1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5, and 77 – 78, and 81 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly. If you choose to only read those seven (7) paragraphs, for your convenience you may read the page called, Preface.

2. A related article that I wrote is, Theonomic amendment. (That title has a link to that article.) In that article I proposed a shorter version under paragraph 31. Although I prefer a short version to keep it consistent with the length of some of the articles of amendment of the constitution of the United States of America, for some reasons I have since seen that some things might need to be presented by using more words to solve some problems that have arisen over the years, whether they are due to a lack in the constitution, or an error in the constitution, or a mistake by the Supreme Court of the United States, according to my opinion.

3. I sought to write a rough draft for a constitutional amendment to fix some problems that have occurred. Some or all of these problems are inconsistent with the scriptures, which are of course superior to the constitution; for the constitution is of creatures or men, but the scriptures are of the Creator or God.

4. A summary of some or all of the problems that are in the United States of America’s constitution, and my effort to fix them, are the following.

5. Section six of article one wrongly implies that an entity other than the Creator (God) can create. Being sensitive to not dishonour God, I think that that ought to be amended to state the obvious, that only the Creator can create; and that a similar word be understood to be in the stead of the word, created, such as the word, made. A similar application is for future amendments that might misuse the word, create, or a similar word, lest God be displeased with us.

6. The supremacy clause of article six wrongly states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. Although it could probably be argued that when that was written that it was common knowledge that the law of God is higher than the constitution, for God is higher than men, on the other hand it could be argued that the United States’ Supreme Court is to judge according to the constitution. In recent decades the Supreme Court has made some judgments regardless of the common or Christian knowledge of the supremacy of God’s law. Because that is wrong, and has caused America some damage, apparently the obvious needs to be put into the constitution to rightly guide the judiciary.

7. The religious test ban of article six needs to either be clarified or corrected so that there be a Christian test to know whether a potential federal officer is a Christian or not, without the test being denominational or sectarian. Further information about that proper policy can be gotten by reading the scriptures, and considering some American history such as the fundamental agreement, or original constitution of the colony of New Haven, of June 4, 1639, which can be read at the following link.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ct01.asp

8. It is my opinion that when the first amendment was written, that the two religious clauses were either not as clear as they could have been, or the word, religion, has some times been used broadly to alter the way some of the people think about that word. In either case, a problem has arisen, and problems to the point that Christianity is being taken to be somewhat meaningless, if not wholly without meaning in the real world that is outside of church buildings.

9. Regarding the first amendment, my thinking is that the word, respecting, means, favouring, or, preferring. The word, establishment, means, denomination, sect, or, society. The word, religion, means, Christianity. The word, free, means, unlimited, or, unrestricted. And the word, exercise, means, practise.

10. The secularisation or dechristianisation of America is gradual, but measurable, with damaging effects. It has allowed idolatry into this land, immorality, and other unnecessary problems. See Deuteronomy 13, Genesis 19, Leviticus 26, and other scriptures.

11. We the people, that are under God, with God’s help can help to fix all of those problems, and related problems, with one amendment to the constitution. Constitutional amendments are costly pertaining to time, effort, and money. Rather than wasting time, labour, and money by working on a constitutional amendment for each fundamental problem, by giving our American society clear and undoubted access to the scriptures to solve our problems, we can handle various problems with one amendment. We could teach the ignorant or wicked what a marriage is. We can balance the budget. We can fix our money problem. We can ban immorality, and improve safety. We can dish out harsh punishments that are appropriate for criminals that deserve them. We can do all of that and more by one good amendment.

12. Lest there be a conflict, in consideration of the principle of there being one law, which is taught in Exodus 12:49, so there ought to be one official Bible. For some reasons I think that the King James Version, or the Authorized Version, is the best. Some reasons for that are found in Luke 2:33 when the King James Version is contrasted with some or most modern translations. Some or most of the modern versions err by having the word, father, there rather than the correct word of, Joseph; for God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ according to Mark 1:1, and other scriptures. Because some of the modern versions produce a conflict there where the King James Version doesn’t, the King James Version is shown to be superior at that point. Many other reasons showing the superiority of the King James Version can be given.

13. The following five sections are a rough draft for the possibility of amending America’s constitution to rightly recognise the superiority of the law of God over the laws of men. Its file name is 2011.12.21.2b.

Section 1.        (1)        This article of amendment is for the purpose of improving the United States of America (United States) according to the scriptures, so that the federal (United States’) government acts in a godly manner, that the will of God be done, and that the religious (Christian) liberty or freedom and right of the people and governments of the several states be not abrogated or nullified, to the intent that God be obeyed and pleased.

            (2)        The people may and ought to practise religion (Christianity) in a meaningful way in all areas of their lives, such as in homes, governments, schools, and businesses, and every other area; not only in churches.

            (3)        The legislative power (the senate and house of representatives or congress or legislature or legislators or law makers or legislative branch) is prohibited to legislate in a manner that is inconsistent with the scriptures. No legislation or law shall be unscriptural. The congress shall make laws that conform to the scriptures when the scriptures are pertinent or relevant, (when the matter can be handled by using the Bible) such as concerning subjects that are, but are not limited to, marriage, and morality.

            (4)        The executive power (president or executive departments or office holders or other officers or executive branch) may not execute or enforce or act (act) in any manner that is not consistent with the scriptures. No act shall conflict with the scriptures. The executive branch may and shall act in a manner that is according to the scriptures, when the scriptures are relevant, to produce and maintain the godly and good order of the American union of the several or separate states or republics.

            (5)        The judicial power (supreme court or inferior courts or judges or judiciary or judicial branch) is forbidden to judge in any way that is unscriptural. No judgment may be contrary to the scriptures. The judiciary shall consider, comply with, and judge according to, the scriptures when the scriptures are pertinent.

