Gotcha

        “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me”. I never gave much thought to that phrase, used quite often by myself and others in our grade school days. After all we were just children (youngsters), happy go lucky and virtually care free, except maybe for school. Then one day, many years later and allegedly more mature (adult), I asked myself this question, “Can words actually hurt”? I also discovered that question’s answer depends on what one means by being “hurt”.  

            While it is true “sticks and stones may break your bones”, they have to be used as weapons to be really effective; but what about words as weapons? In my search for an answer, and after some more years passed, I discovered the actual importance of words, and how they too can be used as weapons or as tools; the former use with results far more consequential, devastating, and destructive then sticks and stones. The truth is words are far more important than the average person realizes. If they were not important, why was grammar and English taught in school? However, the books, teaching priorities and methods have drastically changed since my high school days of 40 plus years ago. 

As we go about our daily and often-mundane routines, words can be our allies (our tools) or our enemies (their weapons), yet few ever consider either to be the case. The fact is words are the tangible basis for what we can and can’t do. They are also the basis for morals and morality. Words can be seen, heard and touched (Braille). Words can be translated, interpreted or defined. Words are used to convey thoughts, visions, ideas, messages, and are even used as a means to accomplish an end. Words can create, but they also can destroy.  

For some individuals, words are a business. Newspaper and book publishers are a couple examples of “word businesses”. Words, and their use of such, are important to editors and publishers alike, more so then what words are to the average individual. Therein lays one snare and tactic of the enemy, and why the average citizen needs to become a “novice editor”. Here’s one example of those truths and facts.     

The word forward is defined as, “onward or ahead; toward the front”. Another word is foreword, “a short introductory statement in a book etc., often by someone other than the author or writer”. Those are the definitions of each word; two words generally pronounced in the same manner, with two different meanings (definitions). I’d be willing to bet the average reader never caught my (seemingly/apparent) intentional misuse of the incorrect word “Forward”, and its application, on page one of this book. But I’d also be willing to bet the manuscript editor probably did catch that (my) misuse.  

He or she, as a “professional” editor, will now have to make a choice and decision; go back and change the word “Foreword”, (the already made correction if they’re a “professional” editor) back to the word “Forward”, the word this writer originally used. Another choice is to let their professional correction remain. Either way, “Gotcha”, the reader as well as the professional editor!  

My choice of a particular word was by design, not a literary mistake or a poor “literary” choice. My decision to use that particular word was intentional, not un-intentional. That very last sentence and the principles therein will be “illustrated” numerous times through out this book; watch for them. The editor’s decision and choice should prove this point; the improper use of a single word, or even a single letter, can have repercussions on just one individual, or tens of millions of individuals (and readers) living within this nation.   

My intentional error and unique usage of the word “forward” should also prove the following points. First, words are important, as just shown. Second, the exact meaning(s) of a word(s) are extremely important! If they’re not, why do the various publishers and media employ editors?  Last, but not least, American’s citizens need to make words their concern as well as their “business”. Now is the time to become “amateur editors”, and no longer novice editors, for words do and will have far-reaching affects for and in our lifestyles; don’t think so huh? 

To illustrate, the proper word to use on page one, of the chapter entitled “Forward” should be “Foreword”, according to “dictionary” definition. What word will be used and printed is “their” decision as the editors and publisher of this book. The reader will have to go back to page one to actually see the results of the editor’s and publisher’s choice and decision. “Gotcha” is more than just the title of this chapter. The word is also a technique used by one institution and totally ignored by another. 

There is away around what word the editor will choose to use; in other words circumvent the issues of, choice and decision. He or she could change the word “Forward” or “Foreword” into the word “Prologue”, meaning “an introductory part of a play or novel”. However this book is neither a play nor a novel; thus this writer has created a minor dilemma for the “professional” editor. That type of dilemma is one of the foundational building blocks of this book. That same type of dilemma was also created over two hundred years ago by some other writers and editors as well. 

The word “Forward” has far greater scope and application with regards to the content of this book however. For example, “We the People” have a choice, a decision(s) to make, concerning our role and purpose within this nation’s form of government, i.e. “of/or pertaining to the future”, which is one definition of the word “Forward”. Will we the people allow this nation to continually slide in a backward direction (regressive politics) because words are being used as weapons against us (progressive politics), or will we use words (all the words) as our tools and turn this nation around, to once again move in a forward direction by considering and realizing “what” is the truth?  

