Chapter 9

Article 6The Supreme Law of the Land?

Section 1, Clause 1All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the confederation.

Debt Perpetuity vs. Debt Cancellation

The United States Constitution provided for debt perpetuity, whereas Yahweh’s1 law provides for debt cancellation. Every seventh year (known as the sabbatical year) Yahweh requires the cancellation of all debts:

At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release. …Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called YHWH’s2 release…. If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which YHWH thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother: But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need…. Beware that there be not a thought in thy wicked heart, saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand … and thou givest him nought; and he cry unto YHWH against thee, and it be sin unto thee. Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall not be grieved when thou givest unto him: because that for this thing YHWH thy God shall bless thee in all thy works, and in all that thou puttest thine hand unto. For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land. (Deuteronomy 15:1-11)3

It is sometimes taught that this Fourth Commandment statute4 is merely a one-year moratorium on debt. In other words, collection of debts is suspended during the sabbatical year and reinstated the following year. Those who hold this position maintain that if debt is totally cancelled every seventh year, including the forty-ninth year, no debt would remain to be cancelled on the fiftieth or Jubilee year. This argument is based upon the false assumption that the fiftieth-year release applies to the same type of debt that is forgiven in the forty-ninth year. In To Heal a Nation, J. Franklin Snook clarified the difference between the debts released on the seventh (including the forty-ninth) year and the fiftieth year:

The Sabbath principle also applies to the Jubilee year, which occurs after every seventh seven-year period – that is, the fiftieth year. On the 49th year all debts are cancelled as on each seventh year, but on the 50th, or Jubilee year all land that has been sold (actually leased) during the previous 49 years reverts to the original family who possessed it.5

The seventh-year release is not a moratorium, but a cancellation of all private and public debts. If the constitutional framers and today’s politicians were earnest about balancing the budget, they would have turned to Yahweh’s laws for the seventh-year Sabbath and its cancellation of debt. Rather than choosing the only means by which America’s current budget can ever be balanced, the politicians have opted to shackle future generations with today’s debt.

Today’s ungodly, usurious economic system6 compounds the problem with each passing year. Under Yahweh’s economic system, the budget would never be unbalanced for more than six years. Inflation and

recessions would all but disappear. One can only imagine the prosperity Americans would enjoy under such a system. In fact, Yahweh promises that if we obey His laws, we will never experience a deficit. Rather than being the world’s greatest debtor nation, as we our now, America would again be the greatest lending nation, as she was in the past when she adhered more closely to Yahweh’s laws:

…if thou carefully hearken unto the voice of YHWH thy God, to observe to do all these commandments … YHWH [will bless] thee … and thou shalt lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over thee. (Deuteronomy 15:5-6)

Section 1, Clause 2This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Supreme Law

Historian George Bancroft wrote the following concerning this supreme law of the land:

Here is not a transient compact between parties: it is the institution of government by an act of the highest sovereignty; the decree of many who are yet one; their law of laws, inviolably supreme….7

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary and Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, respectively, define the word “supreme”:

1. highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief…. 3. greatest, utmost, or extreme. 4. last or final; ultimate.8

Highest in authority; holding the highest place in government or power.9

Simply put: there is no greater authority than that which is supreme, and the constitutional framers would have operated from an understanding of these definitions, particularly the second one, when they penned Clause 2.

To declare that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land is essentially no different from what the Prophet Daniel’s conspirators declared to King Darius in Daniel 6:12-15, when they claimed there was no greater law than that of the Medes and Persians. This convinced Darius to cast Daniel into the lion’s den – even though he knew Daniel did not deserve such treatment. The law of the Medes and Persians, not Yahweh’s law, was supreme in Darius’ heart.

The constitutional framers were completely cognizant of the word “supreme” and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution, thereby making the laws of Yahweh subservient to the laws of WE THE PEOPLE.

Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:6-9)

The framers and today’s leaders pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees of Yeshua’s10 day were not so bold as those who wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians11 will predictably add “under God” or “under the Bible” to the declaration in Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from either the Bible or the U.S. Constitution. Do not forget that the Constitution makes no mention of the God of the Bible. This is another futile attempt by Christians to make the U.S. Constitution a Christian document. How can a Constitutionalist claim to be a Christian, a servant and ambassador of the King of kings, and not attempt to add those clauses? This is a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands that any inferior constitution be subject to its supreme law.

If you choose to promote the United States Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. But if you choose to promote the Constitution as a biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide biblical sanction for his idolatry.

Supreme God

To claim that the Constitution of WE THE PEOPLE is the supreme law of the land renders Yahweh subservient to WE THE PEOPLE. This is essentially the same sin Adam and Eve committed in the Garden of Eden, and a reversal of what occurred in the first-century:

…These [Christians] that have turned the world upside down are come hither also … and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. (Acts 17:6-7)

A supreme law can only come from a supreme being. Therefore, the claim that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land is another witness to the clandestine assertion in the Preamble that WE THE PEOPLE is the god of the United States government. Accordingly, it must be the god of anyone today who looks to the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. (See Chapter 3 concerning the implications of WE THE PEOPLE as a deity.) Constitutionalists obviously do not believe the following scriptures:

Thine, O YHWH, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O YHWH, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might…. (1 Chronicles 29:11-12)

Our Father … thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Matthew 6:13)

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18)

He that cometh from above is above all…. (John 3:31)

And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to usward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world [age, NASB], but also in that which is to come. (Ephesians 1:19-21)

These, and numerous other passages, declare that Yahweh is supreme and that, therefore, His perfect laws are the supreme law of the land. Consequently, anything, including the U.S. Constitution, antithetical to Yahweh’s Word, is an act of treason against Yahweh.

The booklet Handbook for Americans promotes the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, and, in doing so, quotes the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence:

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted …insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256.12

What does this say about the myriad biblical laws in disagreement with the U.S. Constitution? Consider again the following three Supreme Court decisions:

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 164, 176 (1803)

An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425, 442 (1886)

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491 (1966)

The legal theorem found in these three decisions is absolute. It comes down to whose law we are going to apply them to. If we believe WE THE PEOPLE’s law is supreme, then everything stated therein should be applied to non-constitutional law, including the Bible. However, if we believe Yahweh’s law is supreme, then everything therein should be applied to non-biblical law, including the United States Constitution.