            (6)        Regarding the relevancy of the scriptures, this section or article shall not be construed or taken to exclude the scriptures or the effect of the scriptures. Although it is recognised that the scriptures might not pertain to all subjects, it is the expressed intent that the scriptures are relevant to some, if not most or all, subjects. Some, but not all, subjects that the scriptures pertain to are the following. Anthropology, astronomy, atomic energy, balanced spending, biology, building construction, business, character, child training, crime and punishment, decency, environmentalism, familiar (family) relations, farming, generosity, goodness, health, history, honesty, honour, integrity, justice and judgment, law and government, liberty, love, marital relations, mathematics, money, nutrition, order, origins, peace, politeness, prosperity, race, religion, righteousness, science, ship building, theocracy, truth, virtue, war, zoology.

            (7)        Although churches shall respect and may and ought to promote or advance Christianity, and may be denominational or sectarian, if they don’t violate the eighth clause or paragraph of this section, (A church of any denomination or sect may be in any state, unless such a state has prohibited that Christian denomination or sect.) the United States’ government may and ought to respect and promote nondenominational or nonsectarian Christianity.

            (8)        Although the several states may respect an establishment of religion, (be denominational or sectarian regarding Christianity) they are allowed to be nondenominational or nonsectarian concerning Christianity.

            (9)        Although there may be no religious (denominational or sectarian) test for any office or public trust so called under the United States, there may and ought to be a Christian test to wit whether a person is qualified or not to hold an office or public trust so called under the United States.

Section 2.        (1)        God is the Creator. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the judge, lawgiver, king, and saviour. He is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)        God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)        The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)        The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel by Moses that is in the four biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

            (5)        Christianity is a way of life that includes acts that are supported by the scriptures, and excludes acts that are against the scriptures, with an emphasis on the new testament. The supreme written authority for Christianity is the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments.

            (6)        Churches are congregations of persons that believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, their Saviour from their sins, and is the Lord, and that practise Christianity.

            (7)        Sin is the transgression of God’s law, or any person neglecting to do that which such a person knows to be good, such that it (the good) is not contrary to the scriptures.

Section 3.        (1)        God, being the Creator, is superior to creatures, such as men. Consequently God’s law and the rest of his written word to men (the scriptures) are superior to the laws and other words of men.

            (2)        The law of God and the rest of the holy scriptures rightly have dominion over the constitution. No thing in the constitution shall be contrary to the holy scriptures. If any thing in the constitution conflicts with the holy scriptures, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (3)        If any thing in the scriptures of the old testament is inconsistent with the scriptures of the new testament, the new testament’s scriptures shall control or govern. (No part of the old testament’s scriptures may be disregarded, unless it has been clearly abrogated or nullified by the new testament’s scriptures, such as the sacrifice of animals for the sins of the people.)

Section 4.        (1)        This article of amendment amends any part of the constitution to honour God by showing that only the Creator can create. But this amendment does not nullify a similar meaning, such as the word, made, for, created, in the second clause or paragraph of the sixth section of the first article of the constitution.

            (2)        This article modifies the supremacy clause, so called by some, of the sixth article of the constitution by subordinating the constitution to the scriptures. Consequently this article also places the laws and treaties of the United States under the scriptures. Therefore if any thing in the constitution or the laws or the treaties of the United States is incompatible with the scriptures, the scriptures shall govern or have the preeminence.

            (3)        This amendment clarifies or corrects the religious test clause so called of the sixth article of the constitution to make that clause consistent with this article’s amendment of the establishment and free exercise clauses so called. The Christian test shall be with no regard for denominationalism or sectarianism.

            (4)        This article clarifies or corrects the establishment and free exercise clauses so called (first sixteen words) of the first amendment of the constitution to mean the following sentence. The United States’ legislature may not legislate favouring a denomination (sect or society) of Christianity, [more than any other Christian denomination or sect or society] or stopping the unlimited practise of Christianity. The United States of America’s legislative branch is not allowed to make any law to prefer any denomination or sect or society of Christianity more than any other Christian denomination or sect or society, nor may the federal law makers legislate to forbid the unrestricted application of Christianity. The establishment clause so called prohibits congressional legislative sectarian favouritism pertaining to Christianity. The free exercise clause so called forbids any congressional legislative stoppage of the unfettered acting of Christianity. This amendment maintains or establishes the separation of the governments of the United States and the several states for the purpose of allowing the governments of the several states to respect an establishment of religion (prefer or favour a denomination or sect or society of Christianity). This article protects and promotes the practise of Christianity by the government of the United States, and the practise of Christianity by the people and governments of the several states by directing the judiciary of the United States, and by other means that are herein mentioned.

Section 5.        To shew some of the divine authority for this article of amendment, some of the scriptures to support this amendment are Exodus 1:15-17, (the fifteenth through the seventeenth verses of the first chapter of the second book of Moses, called Exodus) Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, I Corinthians 14:40, Acts 17:11, Matthew 1:21, Philippians 2:5-11, Luke 6:46, I John 3:4, James 4:17, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, I Kings 4:24, Acts 19:20, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Isaiah 30:1-2, Psalm 33:12, Proverbs 14:34, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Psalm 9:17, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, III John 1:9, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, II Corinthians 10:5, and Psalm 2.

14. Some of the persons that would be for an amendment that promotes obedience to the commandments of God and the rest of the scriptures are some or all of the following. Christians that believe the Bible, persons that are for justice and judgment, persons that reasonably prefer the blessings of God rather than his curses, persons that favour morality, persons that know that marriage pertains to a man and a woman, persons that would like a balanced budget, voters that would preserve the earth, persons that oppose war unless it is righteous, persons that promote a godly unity rather than an ungodly diversity, persons that esteem money to be beneath the will of God, and persons that have enough sense to know that the law of God is above the laws of men.