           Another unrecognized, problematic, dilemma has just been reached; here’s a small sample of such. Does an individual consider the removal of Nativity scenes, and the Ten Commandments from public property a forward or backward direction? Are ever increasing taxes, levies, fees, etc. indicators of a forward or backward direction? Are the “rights” of perpetrators more important than the rights of victims; which of those rights are indicators of a forward or backward direction? What are the thoughts, the standards, for determining a forward or backward direction? What are the actual reasons for setting a course of action for either direction? Another course of action however is sideways, left or right; those two words (left/right) are used politically nowadays. 

Remember the word “religion” as previously defined in the “Forward” (or perhaps it’s now “Foreword” or “Prologue”)? What was/is “religions” meaning and purpose in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment? Are you still positively certain what you think “religion” means, what it is, or what it can become in application and practice? What was the purpose (function) of using the word “religion” in Article Six? How about the word “of”, as well as the word “religion”, found in the very same phrase of the Constitution’s first amendment?  

Are you beginning to get the idea yet concerning the use of words, their exact meanings, the application and the affects words can and do have on each and everyone of us as we go about our daily activities? “Not yet”, you say? If not, is there any time better than the present to “get the idea”? For example, the affect on individuals and groups of such by using and defining just one word, “religion”? 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Those are the EXACT words of the first phrase of the First Amendment, which is part of the U.S. Constitution. But what does that phrase actually mean, according to definition, and what was (is) the purpose of the phrase? The U.S. Supreme Court of 1963, as an example, decided what that particular Court thought it meant, as well as the purpose of the amendment. What does the reader think or believe what the First Amendment means? But the real important question and issue is: “What really are the facts and truth”? 

For a starting point, consider the following. Respect is the foundational (base) word for “respecting” Some of the definitions of “respect” that apply at this point are, “high admiration or esteem for a person or quality; to show regard or consideration for”. Respecting is defined as, “regarding or about”.  

The definition of “establish”, the “base” word for establishment, is “To bring into being on a firm or stable basis”; more about that later on. The definition for establishment is, “the act of establishing or state of being established”; a permanent civil, military, or other force or organization”; an important and pivotal word in that definition is “permanent”. (Keep that word also in mind for a reference point.) 

Now observe the specific and particular wording of these two phrases, “respecting an establishment of religion”, and “respecting an establishment of a religion”. The single, little letter “a” makes a big difference. Hopefully that particular point will become evident and extremely clear to the reader in due time, if it hasn’t already. In addition, the use of two other words, respecting and establishment, also play a major role in the First Amendment’s actual purpose and function, commonly referred to as “original intent”. 

So, the pertinent question is: How do those two words, respecting and establishment, work in practical application and reality when coupled with “religion”? For starters, Bible reading, prayer, and the Ten Commandments (things) are usually associated with the “Christian” religion, which is “a religion”. Therefore using or displaying those items in public areas or facilities is an action (as is morality and respecting) that establishes “a” specific religion, for it demonstrates a “high admiration and esteem for a person” (respect), in this instance the God in, and of, the Bible, assumed to be a “person” by the vast majority of the “alleged” institutionalized “Christian” church statements.   

On the surface, or perhaps I should use a “big” word “superficially” instead? OK, either way it does appear that the ever continuing removal of Bible reading, prayer, and the Ten Commandments etc., over the past tens of decades, from public buildings, land and facilities, etc., was and still is the correct action. According to the varied and recent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court(s), those “things” establish “a” specific religion called Christianity.  

The Court’s perspective, (like the forward / backward example just mentioned), and the opinions of the majority of its Justices, concerning the first phrase of the amendment’s “religious clause” seems to be right “on the money” so far, even by definition; at least that’s the way it appears. But, was and is it? That is a pertinent question that deserves thoughtful and additional consideration, along with some further in depth examination and critical scrutiny. 

An iceberg “on the surface” may look small; but how large, and how much destructiveness of an iceberg lies beneath the surface? The Titanic was thought to be unsinkable because of its design. The ship never completed its first voyage; its broken hull now rests on the bottom of the North Atlantic Ocean. One should begin to consider and realize that any action is preceded by a thought(s) first.  