Other Sundry Edicts and Treaties

Not only did the framers claim the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, they also declared all subsequent laws and treaties made under the authority of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. Consequently, the treaty made with the Muslims of Tripoli (officially known as the Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, signed by President John Adams and unanimously ratified by the Fifth Congress on January 3, 1797), including Article 11, became the supreme law of the land:

…the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…. Treaty with Tripoli, of Barbary, Article 11

Even pro-Constitutionalist David Barton, founder and president of Wallbuilders, admitted that this declaration is factual:

…this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government [as opposed to 18th-century America in general].13

America was founded upon Christian principles and was at one time a predominately Christian nation. But, a distinction must be made between early 17th-century America and the late 18th-century United States of America. Because most Constitutionalists regard it as one uninterrupted, continuous history, they use the two terms interchangeably. However, what occurred in the 1700s was an undeniable departure from 1600 America when, for the most part, she was governed by the laws of Yahweh. (See Chapter 3 for more on this extremely important distinction.)

Judges Bound Thereby

Clause 2 also dictates that “the judges in every state shall be bound” by such treaties. Consequently, with the Treaty with Tripoli in mind, no judge in his official capacity – former Alabama Judge Roy Moore notwithstanding – can escape a breach of his oath of office if he attempts to promote the Ten Commandments or anything else biblical or Christian.

In 2003, Constitutionalists and Christians alike protested the State of Alabama’s right to impeach Judge Moore for erecting in Alabama’s Supreme Court a memorial to the Ten Commandments. In an article entitled “You Might Be a Constitutionalist If…,” 2008 Constitution Party Presidential candidate, Pastor Chuck Baldwin posited:

You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had no authority to tell Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore that he could not display a monument containing the Ten Commandments in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery.14

The truth is you might be a Constitutionalist if you believe the federal government had constitutional authority, provided by Article 6 and the Treaty with Tripoli, to do just that.

On the other hand, because we have no treaties declaring the United States is not a Judaic or Islamic nation, it would not be unconstitutional if a judge were to promote the Talmud or the Koran. Accordingly, in a recent dissenting decision, Justice Antonin Scalia (arguably the most “conservative” justice on the Supreme Court) quoted the Talmud:

A Talmudic maxim instructs with respect to the Scripture: “Turn it over, and turn it over, for all is therein.” The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Aboth, Ch. V, Mishnah 22 (I. Epstein ed. 1935).15

This should not surprise anyone. Scalia, a student of the Talmud, was one of three Supreme Court Justices who, in 2002, promoted the Washington DC-based Jewish Law Institute:

Jewish [Talmudic] legal experts have created a new institute that will educate jurists and others about 2,000 years of Jewish law and promote the application of the teachings to contemporary legal disputes and other modern-day issues.

The launch of the Washington-based national Institute for Judaic law was marked Tuesday night with a kosher dinner at the Supreme Court attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices – Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Antonin Scalia.

US President George Bush sent greetings and applauded the institute for promoting an “understanding of Judaism’s rich tradition of legal thought…. Through the study and teaching of Jewish law and philosophy you are contributing to a growing culture of service, citizenship, and responsibility in America,” Bush wrote.

Scalia, in a letter to the Institute’s founder, Noson Gurary, wrote that “Jewish law is certainly one of the oldest and most highly developed systems” and explained why the comparative study of legal traditions was beneficial.

“The idea is to make Jewish law more accessible to everyone,” said Washington lawyer Alyza Lewin…. Last year, Alyza Lewin filed a brief to the Supreme Court based on the Talmud’s take on capital punishment when the court was readying to hear a case on the constitutionality of the electric chair. “Legal scholars often like to know what other legal traditions have said about certain issues,” said Alyza Lewin. Filing that kind of opinion is only part of the institute’s mandate. It will also promote the teaching of Jewish law, develop curricula on Jewish law that can be integrated into traditional law school courses….16

This center is devoted to Jewish (Talmudic), not Hebraic (Old Testament) law. The traditions of the elders, which Yeshua so adamantly opposed during His earthly ministry (about 2,000 years ago) were codified circa 500 AD into what is now known as the Babylonian Talmud (which is nearly always in direct opposition to Yahweh’s laws). Hebraic law, on the other hand, can be traced back to Moses (and before) to approximately 3,200 years ago.

The United Nations Charter

Not only does Clause 2 make the Treaty with Tripoli a part of the supreme law of the land, it also makes the Charter of the United Nations the supreme law of the land:

The Charter [of the United Nations] has become “the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.17

Anyone promoting the United States Constitution is equally obliged to promote the Treaty with Tripoli’s non-Christian declaration and the United Nations Charter.

Treaties Supersede State Concerns

In Missouri v. Holland, U.S. Game Warden, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), concerning the Migratory Bird Treaty of 1918 with Great Britain, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes, Jr., noted that the treaties clause of Article 6 makes treaties coequal with the U.S. Constitution itself. In effect, this decision made state concerns secondary to the federal Constitution and also to international treaties. In his decision, Justice Holmes revealed the extent of an international treaty’s power and influence:

…it is not enough to refer to the Tenth Amendment, reserving the powers not delegated to the United States, because by Article 2, Section 2, the power to make treaties is delegated expressly, and by Article 6 treaties made under the authority of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are declared the supreme law of the land. If the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute under Article 1, Section 8, as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the government….

Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States….

Valid treaties of course “are as binding within the territorial limits of the States as they are elsewhere throughout the dominion of the United States.” No doubt the great body of private relations usually fall within the control of the State, but a treaty may override its power….18

Infanticide and Sodomy

All laws passed by Congress, including those which have legalized infanticide and sodomy are now the supreme law of the land under the United States Constitutional Republic. These laws could never be a part of a government predicated upon Yahweh’s laws. Instead of legalizing these and other abominations, Yahweh’s law condemns infanticide and sodomy19 as capital crimes.20 “Laws” legitimizing infanticide and sodomy are only the tip of the abominable iceberg that Christian Constitutionalists are obligated to honor as the supreme law of the land.

Section 1, Clause 3The 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.

