommend . . . a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life . . . and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness." (Journals of the Continental Congress at Vol 2, 1775, p. 192; cited in Barton, p. 103).

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1777: [Calling for a day of thanksgiving and prayer for the victory at Saratoga] "Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received . . . [to offer] humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot [our sins] out of remembrance . . . and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth 'in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.'" (Journals of the Continental Congress at Vol 18, p. 950; cited in Barton, p. 105).

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, 1780: [Concerning the discovery of Benedict Arnold as a traitor] "It is therefore recommended to the several states . . . a day of public thanksgiving and prayer . . . to offer our fervent supplications to the God of grace . . . to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread over all the earth." (Journals of the Continental Congress at Vol.18, pp. 950-951; cited in Barton, p. 106).

JOHN HANCOCK, 1783: [Massachusetts governor, proclaiming a day of thanksgiving for the war's end] "I do by and with the Advice of the Council appoint [11 Dec. 1783] to be religiously observed as a Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, that all the People may then assemble to celebrate . . . that he hath been pleased to continue to us the Light of the blessed Gospel; . . . That we also offer up fervent Supplications . . . to cause pure Religion and Virtue to flourish . . . and to fill the World with his glory." (Proclamation of John Hancock from Boston, November 8, 1783, from an original in the Evans collection, #18025, by the American Antiquarian Soc., cited in Barton, p. 107).

GEORGE WASHINGTON, 1783: [End of the war, to all state governors] "I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection . . . that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation." (George Washington, The Writings of Washington, Jared Sparks, ed. Boston: American Stationers' Co., 1838, Vol 18, p. 452, cited in Barton, p. 99).

U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1892: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian." (Holy Trinity Church v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892); cited by Barton, America's Godly Heritage, pp. 10-11).

U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1890: "The term 'religion' has reference to one's view of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose for reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. It is often confused with the cultus or form of worship of a particular sect, but it is distinguishable from the latter . . . . It was never intended or supposed that the [first] amendment could be invoked as a protection against the legislation for the punishment of acts inimicable to the peace, good order and morals of society . . . . However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation . . . . Probably never in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance." (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 341-42 (1890); as quoted in John W. Whitehead, The Second American Revolution, David C. Cook Publishing Co., 1982, pg. 221-3).

MARYLAND SUPREME COURT, 1799: "Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty." (Runkel v. Winemiller, 4 Harris and McHenry 276, 288 (Sup. Ct. Md. 1799); cited in Barton, p. 64).

The Puritans who founded this land defended Christian Theocracy and established Theocratic (God-honoring) systems of government. The idea that governments should allow God to rule (Theo-cracy) human society was ubiquitous. If Gary North is right and a Secular Humanist conspiracy attempted to overthrow this Christian consensus through Article VI of the Constitution, the First Amendment of the Constitution attempted to keep that from happening.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JOSEPH STORY on the First Amendment: "We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution) . . . Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to it . . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity [secularism], by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." (Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2:593-95; cited in The Second American Revolution, pg. 96, John W. Whitehead, 1982, David C. Cook Publishing Co. Also cited in The Myth of Separation, David Barton, p.32, Wallbuilders: Aledo, TX 76005).

All of these voices are summed up in the Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Holy Trinity Church v. U.S (1892). There is no other legitimate purpose for any human action than the advancement of the Kingdom of God. Patriotism (advancing the interests of a political coalition) is wrong; Humanism (advancing your own personal interests) is wrong; Satanism (advancing demonic interests) is wrong. Since all action runs to some purpose, if the purpose is not the building of God's Kingdom, then it is to build a rival Kingdom. There is no neutrality. The State cannot be impartial and non-religious.

The Deception of the US Constitution

The Constitutional convention began as a convention to suggest changes to the Articles of Confederation which would be reported back to that Congress and voted on by them (North, p. 379 and pp. 414-415), not to create a new form of government or a new constitution. From the beginning, there was little mention of building a Christian civil covenant. The issue of framing the Constitution was more one of balance of powers and how well the government would work than on whether or not to create a Christian civil covenant (Stanley N. Katz ,"The Origins of Constitutional Thought." (Journal of Church and State, Volume 3, 1969). What was foremost in the mind of the framers was not Christianity.

"The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, 'the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicalism the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety" (Jim Walker, Little Known U.S. Documents Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government is Secular, Early America Review, Summer 1997).

The Founders thought more of the idea of a secular state than how to please God (Derek H. Davis, Religious Pluralism and the Quest for Unity in American Life, Journal of Church and State, vol. 36, no. 2, Spring 1994). Even when the Convention was at an impasse and Franklin urged them to pray and ask for help, it was voted down (North, page 426).

