That alleged "separation"...

[Mark C]

One of my favorite fallacies to discuss with a secular audience is the non-existence of the presumed "separation of church and state" phrase in any of the founding documents. I have been known to offer a sizable reward to anyone who can find it in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights (a very safe bet indeed*, right along with "democracy"...).

But tonight I saw something which I had heard was true, but had not seen so graphically illustrated. In spite of popular teaching to the contrary, God is acknowledged in the Constitutions of each and every State:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/ ... utions.htm

The whole list is just too good to pass up, and is copied below.

---------------------
* Most students of history, or the Supreme Court, are aware that the phrase was much later taken out of context by the Court from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut. Similar phrases do evidently appear in the constitutions of other communist countries, however.

===============================================================


Alabama 1901, Preamble;
We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution...

Alaska 1956, Preamble;
We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land...

Arizona 1911, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble;
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...

Colorado 1876, Preamble;
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...

Connecticut 1818, Preamble;
The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy...

Delaware 1897, Preamble;
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the
dictates of their consciences...

Florida 1845, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble;
We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble;
We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution...

Idaho 1889, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings...

Illinois 1870, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath
so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...

Indiana 1851, Preamble;
We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government...


Iowa 1857, Preamble;
We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution...

Kansas 1859, Preamble;
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution...

Kentucky 1891, Preamble;
We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy...

Maine 1820, Preamble;
We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction...

Maryland 1776, Preamble;
We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble;
We, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe...in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...

Michigan 1908, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution...

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its
blessings...

Mississippi 1890, Preamble;
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work...

Missouri 1845, Preamble;
We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ..
establish this Constitution...

Montana 1889, Preamble;
We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble; We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom .. establish this Constitution

Nevada 1864, Preamble;
We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V;
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience...

New Jersey 1844, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors...

New Mexico 1911, Preamble;
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty...

New York 1846, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings...

North Carolina 1868, Preamble;
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...

North Dakota 1889, Preamble;
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble;
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2;
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences...

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble;
We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance...

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble;
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

South Dakota 1889, Preamble;
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish this...

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III;
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their
conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble;
We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God...

Utah 1896, Preamble;
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution...

Vermont 1777, Preamble;
Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI;
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator . can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual
duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other...

Washington 1889, Preamble;
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain
this Constitution...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble;
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West
Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble;
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble;
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this
Constitution...

 

[DaPastor]

Hello Mark,

Kevin Craig, on his website, VIne and Fig Tree, that if we are really a nation under God, we need to have God ruling over us to be consistent, so he advocates that US become a Theocracy based upon the points you have brought up. He says:

The only Biblically legitimate form of social order is not
a monarchy
an aristocracy
a democracy, or
a republic The Bible is a blueprint for human action in every field of endeavor. The Bible is a "textbook" in political science and economics just as much as it is a textbook in religion. The rejection of this textbook brings tyranny and mass death.

but a society which might be labeled an "Anarcho-Theocracy." It is a nation "under God," but a nation without the institution of "civil government."

We must forthrightly reject the modern myth of "separation of church and state," and embrace instead "the abolition of church and state."
The purpose of this web page is to focus on the need to abolish "the State.

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definit ... ocracy.htm

What say you, Mark?

 

[Mark C]

To the extent that this 'theocracy' site argues that (whether we still REMAIN so or not!) the united States of America once unanimously consented to a Declaration which confirmed certain self-evident Truths, then I agree.

The history is clear. Thirteen colonies, in what can only be described as nothing short of a miracle, somehow agreed unanimously that they placed their trust in "a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence."

Only three percent of those people ever truly placed their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in peril to secure that victory. As always, it was a Remnant who prevailed.

Where I may, or may not (I won't claim to have read all the supporting material, only the main page) agree is that their appears to be an element of force in the very words "abolition" of the State.