The Seditious Constitutional Oath of Office

To swear to support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the land is tantamount to swearing not to support the laws of Yahweh as the supreme law of the land. It is also equivalent to denying Yahweh as God and supreme ruler. How could any Christian take such an oath? It will be argued that we need Christian men in government today to help keep non-Christians honest or, at least, as a check against moral decay. But it hasn’t worked to date. What if, instead, Christians had never compromised and had insisted on Yahweh’s laws?

But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. (Acts 4:19)

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)

The Patriarch Joseph (who served in Egypt’s government) and the Prophet Daniel (who served in Babylon’s government) are likely to be raised as objections. However, Joseph and Daniel, unlike today’s so-called Christian politicians, never compromised Yahweh’s laws in their official capacities. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego were commanded to commit Second Commandment transgression by demonstrating obeisance to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol (representing his government), they chose to be thrown into the fiery furnace:

Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:16-18, NASB)

Those who claim to be Christian politicians (an oxymoron) are probably best described by Paul:

And no marvel; for Satan [the adversary] himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. (2 Corinthians 11:14-15)

Is this not a description of someone who claims to be a Christian (a minister of righteousness), but who swears to uphold the adversary’s constitution as the supreme law of the land?

One often hears complaints about office holders who fail to uphold their oath of office:

If America’s Christian voters were really serious about selecting and preferring Christians as their rulers, they would certainly expect, yea, even require that their civil magistrates uphold their oaths of office, would they not? Would they not insist that their president, their congressman, and every other elected leader live up to their word to support, uphold, and defend the U.S. Constitution? How can they say they have elected a Christian to public office if they do not even know whether that person has honored his or her sworn oath to the Constitution? …If someone is a true Christian, would they not feel duty-bound to honor their oath to the Constitution?21

If, after taking the constitutional oath of office, a man comes to his senses, recognizes its treasonous connotations against Yahweh, and subsequently breaks his oath in order to keep and promote Yahweh’s law, what Christian would dare identify his violation as unchristian?

…These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also … and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. (Acts 17:6-7)

Religious Test Oaths

The clause prohibiting religious test oaths was principally the work of Charles Pinckney, an Episcopalian lawyer from South Carolina.

The phrase “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” can only be understood within the historical context of the states’ religious test oaths:

State constitutions enacted during the war commonly required test oaths for holding public office. Only Protestants could hold public office in New Jersey or sit in the legislatures of Georgia, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, and only those professing “the Christian religion” could hold public office in Maryland or serve in high government position in Massachusetts. North Carolina limited public office to those who believed in God, the truth of the Protestant religion, and divine authority of both the Old and New Testaments…. Before taking their seats, Pennsylvania legislators had to declare: “I do believe in one God, the creator and governor 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.” Delaware went further by requiring all office holders to profess belief in the Trinity and the divine inspiration of the Bible.22

The religious oaths of Delaware, Massachusetts and Vermont are typical of the Christian test oaths at the time of the Constitutional Convention:

The State of Delaware’s Constitution, Article 22: Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation … “I, A B, 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 scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.”

The State of Massachusetts’s Constitution: I, __________, do declare, that I believe the christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth….

The State of Vermont’s Constitution, Section IX: A quorum of the house of representatives … shall, each of them, before they proceed to business, take and subscribe, as well the oath of fidelity and allegiance herein after directed, as the following oath or affirmation, viz. I _________ do solemnly swear, by the ever living God, (or, I do solemnly affirm in the presence of Almighty God) that as a member of this assembly, I will not propose or assent to any bill, vote, or resolution, which shall appear to me injurious to the people…. And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz. I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.

In its historical context, Article 6 cannot be understood to refer to anything other than the Christian test oaths required by the state constitutions. The religious test clause outlaws those test oaths. Consequently, Article 6 also represents defiance for the biblical qualifications found in Exodus 18:19-21; Deuteronomy 1:13-17; 2 Chronicles 19:5-8; Romans 13:1-4; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 2:13-14; and particularly Deuteronomy 17:15:

Thou shalt in any wise set him king [leader] over thee, whom YHWH thy God shall choose…. (Deuteronomy 17:15)23

John Jay, who was appointed by President George Washington as the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court made the following impressive statement regarding Christian leadership:

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.24

For obvious reasons, this quotation is often employed in an attempt to counteract concerns regarding the antichristian implications of Article 6. But the personal preferences of Jay and others do not alter Article 6’s interdiction against Christian qualifications for public service.

It is important to note that Jay identified as Christian, not the United States government, but instead the nation of America. Eighteenth-century America was still predominately Christian (albeit significantly diluted) in its religion and demeanor, but its government was neither Christian nor biblical. Although it was inevitable that residual Christian influence affected government in 1788 and beyond, Christian influence has diminished significantly as time has passed and our government has become more strictly constitutional.

Article 6 is not passively non-Christian: it is actively and aggressively antichristian. As a result, you will seldom hear Christian Constitutionalists discuss Article 6, unless forced to do so. Christian Constitutionalists clamor for a return to the framers’ original intent, but they seldom mention Article 6 or the real meaning and implications of the Preamble and Amendment 1. The original intent, as it pertained to Christian intervention in government, was antichristian, pluralistic polytheism.

Separation of Church and State

Christian Constitutionalists often point out that the term “Separation of Church and State” is not found in the Constitution of the United States, but in the Constitution of the USSR. This is true. Nevertheless, the concept of separation of church and state is unquestionably found in Article 6 and its prohibition against

Christian qualifications for its political leaders. (It is also found in Amendment 1, which will be discussed in Chapter 11.)

The July 2007 Coral Ridge Ministries’ Newsletter attacked the American Civil Liberties Union’s position on separation of church and state:

The ACLU and others insist that the nation’s [alleged] Founders [Constitutional framers] wanted America’s government free from religious influence – especially Christian influence. They have used the myth about the so-called “separation of church and state” to take prayer out of school … the Ten Commandments out of courthouses … and God out of public life.25

As much as I hate agreeing with the ACLU, I am compelled to do so. And because the ACLU is correct (as much because of Article 6 as Amendment 1), they have been able to take prayer out of public schools (a good reason for parents to reciprocate by taking their children out of public schools) and the Ten Commandments out of courthouses (a good reason for Christians to establish their own courts of law as per 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, etc.).