The first criteria for a Christian civil government is a recognition of God as sovereign. Not only is Christ not recognized in the Constitution, there is no hint of God at all. The sovereign recognized in the Constitution is not God, it is the people. The Constitution is a covenant but not with God. "But no consideration will justify the framers of the federal constitution, and the administration of the government in withholding a recognition of the Lord and his Anointed from the grand charter of the nation. On our daily bread, we ask a blessing. At our ordinary meals, we acknowledge the Lord of the world. We begin our last testament for disposing of worldly estates, in the name of God: and we shall be guiltless, with the Bible in our hands, to disclaim the Christian religion as a body politic" (Alexander M'Leod, The Moral Character of the Constitution).

The Founding Fathers apostatized from the Godly civil covenants of their and our forefathers. When they rejected God, they also rejected God's law. Thornwell concluded from the Founder's rejection of God, "They became a law unto themselves; there was nothing beyond them to check or control their caprices or their pleasure" (Thornwell, The Relation of the State to Christ).

People can talk all they want to about a Christian Constitution, but they will never be able to get around the fact that God is not even mentioned in it. Thornwell recognized this and said, "The fundamental error of our fathers was, that they accepted a partial for a complete statement of the truth. They saw clearly the human side-- that popular governments are the offspring of popular will; and that rulers, as the servants and not the masters of their subjects, are properly responsible to them. They failed to apprehend the Divine side-- that all just government is the ordinance of God, and that magistrates are His ministers who must answer to Him for the execution of their trust. The consequence of this failure, and of exclusive attention to a single aspect of the case, was to invest the people with a species of supremacy as insulting to God as it was injurious to them" (Thornwell, The Relation of the State to Christ).

Hamilton argues in the Federalist Papers, "It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the confederacy, as to the enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance which, all officers legislative, executive and judicial in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath." (North, page 389).

True, they set up a Constitutional set of laws, but what if someone decides that they no longer reflect the law of the people? Thomas Jefferson thought rebellion and revolution were required. He said, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government." (North, Political Polytheism, p. 391).

What is left is no law at all but for those with power to enforce what they consider the will of the people. Groen Van Prinsterer realized the revolutionary of the nature of this law, "What will be the policy of the revolutionary state with respect to religion? To tolerate all religions while having no religion itself. With one proviso, of course - - that the state shall command reverence towards its own precepts for politics and morality, and ban any religion that refuses precepts for politics and morality, and ban any religion that refuses to bow before the idol . . . . Just as all truth is ultimately supported by the truth that is from God, so the common foundation of all rights and duties lies in the sovereignty of God. When that Sovereignty is denied, what becomes of the fountain of authority, of law , of every sacred and dutiful relation in state, society, and family?" (Groen Van Prinsterer, Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution (Jordan Station, Ontario, Canada: Wedge Publishing Foundation, 1989), p. 213).

To deny God as sovereign leaves man in charge, but which man? Who represents the people? Who will declare the law? That is the struggle of our nation and has resulted in millions of deaths (abortion) and economic confiscation and control on a rate that would have made ancient dictatorships look like tax havens (60). The Constitution was a rejection of the rule of God for the rule of man (Gary North, Moses and Pharoah, Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985).

The US Constitution bans all Religious Tests (thus banning God)

Scripture tells us to test people, to see if they are of God or not.

1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

This only makes sense, when one is sincerely interested in associating with godly people, while avoiding the contamination and influence of ungodly men.

The key, however, to the rejection of the rule of God was Article VI, Clause 3, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several state Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

"All the more remarkable is that Article VI, prohibiting any religious test for public office was not only historically unprecedented and a radical departure from the established pattern of religious discrimination throughout the world at that time, but it was at variance with the prevailing patterns and practices in all of the original colonies, and during their early years of statehood." (James E. Woods, "No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required: Reflections on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution," Journal of Church and State, vol. 29, no. 2, (Spring 1987): p. 201).

Henry Abbot recognized the danger of this, ". . . if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagan." (North, Political Polytheism, p. 391).

He also writes, "We must understand what this means. It means that civil officers are not under an oath to the God of the Bible. It means that in the exercise of their various offices, civil magistrates are bound by an oath to a different god. That god is the American People, considered as an autonomous sovereign who possesses original and final earthly jurisdiction" (ibid., p. 391).

Article VI was a break with the Christian covenants of over one thousand years. Charles Pinckney, who introduced the clause, clearly recognized that this was a break with the Christian covenants of over one thousand years. It was, "a provision the world will expect from you in the establishment of a system founded on Republican Principles and in an age so liberal and enlightened as the present" (James E. Woods, "No Religious Test Shall Ever Be Required: Reflections on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution," Journal of Church and State, vol. 29, no. 2, (Spring 1987): p. 199).