15. Some of the persons that would oppose an amendment that promotes obedience to the commandments of God and the rest of the scriptures are some or all of the following. Idolaters or nonchristians, murderers, rapists, pederasts, sodomites, adulterers, fornicators, liars, thieves, lovers of money, destroyers of the earth (polluters) for profit, (See Genesis 1:31 and Revelation 11:16-18.) opponents of the death penalty and other toleraters of the wicked, present politicians, atheists, and some others of that ilk.

16. To my surprise, there are some others that I did not expect that are not in favour of such an appropriate amendment. Before mentioning them, I will point out that II Corinthians 11:26 teaches that there are false brethren, or false Christians. I am learning that some preachers would not support an amendment to direct the people to obey God, although the Bible does. And some attorneys that apparently litigate for Christian liberty would also not desire a judicial or constitutional problem to be fixed. You can wonder why in both cases. I have my suspicions.

17. God created the earth and the creatures that are upon it. Through weakness and tolerance of error and disobedience, America is being lost to secularists and others that disregard the will of the Creator. We have seen a Supreme Court judge against the public display of the law of God. That incorrect judgment was ostensibly by an inferior law (the American constitution). The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is being treated by some as though he is not the Lord. Those of us that seek to obey God are not obligated to tolerate such error and disobedience. In the light of Leviticus 26, disobedience to God’s commandments can jeopardise our national security.

18. When any subject comes up that affects us, we may and ought to have the meaningful liberty to discuss such matters so that proper legislation can be prepared and enacted to rectify any thing that is wrong, whether that subject be religion, race, morality, money, history, science, or any thing else.

19. But because of pressure and a lack of character, some persons feel intimidated about publicly discussing some of those subjects that were just mentioned. Putting the Bible back into public school rooms can help to give children the character to discuss all pertinent matters; for the scriptures can give children the confidence of knowing a correct and absolute standard to determine that which is right, and that which is wrong. And allowing the Bible in public school rooms for the students to read can make better persons to act in our society, to vote better, it can make better candidates to run for public offices, and better politicians that will regain the common or Christian sense of esteeming God and his law to be superior to men and their laws.

20. We the people may and ought to redress or rectify a judicial or constitutional problem by stating the obvious, (theonomic supremacy) and putting it into the constitution. If we don’t, we’ll have no one other than ourselves to blame for the expected curses upon America that are mentioned in Deuteronomy 28. Americans can and ought to learn some lessons from what the Israelites went through according to the scriptures, and from what is happening in America.

21. Based on some American Supreme Court opinions, we are told that according to the constitution, the federal government may neither advance nor hinder religion. It is my opinion that the constitution does not support a statement that the federal government may not advance religion. We have been told some other things that I think are inaccurate.

22. Some of the good effects of a theonomic constitutional amendment could be the following. Students may read the Bible in public schools. Students may pray in Jesus’ name in public schools. (See John 14:9,13.) Scientific creationism or intelligent design, with references to the scriptures, may be taught to children in public schools. The ten commandments of God may and ought to be publicly posted in such public places as public schools, court rooms, legislative houses, parks, and elsewhere. Laws that have the foundation of the scriptures can be enacted. Corporal punishment can be enforced against children and adults. Harsh punishments, including cruel so called, can be executed or enforced against criminals. (See Isaiah 13:9.) Those can be done with no bias shown to any Christian denomination. There therefore shall be no constitutional violation.

23. By rightly subordinating the constitution to the scriptures, one can claim a thing to be unscriptural. To give an example, freedom of speech and of the press without limits could lead, and has led, to that which is wrong, and can cause damage, such as pornography. By linking the first amendment with the scriptures, pornographers, for an example, may no more be protected by judges that lack common or Christian sense. One may sue a pornographer by showing nakedness to be a shame by citing Revelation 3:18. Feeding a lustful desire is not a right; for it is not right: it is wrong. (See Matthew 5:27-28, and II Timothy 2:22.) Legislatively banning the publication of photographs of naked bodies for an erotic purpose does not favour the Presbyterians and ignore the Methodists, for an example. It is nonsectarian religious or Christian; and therefore should be constitutional.

24. If you disagree with the rough draft for a theonomic constitutional amendment, I suggest that you read the scriptures that are referred to in that rough draft, and in this article. If after that you do not agree with it, I suggest that you read the King James Bible.

25. If such a good amendment cannot be ratified with America being as dangerously diverse as it is becoming, a remedy could be to make and ratify a federal constitutional amendment to allow for state secession, so that Christians that know better may act in a manner that is consistent with a life boat. That could allow those of us that realise scriptural supremacy to form some Christian states that are not under the present federal government, that is moving in a secular or ungodly direction. We can then let the rest of the diverse United States of America sink: otherwise if they are wise, they could copy our good example of obeying God.

Edward M. McCartney

Cleveland, Ohio

Posted on December 21 anno Domini 2011.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on January 7 A. D. 2012.

2011.12.21.3b.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5, and 77 – 78, and 81 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly. If you choose to only read those seven (7) paragraphs, for your convenience you may read the page called, Preface.

2. If a bus driver that is driving a bus full of tourists swerves to miss a squirrel, and drives the bus over a cliff, killing all aboard, we would say that his priorities were incorrect.

3. Too many of to day’s legislators would effectively do something similar to that. To please some sinners, too many secular or ungodly legislators would disregard the commandments of God, and thereby jeopardise the rest of us, when considering Genesis 19.

4. Why would they do that? To be cynical, I suppose that they do it for the votes of the pleased sinners. If politicians are using the public offices that they hold to do that, I think that is unethical.

5. For that and other reasons, we need some legislation to provide for divine direction for legislators when they legislate, and to place boundaries so that they do not cross the line when Leviticus 26 of the King James Version is considered.

6. I have a suggestion that I am not sure is feasible. Although I think that neither the constitution of the United States nor the state of Ohio need to be amended if enough of the judges were judging in a godly manner, because too many judges are judging in such a manner that they apparently think that the laws of men are superior to the law of God I think that we might have to amend both constitutions.