On February 27, 2009, in a farewell address to his staff at Focus on the Family as Chairman of the Board, Dr. James Dobson conceded that we have lost the culture war:

The battles that we fought in the Eighties … trying to defend righteousness, trying to defend the unborn child, trying to preserve the dignity of the family and the definition of marriage. We fought all those battles and really it was a holding action. …we are absolutely awash in evil. And we are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost all those battles….26

This is tragically true, and it is true because during the last two centuries Christians have only been lopping at the rotten fruit of the corrupt tree rather than destroying its roots.

The answer to the ACLU and other comparable organizations is not to attempt to prove what is historically impossible about the framers and the U.S. Constitution, but instead to throw off constitutional government and establish a government predicated solely upon Yahweh’s perfect laws.

The intent and effect of the religious test clause was a calculated and deliberate prescription to prevent Christianity from dictating government policy. One only needs to read the anti-federalists’ debates and the newspaper editorials of the day to know this is true. Article 6’s antichristian provision was one of the major concerns of that day’s Constitutionalists:

The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics. They crafted a constitutional order that intended to make a person’s religious convictions, or his lack of religious convictions, irrelevant in judging the value of his political opinion or in assessing his qualifications to hold political office. …so successful were the drafters of the Constitution in defining government in secular terms that one of the most powerful criticisms of the Constitution when ratified and for succeeding decades was that it was indifferent to Christianity and God. It was denounced by many as a godless document, which is precisely what it is.27

God and Christianity are nowhere to be found in the American Constitution, a reality that infuriated many at the time…. Its utter neglect of religion was no oversight; it was apparent to all. Self-consciously designed to be an instrument with which to structure the secular politics of individual interest and happiness, the constitution was bitterly attacked for its failure to mention God or Christianity. Our history books … seldom mention … the concerted campaign to discredit the Constitution as irreligious, which for many of its opponents was its principal flaw. It is as if

recognizing the dimension of this criticism would draw too much attention to what was being attacked – the secularism of the Constitution. In fact, this underdocumented [sic] and underremembered [sic] controversy of 1787-88 over the godless Constitution was one of the most important public debates ever held in American over the place of religion in politics. The advocates of a secular state won, and it is their Constitution we revere today.28

The framers intended to sever Christianity’s influence from the public arena, and in effect confine Christianity to the four walls of the church buildings.

The voters had not been willing to require of their national representatives what most states required of state representatives: an oath of allegiance to God and His Bible. The voters had been embarrassed by God. The Framers were not embarrassed by Him; they simply prohibited any public oath to Him in their new covenant document. They regarded Him as some sort of senile Uncle who could be trotted out on holidays, counted on to make a toast or two – judicially non-binding, of course – and then be sent back to His retirement home.29

Even President Washington’s original Thanksgiving Proclamation was written in such a way as to give obeisance to the United States Constitution:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable [sic] to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of the Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

(Signed) G. Washington

We may debate the intent of the framers, but we cannot debate the effect. Christendom became merely Christianity, salt that had lost its savor, good for nothing but to be trampled under the foot of man. What Christians failed to recognize in the late 1700s (and since) is that they would either be the tramplers or the trampled. In 1788, Christians chose the latter and have consequently been under the boot, or dominion, of non-Christians and antichrists ever since. They will continue to be the trampled until finally they wake up and decide to once again become Christendom – the trampers instead of the trampled:

And they shall be as mighty men, which tread down their enemies in the mire of the streets in the battle: and they shall fight, because YHWH is with them…. (Zechariah 10:5)

And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith YHWH of hosts. (Malachi 4:3)

Both of these Old Testament passages are New Covenant prophecies. Malachi’s prophecy provides the means of accomplishing this feat:

Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. (Malachi 4:4)

Because Yeshua holds dominion (Isaiah 9:6-7, 1 Corinthians 15:27, etc.) and because Christians make up His body (1 Corinthians 12:27), it stands to reason that Yahweh expects Christian to rule, not be ruled.

Article 6’s Polytheistic Repercussions

Article 6 not only eliminated Christian qualifications for office holders, it paved the way for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists to be presidents, congressmen, and judges. In other words, in patent disregard for the First and Second Commandments, Article 6 became the principal means by which America was transformed from a Christian nation to a polytheistic one.

On both the federal and state levels, Jews30 were the first to reap the rewards of the prohibitions against Christian test oaths. They were also instrumental in the removal of the test oaths:

The Constitution’s twin assurances – that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to an office or public trust under the United States (Article VI),” and that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (Amendment 1)” – meant for Jews that they could claim true equality in America, not mere toleration as was accorded them in even the most liberal of European countries. Religious pluralism had become a reality in America…. Momentous as this guarantee of legal equality was, it did not immediately translate for Jews into full social equality. …Jews still had to fight for their rights on the state level.31

Ultimately the Jew here hoped to become one, politically at least, with the emerging American people and to be accepted as a full fellow-citizen, but he was willing to bide his time. And his hopes achieved fulfillment, if as yet mainly on the federal level, in 1789.32

The Declaration of Independence, followed shortly thereafter by the ratification of the Constitution … and the Bill of Rights (1791), has frequently been viewed as a watershed in Jewish history. Never before had a country so completely committed itself to religious liberty, separation of church from state on the one hand, while on the other it guaranteed free exercise of religion to all believers whatever their creed.33

By the end of the Revolution, Jews had been chosen not only to local posts in some cities, but had also been selected for more responsible positions in many parts of the country. There was no inclination to bar these people from public office and generally the question of the offensive oaths had only to be raised to be resolved. Thus the Jews of Philadelphia, in 1783-84, protested as a “stigma upon their nation and religion” the requirement that members of the General Assembly take an oath affirming belief in the New Testament. The revised constitution of Pennsylvania, a few years later, explicitly barred the disqualification on account of religious sentiments of any person “who acknowledges the being of a God and future state of rewards and punishments.”34

Following are excerpts from the “Petition of the Philadelphia Synagogue [Mikveh Israel] to Council of Censors of Pennsylvania [the Pennsylvania State officials]” on December 23, 1783:

To the honorable the COUNCIL of CENSORS, assembled agreeable to the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania. The Memorial of Rabbi Ger. Seixas of the Synagogue of the Jews at Philadelphia, Simon Nathan their Parnass or President, Asher Myers, Bernard Gratz and Haym Salomon the Mahamad, or Associates of their council in behalf of themselves and their brethren Jews, residing in Pennsylvania….