The states approved, for whatever reason, of a document at odds with their own constitutions, which, for a time, they were able to retain. "In the historical context of the era, the 'religious Test' cannot be understood as referring to anything other than the Christian oaths required by the state constitutions" (Greg Loren Durand, "The Constitution: America's Covenantal Apostasy").

Indeed, this principle has played itself out in our history. When William Brennan was appointed to the Supreme Court, the Senate questioned him on his Catholicism, worried that his allegiance to another sovereign might affect his decisions. He replied: "My answer to the question is categorically that in everything I have done, in every office I have held in my life or that I shall ever do in the future, what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that oath alone which governs" (Samuel A. Mills, "Parochiaid and the Abortion Decisions: Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan versus the U.S. Catholic Hierarchy," Journal of Church and State , vol. 34, no. 4, (Autumn 1992): p. 753).

Anyone who is an officer in the civil government must swear allegiance to Constitutional law as the highest law. Greg Loren Durand concludes from this: "Therefore, the elimination of a public oath to uphold the Kingship and Law of Jesus Christ in the civil realm automatically erected an ethical 'wall of separation' between the Crown Rights of Christ and the new Federal Government, thereby barring all Christians from ever holding public office from that time forward…The United States' insistence that its citizens render 'unqualified allegiance to the nation and obedience to the laws of the land…,' even when it explicitly refuses to 'kiss the Son,' creates a dilemma for American Christians, who must understand that 'unqualified allegiance' belongs only to the King of kings" (Greg Loren Durand, "The Constitution: America's Covenantal Apostasy,")

The Constitution was a rebellion against Christ and His authority over the nation, replacing it with the rule of man. The Bible warns us, "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?" (Isaiah 2:22).

An objection is that the Constitution contains Christian principles and therefore is a sort of halfway covenant. As evidence of this, they may offer that the Constitution presents us with a system of divided authority and diffused powers. Even covenant-breaking historians would admit that Christian principles exist within the Constitution while denying that it is a Christian covenant. The problem with this is that every government that exists contains Christian principles. In fact, any truth or correct morality is a Christian principle. All true and good principles are Christian principles because this universe is created and governed by the true and living God who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Islamic governments contain many Biblical principles, such as capital punishment. That does not, however, save them from condemnation as apostate covenants. We must return to the question, what sort of Christian principles constitute a Christian government and what make an apostate government? The Biblical covenant model is the Biblical model and therefore the only proper judge of whether or not a state is a covenant-keeping one.

In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the United States Supreme Court holds that the state of Maryland can not require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause. This verifies that the U.S. Constitution allows Atheists to rule and make laws for bondservants of Christ!

Worshipping False Gods

In addition, the Constitution states: ""Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment).

Do you realize that the Constitution allows everybody to freely worship any god they choose to? This is one of the greatest abominations to God.

Old Testament Israel had this same exact law also, and God would punish them whenever they enacted this law. Whenever people would worship other gods in His country, He would command them to tear down their temples and idols. If they refused, God would always punish his people. Even if there was a mixture of people worshipping the True God and people worshipping false gods, this was an abomination also, as His people are not to mix the two. God even commanded His people to go to neighboring countries of the heathen and tear down their temples and idols.

The truth is, the freedom of religion is an abomination to God. Man only has the "right" to worship Almighty God. To be free to worship any other god or partake of any other religion is an abomination to Him, and violates the first Two Commandments:

Exodus 20:3-5, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them:"

If the U.S. Constitution is a godly piece of paper, why does is allow the very thing that God condemns throughout His Holy Scripture?

Supreme Law

You hear the phrase, "The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land." That's not what the Word of God says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Did the Constitution create the heaven and the earth? So how could it be the law of the land? Only He who creates, God, is the Law of the land. "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1:17). Christ is before the Constitution, and by Jesus, not the Constitution, all things consist.

John 1:3, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Colossians 1:16, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:"

All things were created by Him and for Him, not "by the people, and for the people" (Democracy); not for our enjoyment, not for our wants. We were created for God.

The sole purpose of constitutions is to free human beings from God's Law in order to chain them to the morality of the State dictated in its codes, rules, regulations, ordinances, statutes, public policies, executive orders, laws, etc. All constitutions were created by the fallen reason of the natural man, and are molded by the "reasonable interpretation" of human beings wearing black robes. Private rights are always weighed against the greater public good and are regulated by the "police power".