7. Although I think that theonomically amending a constitution is feasible for giving legislators a proper direction, I am not presently sure if statutes and ordinances to do that are feasible.

8. If such statutes or ordinances, rather than a constitutional amendment, may direct legislators when they legislate, the following four (4) suggestions may be considered, although I have not presently proposed any of them; for most or all of the legislators that I have contacted about a similar matter either don’t have enough sense to recognise the rightness of such a proposal, or they might not know about checking the judiciary, unless there are other reasons. (The other two branches of a government may be checked when they are wrong.) The similar suggestions are for the federal, state, county, and municipal governments. The rough drafts might need to be worked on more. The suggestions are subject to being changed.

9. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic federal statute. The file name is 2010.07.24.2b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (a)   For the purpose of the improvement of the United States of America, this statute is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this fœderal union of republics.

      (b)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (A)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (c)   No statute, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (d)   To shew some of the divine authority for this statute, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (e)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

10. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic state statute. The file name is 2010.07.24.4b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (A)   For the purpose of the improvement of the state, this statute is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this state.

      (B)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (a)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (C)   No statute, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (D)   To shew some of the divine authority for this statute, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (E)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

11. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic county ordinance. The file name is 2010.07.24.6b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (a)   For the purpose of the improvement of the county, this ordinance is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this county.

      (b)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (A)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (c)   No ordinance, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (d)   To shew some of the divine authority for this ordinance, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (e)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

12. The following is a rough draft for a theonomic municipal ordinance. The file name is 2010.07.24.8b.

xxxx.xx  Scriptural supremacy.

      (a)   For the purpose of the improvement of the city, this ordinance is such that it does not promote sectarian favouritism, [it does not respect (prefer) an establishment (denomination or sect or society) of religion (Christianity) more than any other Christian sect] and it is consistent with the free exercise of religion, (unlimited or unrestricted practise of Christianity) to the intent that the will of God be done in this city.

      (b)   (1)   God is the Creator. He is the judge, lawgiver, and king. He is the person that brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt when the Israelites were in bondage. God is the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

            (2)   God’s will is expressed in the holy scriptures.

            (3)   The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version.

            (4)   The law of God is the law that God gave to Israel through Moses that is in the four (4) biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The preisraelite divine law that is in the book of Genesis also may be considered.

                  (A)   During this time of the new testament, the old testament sacrifice of creatures for sin has been abrogated (nullified).

      (c)   No ordinance, resolution, or proclamation, shall be contrary to the law of God or the rest of the scriptures. If there is a conflict, the scriptures shall prevail or control.

            (1)   If any thing in the old testament is contrary to the new testament, the new testament shall control or govern.

      (d)   To shew some of the divine authority for this ordinance, some of the scriptures to support this section are Acts 5:29, Matthew 4:4, and 6:9-10, Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 40:28, and 33:22, Hebrews 1:1-8, Exodus 20:1-3, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Proverbs 13:13, John 1:29, Hebrews 7:12 and 10:1-18, II Samuel 23:3, Psalm 119, Daniel 2:44 and 3:28 – 4:3 and 5:17-21 and 6:25-26 and 7:27, Matthew 6:33, and 7:24-27, Romans 13, II Timothy 3:16-17, Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 7:28-29, I Corinthians 11:3, and Psalm 2.

      (e)   No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. [Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section. (The judiciary is not allowed to abrogate this section by claiming it to be unconstitutional.)]

13. Pertaining to subsection or division (a) or (A), that provides a purpose, intent, and clarification of the religious portion [the two (2) clauses of religion] of the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution for federal legislation, and for legislation of inferior governments if that amendment is to be applied to the states. Although a purpose and intent can be placed in the preamble of a bill or enacting ordinance, placing them in the statute or the functional ordinance can be convenient for the people.

14. Although secularists and nonchristians might not agree with my opinion of the way that I would clarify the two (2) religious clauses of the American constitution, if my opinion is correct clarifying those clauses can decrease the law suits. If my opinion is correct, subsection (a) shows that the section does not conflict with the constitution. Money can be gotten by attorneys on both sides of a case. Although I would like to think that some Christian organisations are for Christian liberty, I wonder whether some others are milking the Christians for money. (See I Timothy 6:10.) When a solution to a problem is presented, (such as a theonomic constitutional amendment,) and some won’t support that, that could cause me to wonder.

15. Pertaining to subsection (b), that defines words and phrases. When a document says, God, one could rightly wonder who that is. We don’t need to wonder who an executive is, such as a president, governor, or mayor. When the God of Israel expressed his wrath against Egypt, one reason why he did that was to establish the identity of the Creator, (the supreme person that is to be believed and obeyed,) and to defeat the gods or idols of an heathen people. See Exodus 12:12 and Psalm 96:5.

16. Subsection (c) is the functional or directing part.

17. Subsection (d) shows the superior authority for the statute or ordinance. Some legislatures of men seem to like the power of politics, and writing laws that they would like us to obey. I think that they would like to be the authority. That is well if they realise that they are under God meaningfully. But when they become drunken with power and forget God, (See Psalm 9:17.) there can be unpleasant consequences. I heard that some early American laws shewed (showed) the godly authority for them by citing the scriptures. An example can be found in a seventeenth (17th) century antisodomy law of the colony of New Haven that referred to Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26. For that you may see the following link.

http://www.outhistory.org/wiki/Sodomy_law:_New_Haven,_March_1,_1656

18. Subsection (e) precludes judicial review of the section. The intent is to place it out of the reach of the courts so that they don’t negate it by calling it unconstitutional. I’m learning about precluding judicial review. I presently don’t know if governments that are inferior to the federal government (such as state and local) may prohibit the judiciary to judge against legislation. An example of the congress legislatively keeping the courts away is 22 U. S. C. § 6450 (section 6450 of title 22 of the United States Code). Although I don’t like the principle of negating a branch of a government, if a branch errs there ought to be a way to check it: otherwise a bad situation can be developed such as we have now in America.