Most respectfully showeth, That by the tenth section of the Frame of Government of this Commonwealth, it is ordered that each member of the general assembly of representatives of the freemen of Pennsylvania, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe a declaration, which ends in these words, “I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the old and new Testament to be given by divine inspiration,” to which is added an assurance, that “no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this state.”

Your memorialists beg leave to observe, that this clause seems to limit the civil rights of your citizens … this religious test deprives the Jews of the most eminent rights of freemen….

…And if Jews in Europe or elsewhere, should incline to transport themselves to America, and would, for reason of some certain advantage of the soil, climate, or the trade of Pennsylvania, rather become inhabitants thereof, than of any other State; yet the disability of Jews to take seat among the representatives of the people, as worded by the said religious test, might determine their free choice to go to New York, or to any other of the United States of America, where there is no such like restraint laid upon the nation and religion of the Jews, as in Pennsylvania. –Your memorialists cannot say that the Jews are particularly fond of being representatives of the people in assembly or civil officers and magistrates in the State; but with great submission they apprehend that a clause in the constitution, which disables them to be elected by their fellow citizens to represent them in assembly, is a stigma upon their nation and religion….35

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia claims that “This petition later on proved to be instrumental in the revision of the Pennsylvania state constitution in such a manner as to abolish the religious test.”36

On September 7, 1787, Jonas Phillips, likewise, petitioned the framers at the federal Constitutional Convention:

Sires: With leave and submission I address myself to those in whom there is wisdom, understanding, and knowledge; they are the honourable personages appointed and made overseers of a part of the terrestrial globe of the earth, namely the 13 United States of America in convention assembled, the Lord preserve them, amen.

I, the subscriber, being one of the people called Jews….

It is well known among all the citizens of the 13 United States that the Jews have been true and faithful Whigs, and during the late contest with England they have been foremost in aiding and

assisting the states with their lifes [sic] and fortunes. They have supported the cause, have bravely fought and bled for liberty which they can not [sic] enjoy.

Therefore if the honourable convention shall in their wisdom think fit and alter the said oath [as found in the Pennsylvania Constitution] and leave out the words to viz.: “and I do acknowledge the Scripture of the New Testament to be given by divine inspiration,” then the Israelites [Jews] will think themselves happy to live under a government where all religious societys [sic] are on an equal footing. I solicit this favour for myself, my children, and posterity, and for the benefit of all the Israelites [Jews] through the 13 United States of America….

Your most devoted obed. Servant,Jonas PhillipsPhiladelphia, 24th Ellul, 5547, or Sep’r 7th 1787.37

Phillip’s petition, undoubtedly, bore weight with the framers, as did the personal relationships many of the framers shared with Jews. James Madison, for example, was in debt to the money broker Haym Salomon. On August 27, 1781, he wrote fellow Virginia State Congressman Edmund Randolph (himself in debt to Jacob Cohen, who brokered the loan with Salomon):

…I have for some time past been a pensioner on the favor of Haym Salomon, a Jew Broker.38

Madison wrote Randolph the following in late September:

The kindness of our little friend [Salomon] in Front Street, near the coffee-house, is a fund which will preserve me from extremities, but I never resort to it without great mortification, as he obstinately rejects all recompense.39

Salomon was one of Mikveh Israel Synagogue’s petitioners for the repeal of the State of Pennsylvania’s Christian test oath, and, had he lived long enough, he would surely have joined Phillip’s in petitioning the federal constitutional conventioneers as well. No one can say for sure whether such favors from Salomon affected Madison’s politics.

President George Washington’s relationship with Jews was much more than casual, both before and during his presidency:

Quite properly could Washington applaud the “enlarged and liberal policy” of the new nation, in which “all possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.” Significantly, the new President extolled the example of the new nation “which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution, no assistance,” as “a policy worthy of imitation,” lifting the eloquent phrasing from a memorial to him from Yeshuat Israel Congregation of Newport. Or, as he phrased it in a communication to the members of the new Church in Baltimore: “In the enlightened Age and in this land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”40

Under the heading “Jewish Influence on the Framing of the Constitution,” The Jewish People’s Almanac brags in particular about George Washington’s, Benjamin Franklin’s, and James Madison’s personal relationships with Jews:

Had the Constitutional Convention been open to the public, more than one eminent Jew would have had no difficulty in mingling on terms of equality with many of the best-known delegates. To George Washington, who presided over the sessions, Jews were of course no strangers. During the revolution he had on his personal staff Manuel Mordecai Noah of South Carolina, David Salisbury

Franks of Philadelphia, and Major Benjamin Nones, a French volunteer…. Colonel Franks was personally cleared by Washington of the suspicion of having been involved in Benedict Arnold’s treason.

Benjamin Franklin, the oldest member of the Constitutional Convention, numbered many Philadelphia Jews among his friends. …he was sufficiently friendly with them to be one of the contributors to the building fund for Philadelphia’s first synagogue, Mikveh Israel. Samuel Keimer, an English printer who was one of Franklin’s first employers, was a Jew.

Virtually all of the delegates knew Haym Salomon, who died two years before the convention met. Six of the delegates had long been dependent on his generosity for their own livelihoods or for the maintenance of the particular government function for which they were responsible. …James Madison, a future President, sought out Salomon. Madison’s papers record his indebtedness to the Jewish financier, who refused both a note and interest.41

In the Encyclopedia of American History: Revolution and New Nations, 1761 to 1812, Michael Alexander summed up Article 6 and Amendment 1’s impact upon equal rights for American Jews:

Although the Constitution of the United States does not specifically mention Jews, its religious liberty provisions in essence granted Jews the honor of citizenship. The United States was thus the first non-Jewish country, ancient or modern, that included Jews as political equals…. The Constitution of the United States prohibited a religious test for government (Article VI), and the First Amendment prohibited Congress from establishing any religion, thus permitting Jews to participate as equal citizens on the federal level…. By 1820, most state constitutions eliminated religious qualifications that had kept Jews from participating in public affairs and government office….42

Consider also the following two statements from Rabbi and Jewish historian Jacob Rader Marcus and Leo Pfeffer, a Jewish professor of Constitutional Law at Long Island University and an attorney who argued several cases before the Supreme Court:

Jacob Rader Marcus: This much American Jews knew: under the new federal government they would no longer be citizens of a lesser hue. Before the Revolution, no Jew could hold, did hold, honorary office in British North America.43

When the federal constitution was approved by a majority of the states in 1788, the Jews were satisfied: Article VI declared categorically that no religious test would ever be required for any office under the federal government. The adoption of the United States Constitution was one of the most important events in the entire history of the Diaspora Jewry.44

Leo Pfeffer: …the Constitution presented to the people for approval in 1787, manifested remarkable egalitarianism. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, adopted a little more than a decade earlier, it contained no reference to the Deity, thus indicating a spirit of equality not only among competing religions and sects, but even between those professing some religion and those who did not. To make explicit what was otherwise only implicit, those who drafted the document closed it with the mandate that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI).45

Christian vs. Judeo-Christian

America became a Judeo-Christian nation when Article 6 and the remainder of the U.S. Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. On this date America ceased being an exclusively Christian nation and became first a Judeo-Christian nation and, as time passed, a thoroughly polytheistic nation.

Article 6 opened the door for Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians to serve in official government capacities, and was not only an open defiance of the First and Second Commandments, but an unequivocal contravention of the Apostle Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

As important as Paul’s directive is for personal relationships, how much more crucial that it be applied to those who govern over others collectively? The ramifications are much greater:

Hear this word that YHWH hath spoken against you…. Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:1-3)

The constitutional framers made it possible for Christians and non-Christians to be unequally yoked together in an official capacity. The first to take advantage of Article 6’s antichristian prescription were, not surprisingly, antichristians. As it concerns antichristian and antichrist rhetoric, all other religious books of faith pale in comparison to the Babylonian Talmud.46

There is no surer way to fulfill Yeshua’s statement in Matthew 12:25 (“a house divided against itself cannot stand”) then to join Christians and antichristians in official government capacities. For this reason, Christian America has been in a freefall since the inception of the United States Constitutional Republic, and for this reason, America can no longer be identified as a Christian nation.

State Level Concerns

In a letter to the honorable Thomas Cockey Deye, Speaker of Maryland’s House of Delegates, Luther Martin, attorney-general of Maryland and one of Maryland’s delegates to the federal Constitutional Convention, noted that the convention delegates were generally unconcerned regarding the pluralistic implications of Article 6’s ban on Christian test oaths:

The part of the system which provides, that no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, was adopted by a great majority of the convention, and without much debate; however, there were some members so unfashionable as to think, that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that, in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.47

Martin’s statement makes it clear that the framers understood the polytheistic implications of a ban on Christian test oaths.

Although the religious test clause was overwhelmingly approved with little discussion at the Constitutional Convention, it was vigorously debated in the “Anti-Federalist” papers:

Upon the discarding of all religious tests, Art. 6, clause 3 – But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust under the United States, according to this

we may have a Papist, a Mohomatan, a Deist, yea an Atheist at the helm of Government; all nations are tenatious [sic] of their religion, and all have an acknowledgement of it in their civil establishment; but the new plan requires none at all; none in Congress, none in any member of the legislative bodies; none in any single officer of the United States; all swept off at one stroke totally contrary to our state plans. – But will this be good policy to discard all religion? It may be said the meaning is not to discard it, but only to shew that there is no need of it in public officers; they may be as faithful without as with – this is a mistake – when a man has no regard to God and his laws nor any belief of a future state; he will have less regard to the laws of men, or to the most solemn oaths or affirmations; it is acknowledged by all that civil governments can’t well be supported without the assistance of religion; I think therefore that so much deference ought to be paid to it, as to acknowledge it in our civil establishment; and that no man is fit to be a ruler of protestants, without he can honestly profess to be of the protestant religion.48

It was also hotly debated in several of the state’s ratifying conventions:

Amos Singletary, … delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, was upset at the Constitution’s not requiring men in power to be religious “and though he hoped to see Christians [in office], yet by the Constitution, a papist, or an infidel was as eligible as they.” …Henry Abbot, a delegate to the North Carolina convention, warned that “the exclusion of religious tests” was “dangerous and impolitic” and that “pagans, deists, and Mahometans [sic] might obtain offices among us.” If there is no religious test, he asked,”to whom will they [officeholders] swear support – the ancient pagan gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?”49

Virginia [attempted] … to change the wording of Article 6 itself. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States” became “no other religious test shall ever be required than a belief in the one only true God, who is the rewarder of the good, and the punisher of the evil.” This change was rejected.50

Major [Thomas] Lusk [of Massachusetts commented regarding] … the article dispensing with the qualification of a religious test, and concluded by saying, that he shuddered at the idea that Roman Catholics, Papists, and Pagans might be introduced into office….51

If only today’s Christians were equally concerned.

In the North Carolina convention a delegate protested that “in a political view, these gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens.” James Iredell, later a Justice of the Supreme Court, conceded that the people might “perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans [might] be admitted into offices.” But how, he asked, was “it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?”52

Many Christians today are of same cut of cloth as James Iredell. They are often heard lauding the constitutional idea of freedom of religion, which provides for gods other than Yahweh. Thanks to Article 6 and so-called Christians then and now, those other gods’ ambassadors are now government leaders who are helping to establish their god’s “morality” as the laws of this nation.

Abolition of the States’ Christian Test Oaths

Governor Johnson agreed with Iredell, but assured the convention that while “Jews and pagans” could conceivably be elected, it was not very probable that this would happen.”53

History has proven Johnson wrong. Compromise is a journey halfway down the road to surrender. Somewhere along that road, the remaining state constitutions’ religious test oaths were eventually ruled violations of the federal Constitution. The last to hold out was Maryland, but in 1961, in the Supreme

Court case of Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 496 (1961), its remaining religious test oath was quashed as well. The federal ban on religious test oaths almost immediately began to have its effect upon the states’ Christian test oaths:

The federal test oath clause apparently had a liberalizing effect on the states. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 contained a much weaker religious test than its constitution of 1776, and by 1793, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Vermont had removed religious tests from their constitutions. The revision of Pennsylvania’s test oath of 1776 resulted in part from the efforts of Philadelphia’s Jewish community. In December 1783, the city’s one synagogue submitted a memorial to the civil authorities objecting to the requirement that state legislators acknowledge the divine inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. Four years later, Jonas Phillips, a Philadelphia Jew, petitioned the Federal Constitutional Convention concerning the same provision. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 accommodated the Jewish requests, requiring only that state officials acknowledge “the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments.” 54