 “Congress shall make no law”. Now there’s an interesting phrase. Does it state in the First Amendment, “The U.S. Supreme Court shall make no law”?  Does it state, “The U.S. President shall make no law”? Of course not, therefore, at least by a superficial reading (appearance), the Court (any court) can make a law(s) as well as the President. It’s the only Congress that “shall make no law”.  

So once again the 1963 Supreme Court’s decision, as well as other recent Court decisions, appear correct about the establishment of, and actions related to the establishment of the “Christian religion” (A religion), until one recalls the third part of the definition of religion and applies such definition to the U.S. Constitution. Those words are: “something one believes in or follows devotedly”.  

 Thus the pertinent question now expands to include this question: “What was the something that the Supreme Court justices believed in and/or followed devotedly” in 1963, or even today for that matter, when they decided what the First Amendment allegedly meant? Was (is) it the U.S. Constitution; perhaps previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions? Again, what does the U.S. Constitution actually state and mean when definitions are used as the standard for determining what the First Amendment, and for that matter even the entire U.S. Constitution, is all about?   

This is the point where “things” will begin to get real interesting; for instance, words and their practical, real-life application. By definition, anyone’s religion “something one believes in or follows devotedly”, does play a prominent part in the opinion and decision making process used by various courts, judges, and juries, as well any reader of this book, even the bible, and any other books/documents.  

The original pertinent question must now expand even further to become, “What are the truth and the facts concerning the U.S. Constitution, its First Amendment and the oft stated claim of (alleged) “separation of church and state”? An obvious question should be this one. “How does some one find out the truth and facts?” Here’s one way, the major way; by using words - all the words, not just some of the words! 

            The First Amendment is part of the Constitution, therefore individuals need to understand and also accept what a “constitution” is by definition, not by interpretation. A “constitution” is, by definition, “the way in which something is constituted or put together; the system of principles according to which a nation or organization is governed (emphasis added); the document embodying these principles.”  

Constituted is the past tense of constitute, i.e. “to make up or form (a whole); to appoint to an office or function; to set up or establish (laws etc.)”. One could reason, and safely conclude, that the U.S. Constitution is the “previously established standard”, the system of principles, for this nation’s government; at least that was the “original intent” of its writers. Sometimes standards are changed for numerous reasons by using various methods. Sometimes individuals within the government attempt to change the previously established lawful U.S. Constitutional standards illegally, i.e. “unconstitutionally”. 

But what happens if some one does not accept the standard (the dictionary) as to what a constitution is and what the purpose of such a document is? Answer; there is a major initial problem. Go a step further. What if some one does not accept the Bible as a standard? Ironically the answer to that last question is easier to figure out and realize than the answer to my first question.  

Constitutionally, the federal government (a something) is comprised of three branches. First is the “Legislature”, [Article One] “a body of persons empowered to make, change, or repeal laws”. Next is the “Executive”, [Article Two]“of, for, or suited for carrying out plans, duties, etc.; pertaining to or charged with the execution of laws, policies, and public affairs”. Lastly, “the Judicial” [Article Three] “pertaining to courts of law or to judges”. First important question: Which branch, the only branch, of government that can make, change, or repeal laws, according to the U.S. Constitution?  

Returning to the words, “Congress shall make no law...” one could assume that the U.S. President or the U.S. Judiciary could make a law, based on the omission of those two branches of government (words) in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Such would be the logical conclusion IF there was nothing else to consider such as Articles One, Two and Three of the same Constitution, and the definitions of words that pertain to, and limit the power of those three branches of government.  

Those Articles “separate” (divide) the government into three distinct branches and limit (define) the power of each branch. The commonly used (heard) phrase is “separation of powers”. However those “Constitutional principles” are now days usually ignored by the court system and politicians alike. That precept is not understood by the vast majority of citizens and voters. Evidently “our” politicians do not understand the precept either; or do they and use such for their advantage by using words as weapons? 

Disregard of those precepts by politicians is contested and challenged only by a minority of concerned individuals or groups. Such individuals and groups are often considered minority “nut cases” by the public at large and oft times the majority of the politicians. The newest and latest “minority” challenge is one has that has focused on “judicial activism”. So, here are some more things to think about and consider with regards to the system of principles entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America”.    

The word “judge” can be a verb or noun. The verb form of judge is defined as; 1) “to pass legal judgment on; 2) to form a judgment or opinion of or upon; to decide or settle authoritatively; 3) to think or hold as an opinion”. The pertinent word in those definitions is “opinion”. An opinion is defined as “a belief that rests on grounds insufficient to produce certainty”. The key words in that definition to focus on, and remember, are “grounds insufficient”.    