Those who thus rely upon the words of any constitution for support are leaning upon a broken reed; and their sense of security is a false one. The Constitution does not protect persons or property against unjust invasion, or prevent government control and regulation of business. After all, this depends on the interpretations and applications of the courts. Constitutional law is the morality of fascism and comes from the vain imaginations of men. It is a code, rule, or regulation for the dead thing it brings into being. Corporations are dead, at law. The United States is a Federal corporation. Thus, the United States is a dead thing.

“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Charles Evans Hughes, Supreme Court Justice, in Dictionary of American Maxims (1955), p. 88.

Federal Corporation

Those who support the Federal corporation are supporting the move by the atheistic socialists to enslave this country. The US Constitution never mentions "Jesus Christ", "God", "The Father", the "Holy Spirit", or any name of God. The US Constitution only applies to the Federal government, to restrict them. It does not apply to any state of the Union, nor to anyone living in America, nor to any servant of God. It only applies to those in the Federal government to regulate commerce, period.

There are those who claim the Government is passing "unconstitutional laws" and "taking away our rights". Maybe, maybe not, because the US Constitution itself gives the authority to the Federal Government to CREATE unconstitutional laws! And the government is not taking away our rights as much as it is the American people who are voluntarily waiving their rights.

In Article I, § 8, of the US Constitution, it delegates all the powers of Congress. One of these powers is that Congress can make laws without regards to the Constitution. But this is limited. When making laws for "America", its laws must be made in pursuant of the Constitution. However, when making laws "over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)", which is today's Washington DC, and when making laws for Federal lands purchased from the State, and for Federal military installations such as "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings", the Congress is NOT bound by the Constitution. This is why Washington DC is not considered a State in America and it is not under the US Constitution.

Now, since the United States is a "Federal corporation", anyone who is a "citizen" of that corporation, or, in other words, anyone who is a "U.S. citizen", has no rights and no Constitutional protections. Why? Because you voluntarily waived your rights and placed yourself under the jurisdiction of the United States (Washington DC), of which its laws are unconstitutional!

For example, cars in Florida have one license plate on their car. Cars in New York have two license plates on their cars. If one drives a car from Florida to New York, do the police have the power to write you a ticket for driving a car with only one license plate? After all, the State of New York requires 2 license plates. The answer is NO. Why? Because the one driving the car from Florida is bound by the laws of Florida, and not New York. New York has no jurisdiction over Floridians, because these are two different jurisdictions, and no government has jurisdiction over foreigners, only its own residents.

Another example, if a German comes to America, and this German breaks the law, the government of America must ask permission from Germany to bring that German citizen to their courts! Why? Because it does not matter where you ARE that determines what law you are under, it matters what law you claim to follow that determines what law you are under. If you claim to follow the laws of the United States, then you are under a separate government. The laws you then follow are of man, and not of God. The government exists to keep corporations and the ungodly from doing violence to society, including themselves! Corporations and ungodly men do not live by God's Law, thus they are both 'low and lawless' in the eyes of God, and in the eyes of man. So, the government must control them somehow.


Is the pledge of allegiance to the flag considered idolatry by God? Well, let's begin by asking ourselves a question. "What would Jesus do?" Can you picture Jesus Christ, in the first century, placing his hand over his heart and saying the pledge of allegiance to the state of Israel? If not, why not?

If Jesus Christ were in America today, can you picture him pledging allegiance to the flag? Well, one might bring up the point that America is God's chosen nation. Well, wasn't Israel God's chosen nation when Jesus was in the flesh? So, if Jesus would not pledge allegiance to God's Holy Land in the first century, why would he pledge allegiance to any other 'holy land' in our century?

The answer is simple. To pledge allegiance to anything else but God, is to pledge allegiance to something outside of God. Nobody can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24, Luke 16:13). Just like Jesus could not pledge allegiance to both Israel and God at the same time, man cannot pledge allegiance to both country and God. Remember, God's kingdom is not of this world (John 8:23; 17:16; 18:36). Even though Israel was considered "godly", and America is considered a "godly" nation, it is still placing ones allegiance to something other than God himself. Israel is not God. America is not God. Nations are outside of God.

Jesus did not believe in borders. He commanded to break down and penetrate borders between nations (Mark 16:15). Followers of Christ are not to be citizens of any earthly nation, but we are to be fellow citizens "of the household of God" (the Ephesians 2:19). Jesus prayed that "...all may be one" (John 17:21). Jesus said, "And the cares of this world…choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful" (Mark 4:19). Paul said, "And be not conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2). Isn't pledging allegiance to the flag, or country, conforming to the ways of the world?