Despite the decline of religious test oaths, they endured until 1961, when the Supreme Court invalidated a Maryland law requiring notary publics to declare a belief in God.55

In addition to Pennsylvania, various other states, following New York’s example and Virginia’s Notable Act for Religious Freedom of 1785, removed political restrictions against the Jews. Georgia acted in 1789; South Carolina did so simultaneously with Pennsylvania; Delaware removed the bars in 1792; and Vermont a year later. Still other states were slower to respond to Enlightenment currents. For example, the disqualification in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 barring Jews from public office was not removed until 1825. Rhode Island did not secure equal rights for the Jews until the adoption of its constitution in 1842, and North Carolina not until 1868. …it was the federal government rather than the states which provided the most vigorous impetus to the movement.56

Since the ratification of the federal Constitution and the eradication of the states’ Christian test oaths, the nation’s laws – including America’s current legislation concerning capital punishment and infanticide – have reflected Talmudic law more than biblical law. It cannot be argued that the ban on the religious test clause was issued because a federal test was unnecessary in light of the states’ constitutions. It was not the intent of the federal Constitution to leave the decision of religion solely to the states but, instead, to pave the way for deists, atheists, and even (and it would seem particularly) antichrists, to hold public office.

Motivation

While it is true that the prime motivation for the two religious clauses found in the U.S. Constitution appears to have been liberty of conscience in religious matters, the framers were not opposed to non-Christian or even antichrist religions. That the framers had liberty for all religions in mind when they forbade Christian test oaths is evidenced in some of their writings. James Madison wrote the following two years before the Constitutional Convention:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?57

This was written in opposition to a state bill introduced by Patrick Henry entitled “A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of Christianity. In other words, when Madison was sent as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was already prejudiced against an exclusively Christian society. Following the Constitutional Convention, Madison also bared his polytheistic leanings:

Twice in February 1788, in the Federalist Nos. 51 and 56, James Madison cited the “no religious test” clause as one of the glories of the new Constitution. “The door,” Madison wrote, “of the Federal Government, is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”58

Military Chaplains

In the late 19th-century, President Abraham Lincoln and Congress passed a law (which then became a part of the supreme law of the land) so that Rabbis and clerics from other non-Christian religions could serve as military chaplains:

In 1861, Congress passed a law saying that every regiment in the Union Army was required to have a Christian chaplain. A delegation of Jews wrote to President Lincoln, as well as to legislators in both houses, requesting that rabbis be included to serve Jewish soldiers. The president agreed, and in 1862 the law was amended to include clergy of all religions to serve as chaplains. Rabbi Jacob Frankel was the first rabbi to be appointed an army chaplain.59

Senate Chaplains

The United States Senate’s history of inviting guest “chaplains” to open some of their Senate sessions dates back to 1857. James Kirkland was the first African-American to deliver the opening prayer in 1965; six years later Wilmina Rowland was the first woman to pray on the Senate floor; in 1992, Wallace Mohammed was the first Muslim leader to deliver the invocation; and July 12, 2007 marked the first time a Hindu performed the opening prayer, when Rajan Zed opened the Senate in a Hindu invocation. Christians were indignant. But why shouldn’t a Jew, Moslem, or Hindu deliver the opening prayer in the Senate? David Barton acknowledged “…there is not [a] constitutional problem with a Hindu prayer in the Senate….”60

Anyone who promotes or supports the U.S. Constitution has no business complaining about Zed’s or any other non-Christian prayers. Article 6’s rejection of Christian test oaths paved the way for Zed and all other non-Christian and antichristian clerics to open the Senate with prayer, and Amendment 1’s freedom of religion provision sealed it. Anyone promoting the Constitution assists in making such First Commandment violations possible.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me

The Preamble’s opening words “WE THE PEOPLE” was in reality a new declaration of independence with which the framers declared themselves free from Yahweh’s sovereignty, placing faith in themselves as sovereign. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3’s prohibition against Christian test oaths announces, “Thou shalt have no other sovereigns before me” – that is, before or above the deity WE THE PEOPLE. It should come as no surprise that the United States Government has fixated on Christianity as its religion of choice to oppress and persecute. In ancient Rome, Nero was only marginally concerned about the various extant religions of his day. The only exception was Christianity, which challenged his claim to supreme rule (Acts 17:6-7).

In 2 Samuel 23:3, Yahweh declared, “he who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” The constitutional framers did not legislate so that men would rule in the fear of Yahweh. Instead, they left Yahweh completely out of the document, and in Article 6, they even provided for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, even antichrists to rule in the fear of their gods or the god WE THE PEOPLE.

Nothing has transformed the political, legal, religious, spiritual, and moral environment of modern America more powerfully than Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution. If you want to know why America, which was once Christian to its very core, is now non-Christian and even antichristian, you need only look to Article 6. This is also why the U.S. Constitution is the single most important issue facing us today if Christians ever hope to reclaim dominion from the non-Christians and antichrists in fulfillment of 2 Corinthians 10:4-6.

End Notes

1. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/ 3rdcom-pt1.php , or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

2. Where the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/ 3rdcom- pt1.php, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

3. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.

4. For a more thorough explanation concerning this Fourth Commandment statute and others, “The Fourth Commandment” may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/4thcom.php, or the book Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

5. J. Franklin Snook, To Heal a Nation (Salem, OR: J. Franklin Snook, 1977) p. 46.

6. For a more thorough explanation concerning the Bible’s condemnation of usury, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/8thcom-pt1.php, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $6 donation.*

7. George Bancroft, History of the Formation of the Constitution, 5 vols. (New York, NY: D. Appleton and Company, 1885) vol. 3, p. 357.

8. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary, s.v. “supreme” (New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2000) p. 1317.

9. Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, s.v. “supreme” (1828, reprint ed., San Francisco, CA: The Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967).

10. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/3rdcom-pt1.php, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in

vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

11. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/baptismbythescriptures.php and www.missiontoisrael.org/objectionstobaptismanswered.php, respectively, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

12. Handbook for Americans (Provo, UT: Jurisdictional Journal and Sovereign Review) p. 3.

13. David Barton, “Treaty of Tripoli,” <www.wallbuilders.com/LIBprinterfriendly.asp?id=125>.

14. Chuck Baldwin, “You Might Be A Constitutionalist If…”, 28 January 2005, <www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2005/cbarchive_20050128.html>.

15. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., No. 08-22, 8 June 2009.

16. Janine Zacharia, “Jewish law institute launched in DC,” Internet Jerusalem Post, 9 November 2002, <http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jp-11-09-2002/index.html>.

17. Justice Wilson, Sei Fujii v. the State of California, “Opinion of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California, April 24, 1950,” in United States Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Review of the United Nations Charter: Report of the Subcommittee on the United Nations Charter, pursuant to the provisions of the 83rd Congress, 2d Session Senate Document No. 87 – Subcommittee on the United Nations Charter Pursuant to S. Res. 126, 83rd Congress, 1 st Session … April 23, 1956, p. 288.

18. Justice Oliver Holmes, Jr., State of Missouri v. Holland, U.S. Game Warden, 252 U.S. 416y (1920), <http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/holland.htm>.

19. For more regarding Yahweh’s condemnation of infanticide (abortion) and sodomy, “The Sixth Commandment” and “The Seventh Commandment” may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/6thcom.php and www.missiontoisrael.org/7thcom-pt1.php, or the books Thou shalt not kill and Thou shalt not commit adultery may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $4 and $6 donation, respectively.*

20. For more regarding Yahweh’s law concerning capital punishment, Capital Punishment: Deterrent or Catalyst? may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/capital-punishment.php, or the book may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.*

21. Chuck Baldwin, “What Would John Jay Say Today?,” 16 November 2004, <www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2004/cbarchive_20041116.h>.

22. Arlin M. Adams and Charles J. Emmerich, A Nation Dedicated to Religious Liberty: The Constitutional Heritage of the Religious Clauses (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990) p. 14.

23. See Chapter 5 for an explanation on the biblical means to determine Yahweh’s choice of leaders.

24. John Jay, quoted in William Jay, The Life of John Jay, 2 vols. (New York, NY: J. & J. Harper, 1833) vol. 2, p. 376.

25. Coral Ridge Ministries’ Newsletter, July 2007.

26. Ryan Powers, “Dobson concedes that the far right has ‘lost’ the culture,” 12 April 2009, <http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/12/dobson-defeated/>.

27. Issac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1966) p. 23.

28. Ibid., pp. 27-28.

29. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 459.

30. Today’s Jewish people are known as Jews not because of physical descent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but instead because their Khazarian predecessors adopted the religion of Judaism between the seventh and ninth centuries A.D. For a more thorough explanation regarding the identity of today’s Jews, God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/tableofcontents.html, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

31. Jonathan D. Sarna, Benny Kraut, Samuel K. Joseph, eds., Jews and the Founding of the Republic (New York, NY: Markus Weiner Publishing, 1985) p. ix.

32. Ibid., p. 6.

33. Ibid., p. 85.

34. Ibid., p. 90.

35. “Petition of the Philadelphia Synagogue to Council of Censors of Pennsylvania,” 23 December 1783, <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_3s6.html>.

36. “Salomon, Haym,” The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 10 vols. (New York, NY: The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Inc., 1941) vol. 9, p. 324.

37. Jonas Phillips, quoted in Jacob Rader Marcus, ed., The Jew in the American World: A Source Book (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press) pp. 99-100.

38. James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols. (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1091) vol. 1, p. 288.

39. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 242.

40. Sarna, pp. 26-27.

41. “Jewish Influence on the Framing of the Constitution,” The Jewish People’s Almanac, David C. Gross, ed. (New York, NY: Hippocrene Books, Inc., 1988) p. 3.

42. Michael Alexander, “Jews, 1754-1820s,” Encyclopedia of American History: Revolution and New Nation, 1761 to 1812, Paul A. Gilje and Gary B. Nash, eds. (New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc, 2003) American History Online, <http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp ? >.

43. Jacob Rader Marcus, Introduction, 1983, “American Jewish Archives Pamphlet Series.”

44. Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew and the American Revolution (Cincinnati, OH: Jacob R. Marcus, 1974) p. 15.

45. Leo Pfeffer, 1983, “American Jewish Archives Pamphlet Series.” In Church State and Freedom, Pfeffer wrote, “To the Jewish child devoted to the religion of his fathers, the New Testament in its entirety is blasphemous for attributing divinity to a human being.” Leo Pfeffer, Church State and Freedom (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1953) p. 447.

46. For additional documentation regarding the antichristian and antichrist nature of the Babylonian Talmud, God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever may be read at www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/tableofcontents.html, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

47. Luther Martin, “The Genuine Information, Laid Before The Legislature Of Maryland…,” Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention 1787, entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1838 (Hawthorne, CA: Omni Publications, 1986) pp. 89-90.

48. Anti-Federalist, No. 1, (February 8, 1788), quoted in Jonathan D. Sarna, Benny Kraut, and Samuel K. Joseph, eds., Jews and the Founding of the Republic (New York, NY: Markus Weiner Publishing, 1985) p. 99.

49. Issac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1966) p. 32.

50. Ibid., p. 37.

51. Jonathan Elliot, Debates of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution – The Debates of the Several State Conventions (Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Company, 1888) pp. 148-49.

52. Pfeffer.

53. Pfeffer.

54. Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790, Art. IX, § 4, in 5 Thorpe, supra note 18, at 3100.

55. Adams, p. 16.

56. Sarna, p. 25.

57. James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, ed., The Writings of James Madison, 9 vols. (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s sons, 1091) vol. 2, p. 186.

58. Kramnick, p. 38.

59. Shelley M. Buxbaum and Sara E. Karesh, “Judaism in the United States Prior to the Civil War,” Jewish Faith in America, Melton, J. Gorden, gen. ed. (New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc., 2003) American History Online, <http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp ? >.

60. David Barton, quoted in Don Wildmon, “Hindu to open Senate with prayer,” American Family Association Action Alert, 10 July 2007, <http://www.afa.net/Petitions/issuedetail.asp?id=257>.

*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.