Another important single word definition, within the definition of “judge”, is this one; decide meaning “to solve or end (a question or struggle) by giving victory to one side; to make up one’s mind about”. At some point in the text, or perhaps even points, the reader of this book will have to decide, make up one’s mind about, what is truth or lies, fact or fiction, reality or fantasy. The reader will have to “judge” not just the contents and merits of this book, but its writer as well.  

Judge, the noun form of the word, is defined as, “A public officer authorized to hear and determine cases in a court of law; a person qualified to pass a critical judgment”. A key word in this definition is “qualified”, along with another previously mentioned key word, “permanent”. Second important question: What qualifies an individual, what standard is to be, or should be used, in order to qualify an individual as a judge that can preside over a court of law? The answer to that last question might surprise you. 

Using definition as the standard, a courts’ opinion is not quite the same as their decision. As previously stated everyone is affected by religion and politics according to definition, they just don’t realize that. Perhaps you are now beginning to realize such? In like manner words and how they are used and applied, be it by interpretation, translation, or definition, affect everyone. Perhaps you’re not convinced of this, and maybe you never will be convinced, nevertheless it still remains, and will continue to remain, a factual and truthful precept and principle. 

Preceding the Court’s decision is the discussion or maybe debate over the Justice’s (i.e. judges) various opinions; sometimes the opinions of the Justices are unanimous, and sometimes they’re not. However, contrary to popular belief and opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court is not the highest power or authority in this nation. My last statement is fact - not fiction - as should become eventually evident to the reader. 

Stated another way, the U.S. Supreme Court is not “God” or even a god, even though the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court of law (not authority) in this nation. In addition, using deductive reasoning and common sense, that particular Court should also use and apply the highest possible available standards in its decision making process. That “process” is the point where the U.S. Supreme Courts of the 20^th century fell extremely short of the mark with each decade that passed!   

If one would read the opinions of each Supreme Court justice, after the Court renders a decision(s), the moral position and the future direction of morality (judging/enforcing/legislating) for this nation could be determined. Incidentally, that same process of reading should be used to follow how elected officials voted on enacted legislation, as well as possible future legislation, for they allegedly represent you and I. Remember, these various elected officials are the “who’s” of a previously asked question by this writer, the someone’s, who will decide what laws shall be written or repealed, provided they’re empowered to do so by the U.S. Constitution.   

One example of not using the highest possible available standards occurred in 1963, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a combined case, “devotional reading of the Bible and school sponsored prayer were violations of the establishment clause of the First Amendment”. The opinions of the Justices were 8 to 1 in favor of, and for, the aforementioned decision.  

One of the parties that initiated the case was Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who was an active, outspoken atheist. This is what is interesting, and not even thoughtfully considered by the American public or our elected representatives. The religion of Atheism was given a victory (preference) over the religion of Christianity by the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court by a margin of 8-1. That victory for Atheism was part of the “moral war” that most citizens think and believe they’re not a part of, or engaged in. 

“A” religion was given preference over a factually, historically documented, and previously recognized religion (Christianity). That 1963 Court in its wisdom (?) illegally, “governmentally established”, another form and type of religion (Atheism/Secularism) to replace the one that was the foundation, the standard, for the nation’s government. So much for the 1963 U.S Supreme Court using the highest possible standards, let alone plain old common sense! That one religious replacement is historical fact and truth. However, that historical fact and truth can be denied and rejected by anyone!  

That 1963 decision, which as a matter of public record, rests on “insufficient grounds” (opinion), also opened the door to “establish” other “religions” by the institution of government, each religion using a different source and standard for their moral values. More importantly the “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, words of the same amendment, were thrown to the wind by that very same Court.  Biblical, as well as Judean-Christian principles, precepts were abridged that being to “to shorten by omission while retaining the substance; to diminish or curtail.”  

That particular 1963 Court rendered a decision which abrogated the “free exercise clause”, using definitions as the standard for judging the accuracy of that Court’s decision, and ignored as well the “abridging the freedom of speech” clause of the very same amendment. Now some forty plus years later the double-mindedness of that 1963 decision, and similar decisions by other courts, are being seriously challenged by a minority of “We the People” that profess to be “Christians”. (Ring-a-Ling)   

There are major “real world” differences between the words “establishment” and “exercise” when it comes to practical application of those words concerning “constitutional” religion. The types of opinions and decisions, such as the one issued by the 1963 Court, have a direct as well as a very indirect impact on all individuals, regardless of anyone’s three definitive “religious” persuasions.  