19. It ought to be obvious that the law of God is superior to the laws of men; for that which came from the Creator is higher than that which was issued by creatures. But too often the Supreme Court of the United States has not viewed the supremacy clause of article VI of the American constitution in the light of common sense.

20. If my opinion is correct about the meaning of the two (2) clauses of religion of the first (1st) amendment of the American constitution, most of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States have been wrong about that for decades. How can a court rightly judge a case if it does not rightly understand a criterion?

21. Although it can be shown that these suggestions for theonomic statutes and ordinances are not contrary to either the federal constitution, or the constitution of the state of Ohio, if the judiciary needs to be plainly directed (See Habakkuk 2:2.) by a constitutional statement of that which ought to be obvious to the courts, perhaps we need to state the obvious, (that God’s law is higher than man’s,) and put that into our constitutions.

22. I have seen a state constitutional provision that negated another part of that constitution. That is one concern that I have about doing something positive and godly. But I hope that the people will think that negating a good law should be taking us down a slippery slope. We have already gone a considerable way down a slippery slope. Fornication has been legal by men’s laws for some time. Now the unnatural sin of sodomy is anthroponomically legal, which is theonomically illegal.

23. If a citizen or legislator likes my idea, that was based on the scriptures, of having theonomic statutes or ordinances, you may use it, or alter it, to improve your area or state, or our country, or your country.

24. My thanks to you for taking the time to consider this suggestion to properly improve our society. If we cannot do that, perhaps we ought to consider splitting our society up into a secular or ungodly society for persons that prefer to disobey God, (See Revelation 22:11.) and a religious or Christian society for those of us that know better. See Deuteronomy 28, and Romans 14:12.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on July 24 anno Domini 2010.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on October 7 A. D. 2010.

2010.07.24.9b.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5, and 77 – 78, and 81 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly. If you choose to only read those seven (7) paragraphs, for your convenience you may read the page called, Preface.

2. The following is a proposal to clarify or alter the meaning of the words, religious, and, Religion, and to clarify or alter how Almighty God is to be worshipped, in § (section) 7 (seven) of article I (one) of Ohio’s constitution.

3. Form 1.

The following paragraph is the present form of the year of 1851.

§7 All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

4. Form 2.

The following paragraph is the present form; but the parts that are proposed to be altered are emboldened.

§7 All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.

5. Form 3.

The following two (2) paragraphs are the proposed new paragraphs; but the proposed changes are emboldened.

§ 7 (A) The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience in a manner that the scriptures are given substantial consideration that is due them. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; (Christian denomination) nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. But all citizens ought to be mindful of their position under God, and their duty to him, by obeying the scriptures. No religious (denominational or sectarian) test shall be required, for a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness because of his religious (sectarian) belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, (Christianity) morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination (Christian sect or establishment) in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of godly instruction.

(B) No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. (Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section.)

6. Form 4.

The following two (2) paragraphs are a combination of the current preamble, with the proposed alterations, with the proposed omissions struck through, and with the proposed additions underlined.

§ 7 (A) The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience in a manner that the scriptures are given substantial consideration that is due them. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; (Christian denomination) nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. But all citizens ought to be mindful of their position under God, and their duty to him, by obeying the scriptures. No religious (denominational or sectarian) test shall be required, as for a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account because of his religious (sectarian) belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, (Christianity) morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination (Christian sect or establishment) in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of godly instruction.

(B) No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. (Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section.)

7. Form 5.

The following two (2) paragraphs have the proposed changes in a regular form.

§ 7 (A) The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments of the King James Version. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience in a manner that the scriptures are given substantial consideration that is due them. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; (Christian denomination) nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. But all citizens ought to be mindful of their position under God, and their duty to him, by obeying the scriptures. No religious (denominational or sectarian) test shall be required, for a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness because of his religious (sectarian) belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, (Christianity) morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to pass suitable laws, to protect every religious denomination (Christian sect or establishment) in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of godly instruction.

(B) No court shall have jurisdiction to review this section. (Although courts may judge according to this section, no court may judge against this section.)

8. The file name of this proposal is 2010.03.17.2a.

9. Three (3) pertinent articles that I wrote are, Lakewoodites for McCartney, Theonomic amendment, and, Theonomise the state’s constitution.

10. Although I attempted to write this article so that you might not need any other articles, more can be said than is in this article. And any person that would seek further support or explanation to consider this proposal may read those articles. Those wishing to see the Ohio constitution may do so at the following link.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

11. Sometimes matters are not clear, and need clarification. Other times some things are insufficiently or wrongly presented, and need to be amended or corrected. Some words have synonyms. And some words have more than one meaning. I think that those ought to be considered regarding this matter.

12. When a legal document is worded in an unclear way, it could lead to misunderstandings, which could lead to law suits, which can be costly, which could be intimidating, which could cause persons to improperly alter their behaviour or acts.

13. I don’t know much about politics, but am learning. It can be difficult to be a politician for an ethical person. Depending on the area of a person, some areas are so diverse, whether that be racially, or pertaining to various beliefs, (or, religions, so called by many,) to be elected a politician has to do that which is called politically correct, (I think) which I think means doing that which is correct, so called, or necessary, to become elected by the electorate (voters). It might be better put to call that being politically sycophantic.

14. That sycophancy can lead to problems; for to become elected a person that would be a politician might have to please persons that he doesn’t agree with about some things, which could lead to him or her (him) compromising his or her standards, and lead him or her down a slippery slope, which is one reason why politicians have gotten a bad name. Some certain diversity is hurting us.