It is one thing to "speak boldly, as I ought to speak" His Word, and to choose for yourself, as both our Constitution, and the Bible, confirm, Who to serve. And it is something else entirely to force that choice upon others. Our King never does.

My contention is, and remains, that the single overriding principle in God's design of and for man, and our submission to Him, is that of choice.

We are admonished to "choose life!"

We are told to "CHOOSE this day" Whom we will serve.

Over and over again, YHVH Elohenu, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Who Was, Is, and Will Be, and Who came in the Flesh to redeem us for our FAILURE to follow Him, makes it clear what the choice is, and what the consequences are: Blessings and curses. Life and death.

But He gives us a choice, even if it is to reject Him again and die.

Satan's government is based on lies: You will not die. You can be like God. And you will be forced to submit to the 'prince of this world' -- not by choice, but by force, and fear, and deception. He even twists Scripture by "adding to" and "subtracting from" what is Written - even if just a little bit!

"Yea, has God said... ?"

I don't need to "abolish" Satan's kingdom, Randy. It is not in my power to do so. Even Yeshua, remember, did not argue with Satan's power to "give Him" the kingdoms of the earth at that time. My own charge is that of the "watchman on the wall", to sound a trumpet, and warn that a sword comes upon the land.

And "who can make war with the Beast?" I believe that those who try to do so will find that what He has Written will come to pass, and that those who stray from the "narrow path" will be destroyed.

The Written Law of these united States, is in fact consistent with His Supreme Law. We still have a choice of "Whom we serve", and that choice is protected by Him. In His grace, and love for us, He is revealing the nature of the choices that still lie ahead -- and the deception that surrounds them.

There was a time when our Founders, after continued Lawful "petitions for Redress...answered only by repeated injury" decided that the only remaining course of action was to separate themselves from an "absolute Tyranny", and thus "declared the causes which impel them to the separation". They did so openly, and in accord with His Word, and their efforts were blessed.

Today, I can read the warning of Revelation 18:4, and understand that the "judgment of the great whore that sits upon many waters" is at hand. "All the nations have drunk" of her sins, and the kings of the earth are in bed with her, and the "merchants of the earth are waxed rich" through her iniquities. And the message is, "Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues."

I believe Joshua's wisdom still applies, and thus make the choice that he made: "As for me and my house, we will serve YHVH."

May He give each of us "eyes to see" and "ears to hear", and bless and guide each of us to walk the path that He has for us to walk.


Blessings in His love,

Mark



\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

From Psalm 27:

[[[A Psalm] of David.]] YHVH [is] my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? YHVH [is] the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

When the wicked, [even] mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell.

Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shall not fear: though war should rise against me, in this [will] I [be] confident.

One [thing] have I desired of YHVH, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of YHVH all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of YHVH, and to enquire in His temple.

For in the time of trouble He shall hide me in His pavilion: in the secret of His tabernacle shall He hide me; He shall set me up upon a Rock.

 

[seekHim1]

The term "one nation under God" is quite ambiguous and could be any form of God. Now, if any of America's founding documents mentioned Jesus Christ...that would be a different story. I'm all for separation of church and state...it's mixing the two that is a mess and I think a theocracy based on an ambiguous God would be dangerous. Greg Boyd speaks my and my husband's heart on these issues. His book "The Myth of A Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church" about sums it up and there are various interviews of his on You Tube about these issues.

 

[DaPastor]

If, therefore, peope believe that this was a Christian country, is it the duty of those believers to find ways to enact Biblical Laws?

 

[seekHim1]

If, therefore, peope believe that this was a Christian country, is it the duty of those believers to find ways to enact Biblical Laws?

I'd say it's the duty of Christians to be Christ-like - plain and simple. That's part of the problem in America. Many Christians like to think this is a "Christian" nation (although it is far from it) and therefore try to legislate righteousness which is not possible. In the process, we forget our simple role and due more harm than good by getting all caught up in worldly politics, nationalism, etc.