Here’s another overlooked Constitutional fact. The Judicial Branch of the government, and any other division thereof, is not “empowered to make, change, or repeal laws”, nor are they empowered to enforce law according to definition, as well as by the U.S. Constitution’s Articles 1, 2, and 3. Did you “see” the words change yet in any of those articles? Yet the 1963 U.S. Supreme Court did exactly that very thing; it changed the wording within a portion of the “supreme law of the land” known as the First Amendment. 

Another important question: How can any judge or court allow the free exercise “of” religion, any religion including, but not limited to, Atheism, Secularism, Humanism, Judaism, or even Islam by the people, but deny that same free exercise by/of the people that claim to be part of  “a” religion called Christianity? How was such accomplished? What are the plain facts, truth, and extremely simple answer? Here is that simple answer; by interpreting, only and just, the first phrase of the First Amendment’s religious clause while totally disregarding the second phrase, the “free exercise clause” along with many other U.S. Constitutional law and principles! 

Perhaps it is time to begin bringing the scattered definitions and statements together. Remember the definitions of opinion and decision? Step one are the opinions of the “someone’s”, the various Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court(s). Step two is the “something”, the institution of the Court, when it renders the collective opinions of the Justices as a single decision, using a “democracy” process. Contrary to popular belief and opinion, any decision handed down by any U.S. Supreme Court IS NOT a law, or even THE law. That last statement is not an opinion, rather a U.S. Constitutional FACT. 

The U.S. Constitution is a “something” as is the U.S. Supreme Court. By primary definition a thing is “a material object without life or consciousness”. Therefore, and by using some plain ole’ common sense, one should realize things couldn’t possibly have opinions; nor can they, or do they, actually make decisions. However the something, the institution of the Court in this example, is comprised of “someone’s” and those someone’s do have opinions and can make decisions; ponder the ramifications of that deduction by reason for awhile.  

Do the “someone’s” that comprise the Court(s) “devotedly” (i.e. religiously) follow the Constitution, a specific something? Some careful thought and consideration of the First Amendment and the Constitution itself, should answer that question. But if it hasn’t keep on reading, for another pertinent question still lingers. What is the something (religion) that the some one’s in each of the three branches of government, “believe in or follow devotedly”? In other words, what is their particular “brand of religion”?  

Some years ago an individual named Jim Bakker founded a “Christian” retreat; he named it “Heritage USA”. It is my judgment the name was chosen for this reason. Heritage is defined as, 1) “something that comes or belongs to a person by reason of birth; 2) any property, esp. land, that devolves by right of inheritance”. For the record devolve is defined as, “to pass or be passed on from one to another, as an obligation.”  

To understand the use of specific words, and the oft times the unseen precepts (i.e. a command or direction given as a rule of action or conduct i.e. morality) of the Constitution’s first amendment, another document needs to be examined first, and a little more thoroughly as has been. That document is “The Declaration of Independence”; but first a brief overview to “set the stage”. 

Within The Declaration of Independence are the numerous reasons why the colonies decided to declare their independence and break with the “British Crown”, the “State of Great Britain”. Britain was a monarchy, and although not specifically stated in the U.S. Declaration, a government under church rules, but not necessarily Biblical rules.  

That did not mean however that the citizens and the writers of the Declaration were not primary religious, that meaning a belief in God, but rather the manner in which the monarchy interpreted and applied governmental rules, church and/or Biblical principles to the colonies’ citizens; therefore the U.S. Declaration and the call for independence from England and its governmental church. A new type and form of government was in the “birthing stages”, one that this earth had never quite seen before, (i.e. the American experiment); but could, and would it work?

      Within the Declaration of Independence, the framers made reference to, “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, Creator, the Supreme Judge of the world, and Divine Providence” thereby stating their semi-specific “religious beliefs” in a “God”. The designers of that document were also “creationists”, in the general use of the word.

Specifically, most had to be believers of the Bible and Christians, not Atheists, Deists, or a bunch of agnostics, as some people would want, and lead you to believe; otherwise why use the aforementioned words? Nonetheless some challenges and huge obstacles concerning religion, the establishment and exercise of such, and the application of Biblical principles lay ahead for those individuals, such as the following “problem”.