15. There are a couple of ways that our state’s constitution can be amended. One is by our state’s general assembly (legislature) proposing to the people a proposal, which is placed on the ballot for the voters to decide about. Another is a popular initiative. [For those you may read article XVI, and sections (§§) 1a and 1g of article II, of Ohio's constitution. For circulating a petition, you may consider §§ 3501.38 and 3519.05 of title XXXV (35) of the Ohio Revised Code (O. R. C.). The board of elections of your county might be able to give you some information.] But in either case, when a population, such as Ohio has become, is too diverse, compromises have to be made to please enough persons to get it approved. And to do that, wording might have to be ambiguous.

16. Perhaps I’m not politically savvy. But I assay to be right; for I am aware of my accountability to God, I desire to maintain my credibility and integrity, and I seek to do what is best and right for my society, whether that be for my city, county, state, or country.

17. At various times warnings have been issued to the people. (Consider Isaiah 58:1, and what some American preachers have preached.) Many persons don’t heed those warnings. God is patient. A warning about God’s judgment can be scoffed at. For hundreds of years America has been apparently blessed. But things are different to day. To day a man can talk about unpleasant things happening in America, (not just in Ohio) and not get as much scoffing. During these days when some of us think that God might be judging America, some of us might be able to make a case for either obeying, or expecting God’s judgment. (I think that we ought to obey God because it is right; and we ought to love him for that which he provided us. But judgment is also a consideration, such as for those which neglected the first two.)

18. Therefore rather than considering only the diverse population, (voters) I am considering God more, and so ought you. See Romans 1:24-25.

19. I think that there might have been a time, such as the middle of the nineteenth (19th) Christian century, when section seven (7) of the first (1st) article of Ohio’s constitution was understood, or basically understood. It might have been ambiguous then. There might have been a consideration for Judaists; [Jews so called by many (to not confuse the biblical Jews with the nonisraelite or somewhat nonisraelite Khazars that adopted Judaism, or their descendants)] which are usually called Jews: for persons that read the Bible know about the Jews in the scriptures, that they preceded Christianity, and were given the scriptures, along with the nonjewish Israelites (persons of the northern kingdom of Israel). During the old testament the Israelites and the Jews were God’s chosen people. But to day Christians are God’s chosen people. Although I think that, religion, meant, or basically meant, Christianity, perhaps some persons living in the nineteenth (19th) century allowed Judaism to be included. Both Christianity and Judaism claim the person of Abraham.

20. Abraham is also claimed by Muslims. And Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are what many called monotheistic (although a person that has a son or Son cannot be the same as one without a son). Some persons tolerated that. But what happened was that an error (See I John 2:22.) crept in. Small changes were made in the minds of the people. It’s called incrementalism. One wrong thing that was tolerated led to another toleration of more error. And thus our society began to slide down a slippery slope.

21. Although I have known and liked some Judaists and Muslims, I would like to make something clear. I don’t worship Judaists or Muslims. I worship God. See Revelation 19:10.

22. And although our society might be so diverse that my proposal might not be accepted by enough Ohioans presently, by breaking the ice, what I have to present might cause enough persons to think about it, so that in the future, if not soon, the minds of the people might be changed. The people might do the right thing, rather than what is politically expedient.

23. I’m sorry to be verbose. But reality has to be faced before we can discuss certain matters: otherwise it is like attempting to avoid an elephant standing in the middle of the living room. The obvious has to be faced. I have been trained to have a character that can and will do that. We need more Ohioans that have such a character, such as a nineteenth (19th) century governor of Ohio, Mister William Allen, that reportedly said something racial that to day some weak Ohioans either can not or will not handle.

24. If you do not read or believe the Bible, your toes might be stepped on, I’m sorry to say. The Bible is a book of life, which includes, but is not limited to, religion, race, law and government, crime and punishment, morality, science, nutrition and health, mathematics, ship building, love and hatred and relationships, finance, child training, ethics, behaviour, and other matters.

25. I think that some of section 7 of article I of the constitution of the state of Ohio appears to be a bit of a clarification of the two (2) clauses of religion of the first (1st) amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. In the American constitution I think that, an establishment of religion, means, a denomination of Christianity.

26. To give an example of a synonym, I basically think that, pretty, is synonymous with, beautiful. Similarly I basically or completely think that, preferring, or, favouring, are synonymous with, respecting. Similarly I think that, denomination, sect, and, society, are synonymous with, establishment. And similarly I think that, Christianity, is synonymous with, religion. That pertains to the first (1st) amendment of the United States’ constitution. I therefore believe that the establishment clause [the first ten (10) words of the first (1st) amendment of the American constitution] basically mean, The United States’ legislature may legislate no legislation that prefers any denomination of Christianity [more than any other Christian sect]. [I think that those last six (6) words are implied.]

27. Not to exalt the federal constitution up to the level of the scriptures, (meaning that the wording of the constitution is not necessarily flawless,) when considering the importance of the word, religion, (when considering the scriptures, such as Deuteronomy 28, and other scriptures,) in the constitution, and considering the place of the constitution in American society, we ought to watch how we use the word, religion. Many times we use it broadly to include Christianity, and other faiths. But when error (in this case faiths other than Christianity, considering John 10, John 14:6, Philippians 2:5-11, Revelation 11:15, and other scriptures,) is tolerated, it can cause problems when viewed in the light of Deuteronomy 13, and II Kings 17. Christianity is not like choosing a flavour of an ice cream cone. It is God’s ordained way according to his will that he expressed in writing (the scriptures). Consider the fruit of Christianity by America’s history when America honoured God. See Matthew 7:16. Then contrast that with to day’s ungodly America, and how we appear to be God cursed.