 

[Mark C]

The term "one nation under God" is quite ambiguous and could be any form of God.

Agreed. (Furthermore, I will submit that most who participate today in fact serve another one.)

Now, if any of America's founding documents mentioned Jesus Christ...that would be a different story.

Check out the last line directly above G. Washington's signature on the Constitution. While some today would like to deny the obvious, I contend that those who signed the document knew Who "Our Lord" was in that year*.

And note that I have not myself claimed that this was "a Christian country". To say that we serve the Creator, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Author of the Bible (and all of the other terms they used) is NOT at all the same "doctrinal" thing. (How many here are now critiquing the words I selected above as representative of His titles? )

If, therefore, peope believe that this was a Christian country, is it the duty of those believers to find ways to enact Biblical Laws?

The Founders took a consistent, but VERY different, approach. Knowing that the heart of man is "desperately wicked", they decided instead to put in place every possible mechanism to PREVENT the formation of a "Tyranny" over man, leaving him "free to worship" according to his own conscience. To make the choice for himself, in other words, just as his Creator allows man to do.

EVERYTHING in the construction of that Constitution acknowledges the essential "fallen nature" of man, from the multiple provisions of "Trial by Jury" -- arguably the most UN-democratic institution in all of our law, since one single peer can literally overrule a bad law -- to the veto, the separation of powers, to the Bill of Rights.

Noting from Isaiah 33:22 that God is our king, our judge, and our lawmaker (a careful reading of the Declaration will note as well that one of the few changes made to Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration was the addition of those three specific references, following that of our Creator) those three powers were split into three separate branches. "In His hands only", observed Madison, may those powers be safely combined.

Look at the format of the Bill of Rights, for example; the essential formulation is "thou shalt NOT", in the form of protections against such a "tyranny":
"Congress (the only branch empowered to 'make law') shall make NO law..."
...restricting freedom of speech, or the press, or of assembly, or of worship. The prohibition against preventing "the people" from having the means to defend themselves is even stronger. "Taking" of property, or "unlawful search" were once severely restricted. "Trial by Jury" was guaranteed, so so on...even to the point that they understood that "the enumeration of some rights" might serve to disparage others NOT enumerated - and so they put blanket clauses saying essentially that not all of the protections in place had to be specifically listed.

The beauty of this approach is that ALL of it is consistent with His Word, as Written. (Even 'treason' takes how many witnesses?) But it preserves the essential freedom of choice, and does not attempt to exercise arbitrary power in the absence of the "consent of the governed".

(Is it perfect? OBVIOUSLY not - and neither is man. I believe that there were deliberate flaws, such as the evil power to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" over the District, "not to exceed ten miles square" -- which is the EXACT same language Jefferson used in the indictment AGAINST King George! But that is another story. The serpent got into the original Garden, too.)

So, no...it is NOT the "duty of believers to find ways to enact Biblical laws."

ALL of them that we need are ALREADY in the Book. (And He said so.) Our Savior called previous self-appointed 'lawmakers' "Hypocrites!" for doing exactly -- supposedly -- that. While I do not by any means "worship" the Constitution, the effort to prevent fallen men from usurping power was at least instructive. (And seems to have ended exactly as Ben Franklin predicted it eventually would, "in despotism".)

Thankfully, however, the choice that He gives us, between liberty in bondservice to Him, and tyranny is slavery to sin, remains.



---------------------------
* PS> Even if they may not have all been in agreement as to His Name!

I am not one who believes that our Savior ever actually answered to the name "Jesus" during His time in the flesh of man. While I don't get too hung up on such things, I can appreciate that "in the Year of Our Lord" is far less divisive, given thirteen States ALL founded on differing, but essentially Bible-based, doctrines and traditions. I could see signing under the terminology "Our Lord", in other words, in preference to arguing about what His Name really is. Perhaps all of that helps explain the concept of "negative" law, as opposed to "positive".

Better to prevent enacting "bad" law than promote passing "good" law -- especially when He provides exactly that direction Himself. Nothing in the Constitution prevents me from serving Him as I choose to do.