On September 13, 1788 the U.S. Constitution was ratified, and became “the supreme law of the land”. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified, any obvious mention of a particular religious belief, (a church “denomination”) and the use any of the words referring to God as found in the Declaration of Independence were omitted. Could there be a possible reason(s) for such omissions? 

There were however two obvious “religious” exceptions. The first is found in Article 6, “...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The second is found in Article Seven, “In the year of our Lord...” Recently I’ve heard the resurrected claim once again, “The U.S. Constitution is Godless”. Is that the actual case and truth?

There were two words used by the writers of the Constitution that today’s society, which includes voters, politicians, judges, lawyers, churchgoers, but especially “We the People”, pay little if any attention to or actually grasp an apparent reason for their Constitutional use. Those words are “oath” and “affirmation” which are indirect references and precepts concerning an individuals “religion”, along with the Lawful and legal application and practice of such religion.

Nevertheless in a few short years after its ratification, the Constitution would be amended for a very specific, purposeful reason. In 1791, the first ten amendments, commonly referred to as “the Bill of Rights”, were ratified. Once again according to the wording of the U.S. Constitution, no obvious mention of a specific religion (i.e. Christianity) was made previous to, or included in, “The Bill of Rights”. However the First Amendment within that “Bill of Rights” did contain a “religious clause”.

            It should be noted that Article 6 of the Constitution preceded the “Bill of Rights”. An individual did not have to believe in “God” to hold public office, hence the inclusion of the word affirmation in Article Six, in addition to the word oath. So that should raise the question: Why the “religious clause” of the First Amendment? The answer to that question is actually found “hidden” within the definition of religion, “something one believes in or follows devotedly” and the word “test”.

An oath is “a solemn appeal to God to witness one’s determination to speak the truth or to keep a promise”. An affirmation is, “to declare or assert positively; to declare solemnly but without an oath”. In other words, when one swears an oath, usually with their hand on the Bible, a significant practice initiated by George Washington this nation’s first President, they are stating a belief in the Bible’s God, thereby forming a covenant, which is “an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons”.

Constitutionally and Biblically, the oath is two-fold agreement; it is a covenant with God, the vertical relationship of the primary definition of religion. Additionally, it is also a covenant by the representative(s) who will (allegedly) represent “We the People”, the horizontal relationship. From a Biblical New Covenant perspective is “God” a person or a Spirit? Nonetheless, an alternative was given, through the use and choice of the word affirmation, to any individual(s) who did not believe in the Bible’s God or the alleged “Christian’s God”, thereby eliminating the vertical relationship contained only within the oath (covenant) of office.

Constitutionally, an individual was not, is not, required to believe in God or even the Bible, provided the representative chose the affirmation of office. An individual could believe in someone and/or something else, as well as no one or nothing else. Thus the option of using an oath or an affirmation of office allowed an individual a choice for practicing their particular “brand” of religion. An individual’s choice between an oath of office, and an affirmation of office created freedom of religion (), but not freedom from religion (by definition).

The colonies had declared their independence in 1776; now a “system” had to be instituted to prevent the same form and type of government, from which they had declared their independence, from gaining a prominent place or position in the soon to be independent country and nation. The writers of the Declaration, as well as the Constitution, had to be extremely particular in their choice of words, in order to convey specific Biblical (Old and New covenant) governmental principles and precepts.

 Again, keep in mind that the colonies were breaking away from a form of government that was old in origin. The colonists’ belief in God is very evident in the Declaration of Independence and all earlier documents, such as the Mayflower Compact. Two major problems now had to be addressed. First, how could “God” be acknowledged without a church controlled government and country?

On the other hand they didn’t want a government controlling the church and a country that couldn’t (or wouldn’t) acknowledge God (i.e. a nation); that was the second problem. Could there be a practical and workable solution that could birth a new type and form of government with a Biblical basis, but not necessarily be a “Christian religion” form of government?    

A governmental system would soon be forthcoming; it would be a challenging task, but not impossible. That system would be based on a constitution. The framer’s vision for the U.S. Constitution was “uniquely dangerous”, for their vision would have to be comprehended, embraced, and then sustained by “We the People” in order to remain in existence for the future generations of America’s citizens (posterity).