28. Misusing words has caused a problem. Another problem is caused by some attorneys. Some of them apparently twist words to make them fit an idea that is compatible with their goals. (For profit or not, some of those serpents or erring souls are apparently misleading our country to an apparent destruction whether intentionally, or through ignorance, or otherwise.) Some wording of some legal documents is so ambiguous that it could be argued that it might have been done intentionally to keep business afresh for themselves and other attorneys. What I’m talking about seems to be an apparent example. To day we have law suits about religion that is bringing in money for attorneys on both sides. There needs to be clarification. The situation is so bad that the founder of one political action committee (p. a. c.) called GOOOH (Get out of our house) would exclude attorneys so that they should not be eligible to run for the office of house of representatives of the congress of the United States of America. And, although I like some attorneys, I basically agree with him. Although GOOOH’s founder was decided against about that subject, GOOOH’s internet site is at the following link.

http://goooh.com/

29. Although I am somewhat sorry for being verbose, one thing that Americans (not just Ohioans) need to learn is that sometimes we are moving too fast. Being fast is okay for a sprinter competing in a track and field event. But when it comes to legislation that affects us, we need to slow down enough to grasp a problem, and search for, recognise, understand, and enact, the right solution to it. Ohio and America have been off of a right course about some things for decades. Some persons are moving so fast that they are going over solutions, and leaving them behind, and probably didn’t know it.

30. There is a saying that sounds contradictory; but makes sense to me. While I was attempting to think of it, I think that my experience caused me to think of an additional sentence, unless I remembered it. I don’t know whether to take credit for the first sentence or not. Those three (3) sentences are the following.

Fast is slow. Slow is smooth. Smooth is fast.

Fast is slow. By that I mean that when a person rushes, he can miss things, which causes him to do it over again, which can be slow when considering the time spent. Slow is smooth. When one takes enough time to do a job rightly, such as preparing, dotting every i and crossing every t, it goes smoothly. Smooth is fast. When one is working smoothly without snags, having prepared the way, making sure that he is doing his job rightly, and without going back to do something over again, a job can be done faster.

31. Some of our lives, whether politicians or the people, are so filled with other matters that hardly any one is handling this problem that is associated with religion, so called by constitutions and others. Religion or Christianity has basically been marginalised to church buildings by bad court decisions, and consequently not taken seriously by some persons in the real world without (outside of) church buildings.

32. If persons would slow down, take a sufficient amount of time to use their minds to see the errors of court decisions, and how they have adversely affected our state of society, and consider the importance of this in the light of the scriptures, this problem could be solved about as fast as Ohioans voted for casinos. To give an example of a problem of how the word, religion, is used or misused to day, a federal judge called that which an atheist believes, or doesn’t believe, his religion. Although that court basically ruled correctly, that is beside the point. To misuse a word can perpetuate a problem down the road. To day is a place down the road respecting those which went before us. That case was called, Newdow v. United States Congress, 06-16344, that was before the court of appeals of the United States for the ninth circuit. You may hear the oral (verbal) arguments for that case at the following link.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000001473

33. I prefer not to do this via this route; but to help you to ponder I’ll mention something that might get your attention. What if I told you of a way to improve your life? Would you listen? Sadly some persons don’t care about God, or living their lives his way. But they desire their lives to be improved, such as getting a job if unemployed, while disregarding God’s instructions in his written word. Part of the problem is that some persons are so adamant about living their lives their way that they would rather live a way that is substandard than to do things God’s way. (Contrast that with Isaiah 58:13-14.) Such persons are not part of the solution here in Ohio, or in America. They are part of the problem, whether they are the majority or not. (See Exodus 23:2 and Matthew 7:13-14.) We ought to be obey God because he is higher and better than us, (See Romans 3:23, I Corinthians 11:3, and Revelation 4:8.) and knows better about how to govern his creation than we creatures know.

34. But for what it is worth, when the Israelites were informed by God through Moses, they were properly instructed and warned that if they obeyed God’s commandments, God would bless them. But if they disobeyed God’s commandments, God would curse them. For that you may consider Deuteronomy 28. I am thinking that we could probably have a better society by living our God given lives God’s way rather than our way, which is not always right. And part of that is governing. See Romans 13, and other scriptures.

35. Presently due to some slick serpentine attorneys, and some gullible, if not unchristian, judges, we are basically being told that Christianity is a religion, (to repeat, a religion, not, religion,) but Judaism is also a religion, (so called) and so is Islam, and Buddhism, Hinduism, and other faiths. Calling a nonchristian faith a religion can cause, and has caused, confusion when one goes to documents (the constitutions of America and Ohio) that were written over an hundred years ago, which was during a time when America was basically Christian, or more Christian than it is now.

36. One apple that is added to another apple means that there are two (2) apples. That was true in the eighteen (18th) and nineteenth (19th) Christian centuries, and it is true to day in the one and twentieth Christian century. No one has the right to say to day that one plus one equals three (1 + 1 = 3). One plus one equals two (1 + 1 = 2). It always has. It always shall. No one to day has a right to change a meaning of a word that was used more than an hundred years ago. But we have the ability to amend our constitutions. That is not necessarily a good thing; for if something was right, it could be altered to that which is wrong. But witting that we presently have that ability, if it is necessary to amend a constitution, then we ought to use the opportunity that we have to either clarify some words if they’re right, or correct them if they’re wrong.

37. Although I don’t think that it is necessary to make certain amendments, witting the gullibility, or ignorance, or perhaps the antichristianity, (Consider I John 2:22.) of some attorneys and some judges, unless it is something else such as madness, (Consider Deuteronomy 28:15-16,33-34.) or being too busy to learn what ought to be known, or not knowing where to look for information, it appears that to fix a problem in Ohio, which could rightly affect other states, that we ought to appropriately amend our state’s constitution.