Some maintain that the Constitution was ordained and established by God, but the Constitution itself says it was 'ordained and established' by "the people," not God. Even if this ungodly piece of paper is of God, and is a creation of God, if we were to pledge allegiance to God's creation, we would be worshipping and serving "the creature more than the Creator" (Romans 1:25).

Paul warned "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8). Is not the pledge of allegiance "vain deceit"? Is it not a "tradition of men"? Is it not "the rudiments of the world", and of countries?

Paul asks, "Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances…after the commandments and doctrines of men?" (Colossians 2:20-22). If a doctrine is not contained in the Bible, it is not from Christ, but is from man. Is there a doctrine in the Bible to pledge allegiance to a flag?

James 4:4, "...know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."

1 John 2:15-16, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

1 John 5:4, "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

In the Greek, you find the word 'kosmos,' which appears 187 times in the New Testament. It means 'the world'. When was the last time you heard a pastor, who practices the Christian religion, tell you about 'the world'. They use the word all the time, but they never define what it is. Similar to when they do a sermon on 'love' and never define what 'love' is. This is what 'the world' means:

Out of Strong's Concordance, it means, "An apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government. The inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race. The ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ. World affairs, the aggregate of things earthly. The whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc., which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ."

So, anything that's created by man is not God!

Hosea 8:6, "...the workman made it; therefore it is not God."

Isaiah 17:7-8, "At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel. And he shall not look to the altars, the work of his hands, neither shall respect that which his fingers have made..."

Was the Constitution created by man? Yes. To pledge allegiance to the Constitution, flag, or country, is to pledge allegiance to the world. How can one have allegiance to both the world and to God? One cannot. It is an impossibility. Contrary to the proponents of the so-called "Patriot movement", we are not asserting our own sovereignty, but that of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is HIS flag which we are to follow and it is Citizenship in HIS state which we are to proclaim


"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster.

"When a change of government takes place, from a monarchical to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70

"The 'original republic', the one for which our forefathers fought face to face, hand to hand, exists only in the minds of academics and fundamentalist patriots. The republic created in 1789 is long gone. It died with the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War." Columbia Law Professor George P. Fletcher in the June 23rd, 1997 issue of 'The New Republic', page 14.

James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, stated, "We have staked the whole future of the American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God." [Note: this is an unconfirmed quote. Even though they are consistent with Madison's thoughts on religion and government, and this quote would be entirely consistent with the man's life and legacy, we have not been able to confirm this quote).

On May 26th, 1786, James Madison, who subsequently became the President of the United States, said in a sermon he delivered before the Protestant Epistical Church in the state of Virginia, "I earnestly recommend to our Christians to reject every system as the fallible production of human contrivance, which shall dictate the articles of faith; and adopt the Gospel alone as their guide. Those Christian societies will ever be found to have formed their union upon principles, the wisest and the best, which makes the scriptures alone, and not human articles, a confession of belief, the sole rule of faith and conduct." W.D. Frazie "Reminiscences and Sermons", 1896. page 63.


“Every people looks primarily to its own benefit...Every government is organized selfishness. It is constituted for the food of its constituents. The Preamble of the Constitution of the United States of America embodies this explicitly as the object of its adoption. It is the embodiment of a scheme, devised by the people of the United States to form a more perfect union of states then imperfectly united, to establish justice among themselves, to insure their domestic tranquility, to provide for their own defense, to promote their general welfare and to secure the blessings of liberty, not to the world at large, but to themselves and their prosperity.” (A Yale Law Review from 8 Yale Law 159, page 165, which is from a book called The People Of The United States, Simeon E. Baldwin, 1899).

This fellow was a lawyer, so they know what government is all about. We don't find Christ there, it's men ruling other men, giving benefits to one another. And when the natural man gives a benefit to you, there's a duty attached to it. There's no “freely” giving (Matthew 10:8) and expecting nothing in return, as scripture tells us. We are not to touch the unclean thing (2 Corinthians 6:17), and the US Constitution is an unclean thing, based upon selfishness and commerce.

For over two hundred years, we have been witness to apostasy from the Godly covenants of the Puritans. This project succeeded through the Constitution and the Civil War and Reconstruction. Our nation has rejected Christ and His rule over us. We must pay heed to the warning of Jeremiah 12:17, "But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD." In the meantime, the battle is not over. We can still repent and turn to God.

Final Thoughts

The U.S. Constitution is just a piece of paper with signatures on it. And you know what a piece of paper with signatures is: a contract! Something that can be re-negotiated and altered at any time.

arrow Return to Government

Translation arrow

  Home     Greetings     Who We Are     Helpful Info     Rest Room     Search     Contact Us