It should be reasonably evident that the writers of the Declaration were “religious”, familiar and concerned with Biblical principles and precepts as evidenced by these words, “...Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions...” Rectitude is defined as, “rightness of principle or conduct; correctness of judgment”. Also stated was this type of “trust” [Cf. Psa.118:8], “...With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence...” providence defined as, “the foreseeing care and guidance of God or nature; care exercised in providing for the future”.

Nevertheless to show such “familiarity” beyond a reasonable doubt, a look at another word, “liberty”, defined as “freedom from bondage, captivity, etc.; freedom from external control or interference”. Notice and realize that liberty is freedom from EXTERNAL control, such as governmental rules, regulations, laws, etc. Would it be reasonable to presume [Cf. Isa.1:18] if there are (were) external controls there could also be INTERNAL controls? [Cf. 2^nd Cor.3:17]

One such example of “internal control” was the use of the word oath found in the Constitution’s Article Six; but taking an oath and practicing an oath (i.e. “covenant”) can be worlds apart.  One particular type of internal control would be the “key” to the newly established Constitution which would be used for this nation’s type and form government, and the country’s soon to be elected representatives.  

Using some words from the Declaration of Independence concerning this nation’s founding, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”, an observation from the Bible; “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”. [2^nd Corinthians 3: 17] That was the vision for the new government, one founded upon Biblical precepts and principles, sustained by the “Spirit of the Lord” in order to secure liberty, through that “internal control”. Freedom would have to be a “by-product” of that particular type of Liberty.

Here’s something else interesting. In the Bible are found these words, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” [John 8: 32] Free is defined as, “enjoying personal rights or liberty; possessing civil and political liberties; exempt from external restrictions.” Notice the words “external restrictions”. A few sentences later are these words; “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” [John 8: 36] Biblically, it would appear there is some type of correlation between truth, freedom, liberty, and the Son. Just for the record, freedom is defined as, 1) “the state of being free” 2) “personal or political independence” 3) “exemption or immunity from controls, duties, etc.” and 4) “ease or facility of movement or action”.

Within those two statements of Jesus (Bible verses) is an important clue pertaining to the importance of words; that words do have exact meaning, and such importance was a vital part of the vision of this nation’s founders. More about this vision will be explained in other chapters. It will be controversial for it goes against traditional, institutional church theology and doctrine. One particular chapter will be a real eye-opener or maybe convince the reader this writer is a lunatic and a heretic - a Nutcase!

Also within those two verses is also a principle that is directly linked to the First Amendment’s “establishment clause” concerning religion, the new type and form of government, the word permanent, and the reason why “the enemy” wants the citizens of this country and nation to believe and accept the conceptual lie of “separation of church and state”. Freedom and being free are not necessarily one in the same.

Perhaps you might wonder, “Why use the Bible as a reference source?” Like the dictionary, the Bible is a “standard” defined as, “anything serving as a rule for making judgments or as a basis for comparison; anything authorized as the measure of quantity or quality.” There can be many types of standards; such are not just limited to the Bible and the dictionary; the U.S. Constitution is our nation’s “standard”, or use to be.

One reason for all the definitions used thus far is the “exact establishment” of a common ground for meanings of words used within this book, in order to establish a basis for comparison as to what we were taught, how we think, and what we believe and accept as “Americans”. The “standard” for those meanings (definitions) is the dictionary. If one disregards that standard, there is no conformity, and the doors leading onto the highway of interpretation and confusion are swung wide open. Words do have primary and secondary exact meanings in order to avoid such confusion, like it or not, believe it or not, accept it or not. 

Some individuals might not consider the Bible as a “standard”; that is an individual choice. This historical fact remains however; those who set foot on the soil of this country used the Bible as a standard. Eventually they established government for individual colonies, and then the colonies collectively. That statement is not an “opinion”, but a well documented historical fact. An individual’s acceptance or denial of that fact is another issue, as well as an example of an individual’s “religious” preference.

In like manner, the Declaration of Independence and previous documents before such, along with the U.S. Constitution and its’ subsequent amendments are also standards, in addition to being reference sources. These documents were, and still are, the foundation for government in America. But the weapon of man’s interpretation is destroying those standards, which are (were) the very foundation for America’s morals, morality, and government. This “destruction” is not by accident; it is by purposeful and calculated design. Therefore the use of the dictionary and Bible as reference sources as to how, and then why, such destruction is purposeful and actually achieved through design.