 

[PolyPride]

I'll go ahead and say that the problem is not just a separation between Church and State but also a separation between Church and God.

The founding fathers seemed to have written that which only applied to "certain" people and this is clearly seen by their silence on racism and allowing the enslaving and abuses on groups like the Native Americans and Africans. The founding fathers weren't dumb, they should've known what "ALL men are created equal" meant, unless to them "ALL men" meant only those who they saw as being worthy which shows the intentions behind their writings. Would God inspire a document like that or inspire people who are writing under that intent? Sure, there may've been some Christian values in those founding documents which anyone could've ascertained with even a basic understanding of the Bible, but I'd hope a nation under God wouldn't just mean that we love God with our words but also our "intent" (from the heart) and actions which is what I see was LACKING in the practices of SOME or perhaps even MOST early Americans, unless they repented.

I'm an Agnostic/xtian, and I'd say that just because a document mentions the word "god", does not necessarily mean that it is of God or Godly. Besides that, I'd want to know which god, and not just by someone telling me the God of the Bible, but by also showing how it is "consistent" with the God of the Bible without distortion.

 

[Mark C]

...the problem is not just a separation between Church and State but also a separation between Church and God.

The point of the excerpts from all of the various state constitutions was to show that the popular misconception that the phrase concerning such an alleged "separation" is in fact a lie. But I would note again that there can BE no real "separation" between a state-created "church" and the state which incorporated it and governs it.

I guess this is relevant if only because it is another graphic demonstration of the fact that politically-correct "history" is not confined to issues of law and religion:

The founding fathers seemed to have written that which only applied to "certain" people and this is clearly seen by their silence on racism...
[They] weren't dumb, they should've known what "ALL men are created equal" meant...

Read this before continuing too far, Angel, from the 'draft' of the Declaration of Independence document:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain, Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

Source http://www.princeton.edu:

...from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 1: 1760-1776 (Princeton University Press, 1950), 423-8. Although at some point Jefferson labeled this manuscript as the “original Rough draught,” it was not his first drafting of language for the Declaration. Portions of what Julian P. Boyd, the founding editor of the Papers and a student of the writing of the Declaration, called Jefferson’s “composition draft” have survived. What Jefferson came to call his “original Rough draught” was, Boyd surmised, a fair copy made from the earlier drafts. It has considerable significance, however, as the earliest complete version of the Declaration in Jefferson’s hand. It did take on some characteristics of a draft, Jefferson making several emendations to it (including alterations he ascribed to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, who along with Jefferson, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston made up the committee charged by the Continental Congress with the drafting of a declaration).

The Continental Congress later struck out the indictment of the slave trade, which Franklin, Adams, and the other committee members had let pass, rather than have the resolution for independence fail by losing the support of the southern colonies.



(complete link: http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/decl ... ation.html)

 

[PolyPride]

I guess this is relevant if only because it is another graphic demonstration of the fact that politically-correct "history" is not confined to issues of law and religion:

The founding fathers seemed to have written that which only applied to "certain" people and this is clearly seen by their silence on racism...
[They] weren't dumb, they should've known what "ALL men are created equal" meant...

Read this before continuing too far, Angel, from the 'draft' of the Declaration of Independence document:

"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain, Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."

Source http://www.princeton.edu:

Thanks for sharing this. I'd say then that at the least, Thomas Jefferson expressed some disapproval of slavery but what you've presented only speaks for him. We know later on in history how that panned out where the bit of information you quoted was "deleted" out of the published version of the Declaration of Independence and slavery continued. This also does not speak to the killing of Indians who were on this land before the European settlers.