             Unfortunately, a great many individuals are slowly rejecting the Bible’s standards, and with good reasons. The institution of the organized “church” has initiated, as well as instituted, many of the reasons for such rejection. The Bible states one thing, the members of the “institutionalized church” do something else. Who wouldn’t become confused and reject the Bible as a standard? Don’t sell “The Operating Manual” short - at least for the time being. The people who claim to use the Bible as a standard, well that too is another issue, as are the present day politicians that recite an oath, with their hand on the Bible, to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.

To believe in anything is not the same as to believe in something or one thing. Believing in anyone is not the same as believing in someone. Likewise, trusting in something and/or someone is not the same as believing in something and/or someone. While the Constitution is a something, there is uniqueness to it. That uniqueness is why it still is, at least for now, “the supreme law of the land”. Contrary to popular belief and opinion, the U.S. Constitution’s “first floor” is built upon the “ground floor” of the Declaration of Independence, whose “foundation” is Biblical principles and precepts.

The majority of what you now will hopefully continue to read will not be found in a history book, read in a newspaper, heard on a radio, seen on the television or in the movies, not even in “Christian” religious books. The vast majority of “churches” and their pastors will not preach/teach on what shall follow, and the majority of those individuals that comprise the institutions of government and the church will probably be offended by particular sections of the text of this project.

To those who might be offended, I offer or make no apologies. Read all “the words” as they are written, regardless of what you were taught, what you presently think, and/or believe.  Read what is actually printed, not what you think is there, not what someone tells you is there, and not what someone else thinks was stated or meant by it. Read for yourself what has actually, and will been stated; in other words, you can now become a judge. Do not add some words, or subtract some words. Become your own person and student; let “The Words” and each of their definitions be your “teacher”.

Just for the record, any individual can use the Bible as a reference source and/or a standard. Reading the Bible, in and of itself does not make one a “Christian believer” automatically, so don’t get panicky and throw out the baby with the bathwater. The use of Biblical precepts and principles by any given individual are not necessarily indications that he or she a Christian, using the standards of Jesus. Neither does the claim by any individual that, “I’m a Christian”. Jesus alone, the only “person” of the so called “Christian trinity doctrine”, established the very specific processes and standards for becoming a Christian, not the institution commonly called the church.

What the actual process and standards are, as well as the motivation for the words and/or actions, is something professing “Christians” need to re-examine and consider. Sometimes however, actions can, and do speak louder than the words. For example, the percentage of “Christians” in America is somewhere between 77% and 86% according to reports of recent, assorted surveys. In other words, that is the written or verbal claim (i.e. words) of those who profess from their mouth to be “Christians”.

Let me call “a heart is a heart” instead of “spade is a spade”, thus this writer can be “religiously” and “politically” correct at the same time. When one observes how during the past four decades or so, documented historical practices of a particular religion (Christianity) have been methodically removed from the public lifestyle, in addition to being denied the “free exercise thereof” because such is an “establishment of religion”, something is evidently wrong somewhere, someplace, and with some ones. For example, the majority of alleged Christian words “I’m a Christian” have not produced corresponding Christian or even Biblical actions; stated another way, “Their talk is cheap”.

Remember these words? “To understand the words and hidden precept, (i.e. a command or direction given as a rule of action or conduct i.e. morality), of the Constitution’s first amendment, another document needs to be examined more thoroughly first; that document is The Declaration of Independence.” We the People also need to re-examine and re-consider our own thoughts, beliefs, and actions as well.

Some readers might consider the preceding few paragraphs a harsh indictment of modern and contemporary Christianity and government; therefore let the questions, common sense, reasoning, and evidence that will be presented in this book be the determining factors before a judgment is made. Then, let the chips fall where they may. 

“We the People need to re-examine and re-consider” is a command, a call to action for ALL of America’s lawful citizens, regardless of age, gender, race, color, and religious belief using the primary definition of/for religion. Who is this writer to command? No one special; but it illustrates once again this important truth and fact that words, how they are used and how they are applied, are important. “We the people should really re-examine…” would actually be a better way to win friends and influence people; the latter a suggestion vs. the previous command. Hmmmm, I wonder where that copy of Dale Carnegie’s book is?

“For by the words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words  thou shalt be condemned.”

Matthew 12:37

“If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence.”

Benjamin Franklin