...from The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 1: 1760-1776 (Princeton University Press, 1950), 423-8. Although at some point Jefferson labeled this manuscript as the “original Rough draught,” it was not his first drafting of language for the Declaration. Portions of what Julian P. Boyd, the founding editor of the Papers and a student of the writing of the Declaration, called Jefferson’s “composition draft” have survived. What Jefferson came to call his “original Rough draught” was, Boyd surmised, a fair copy made from the earlier drafts. It has considerable significance, however, as the earliest complete version of the Declaration in Jefferson’s hand. It did take on some characteristics of a draft, Jefferson making several emendations to it (including alterations he ascribed to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, who along with Jefferson, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston made up the committee charged by the Continental Congress with the drafting of a declaration).


The Continental Congress later struck out the indictment of the slave trade, which Franklin, Adams, and the other committee members had let pass, rather than have the resolution for independence fail by losing the support of the southern colonies.



(complete link: http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/decl ... ation.html)

Slave trade may've ended but slavery still continued well into the 19th century, and racism continued even after that. We can both agree that the United States contained some Christian values but that is not same as saying that it was a Christian nation at its inception unless all of its practices were compatible with or had no conflict with Christianity.

 

[PolyPride]

...the problem is not just a separation between Church and State but also a separation between Church and God.

The point of the excerpts from all of the various state constitutions was to show that the popular misconception that the phrase concerning such an alleged "separation" is in fact a lie. But I would note again that there can BE no real "separation" between a state-created "church" and the state which incorporated it and governs it.

You have no disagreement with me here.

 

[Mark C]

Thanks for sharing this. I'd say then that at the least, Thomas Jefferson expressed some disapproval of slavery but what you've presented only speaks for him.

I'm not trying to "speak" for anybody on that score, Angel, just to outline some of the facts. There is no question that fallen man has ALWAYS fallen short, and -- more often than not -- not only "transgresses" the Supreme Law, but is in utter rebellion to it.

I consider the Declaration of Independence to be the greatest and most important document ever written originally in the English language. But it is, like all such work of man, flawed.

(And if you think those men, the Founders, fell short of their ideals - then PLEASE take a look around at the utter abomination of what is happening today! On every scale, from deception and slavery to dishonest money to institutionalized idolatry to mass murder, the worst of their hypocrisy was not even "newsworthy" by today's depraved 'standards'.)

Those who "vote" are presumed to participate in the process, and are bound by contract to "abide" by the claimed outcome, whether the position they claim to believe in prevails or not. When the Bible uses terminology like "I come in the Name of..." a Teacher, or of YHVH, it means that "I believe in the words of that Master, and follow Him, and do His will."

But according to that founding Declaration, authority rests on "the consent of the governed." Those who fail to object, in fact, are considered to have "consented", by default - by their silence - and certainly by their willing participation.

We are to have "discernment". We are not given the authority to "judge" others, or to assess whether they are "saved" or "damned", or whatever, but we are commanded to "know them by their fruits."

I contend that one thing is obvious beyond denial:
the "governments" that deny Him, and which claim a false authority to rewrite both His Law and the supreme law that those who "serve" it took an oath to support are somehow VERY different from the ones created in accord with those constitutions.

That alleged "separation" between whatever now passes for 'the state' and the "Supreme Ruler of the Universe" is not His fault, nor is it Written in Law.


The reason I posted the information at the top of this thread was to point out a key point:

In SPITE of what government-controlled media sources, and State-funded "schools", and Caesar-licensed 'churches' now propagandize, teach, and preach -- the Supreme Law of these united States, at EVERY level, from the founding "statement of Principles" to the constitutions of the several States, to the Articles of Confederation, to the 1791 Constitution, to the Bill of Rights acknowledges, respects, and protects the Right of every individual to worship his Creator "according to the dictates of his own conscience".

Those governments do not have, nor claim, the power to define Him, or His Law, for us.

I serve my Creator and Redeemer, and "Him alone". Those who violate His Word do not do so in His Name, and they do not do so on my behalf.

That is, I contend, why we have been shown throughout Scripture, but in Rev. 18:4 so clearly, that there is a time when those who follow Him are to "come out of her". The supreme law of every single state affirms that principle.