38. I again am sorry for being verbose; but so much garbage has been placed in the minds of the people that it takes a while to clean it out by explanation and scripture. (See John 15:3.) For an example, when one speaks about including God and his law and the rest of his word in our lives, some persons mindlessly parrot that that is a violation of the separation of church and state, (so called) as though an idea of a creature is more important than what God or the Creator has revealed in the scriptures. And a response can take a while to explain. That is one reason why I suggested some other articles that I wrote, some of which I am iterating.

39. Much has been placed in the minds of the people to lead them away from God, which is a violation of Deuteronomy 13. And much can be said to either clear that up or correct it. I only plan to say a few things here. I have more to say than is in this article.

40. I think that the meaning of the first sixteen (16) words of the federal constitution basically mean the following sentence. The federal lawmakers may not make any law to favour any sect of Christianity, [more than any other Christian denomination] nor may the United States’ congress legislatively stop the unrestricted practise of the way of the Lord Jesus Christ.

41. An honest and caring soul might wonder what religion was at the times of the constitutions of America and Ohio. The first (1st) amendment of the United States’ constitution was ratified in the year of 1791. Section (§) 7 of article I of Ohio’s constitution was of the year of 1851.

42. A cry that grew among the colonists in the 1770s was, No king but King Jesus! according to page 267 of The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel. (Were you taught that in public school? I wasn’t.)

43. Mr. Ted R. Weiland said that the persons that founded America were mostly white Protestant Christians according to his message identified by T-762, which can be heard at the following link.

http://www.missiontoisrael.org/tapelist.php

44. Not to imply that Mister Webster was flawless, we use some dictionaries to day that bear his name: they are based on his work. Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language of the year of 1828 has some definitions of the word, religion. It was used broadly (which included various faiths) back then; but not always. What one ought to be looking for is what was meant by the people of early America. Part of Mr. Webster’s etymology of the word, religion, is that it is from the Latin, and it is from religio, from religo, to bind anew ; re and ligo, to bind. Webster said, This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or the obligation of such an oath or vow, which was held very sacred by the Romans. Before continuing with what Webster wrote, I find it absurd, without considering what Webster wrote, when I hear some of my fellow Americans state that religion or God and politics are not to be mixed. Such persons are unaware or ignorant of the scriptures, history, and a meaning of a word. Although Webster correctly sought to learn about how a word was used by a people that preceded the Americans, it ought to be remembered that we ought to consider what the writers of our constitutions meant, whether they were right or wrong. (Errors can be amended.)

45. Webster’s first definition of the word, RELIGION, is the following two (2) sentences.

Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man’s obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man’s accountableness to God ; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety ; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.

46. Not all of us needed a dictionary to know some of that when we have a Bible, which informs us of God’s commandments. But not every one reads the Bible. Some of the persons back then took the Bible seriously, such as applying it to the real world outside of church building walls, unlike some of the people and politicians presently. Regarding the meaning of, religion, in the late 1700s and middle 1800s, it meant, Christianity, if not more.

47. Although I could write more about that, for that and some other reasons, I think that, an establishment of religion, of the first (1st) amendment of America’s constitution means, a denomination of Christianity. For persons in America to argue that we ought to be sensitive to them, if they are nonchristians, and have a court deny the unrestricted practise of Christianity, (That is what I think, the free exercise of religion, means.) such as banning Bible reading for godly or moral guidance in public schools, is inappropriate, unamerican, and unscriptural. It was mentioned that a Jewish so called (Judaist) student could be offended by some of the new testament in the case of School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp, 142, 374 U. S. 203 (1963), as though offending any person, or any other reason so called, is a sufficient reason so called to keep God’s good guidance away from children in a public school. (I think that when a person is offended by the truth, that person probably opposes the truth. You may consider Psalm 119:165, John 1:1-18, and 17:17, and 6:60-61, and 8:31-59.) There were other reasons (so called) given, which indicated to me that both sides, and the court, all took the religious portion of the first amendment differently than I take it. The American Supreme Court prohibited regular Bible reading in public schools that properly guided children. For America to allow that decision to stand, that could indicate weakness, apathy, recklessness, a lack of knowledge, or a lack of love for God (the Creator) and care for children, in America. That court’s opinion crossed the line. Although I have not read that court’s decision, (opinion) I looked at some of it; and know a few things, which are that the establishment clause of the federal constitution and the free exercise clause are different, and that we are not to please any group of persons if it means being disloyal to God. I do not wish to see my America, that is under God, to be dechristianised to please any group of persons, (creatures) whether they are nonchristians that are living in rebellion to God (See I Samuel 15:23 and Exodus 22:18.) by not submitting themselves to his Son, (They presently have the freedom in America to live in open rebellion to the Son of God.) who is the Lord, (See Acts 2:36 and Philippians 2:9-11.) or a group of judges that had minds that seemed to be so indiscriminate that they apparently did not learn the difference of an establishment of religion and religion. If you would hear the verbal arguments of that case, you may do so at the following link.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142

48. I therefore don’t think that the American constitution needs to be amended if understood properly. But the American Supreme Court seems to be more sensitive to the will of some nonchristian creatures than the will of God. That is idolatry, which is unscriptural. See Exodus 20:1-3, and Deuteronomy 13, and Romans 1:24-25.

49. For what they are worth, both the national and state constitutions forbid religious tests for public offices. (See article VI of the United States’ constitution.) To day that appears to be ambiguous. But by studying a bit about history, reading the Bible, and using what we called common sense back in the 1960s, one could see that that probably had to do with sectarianism, which was religious in a sense; but could be confusing to modern persons that are somewhat unaware. According to Mr. Weiland, there were religious oaths in the sense of them being Christian, which was allowed. For that you might listen to his message T-755 at a previously given link, which is under paragraph 43. Weiland mentioned a court case in the twentieth (20th) Christian century called Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488 (1961). (I disagree with Weiland about some matters. He thinks that the constitution is the problem. And about some things he is right. I think that education can help judges: otherwise a clarifying amendment might be needed.) It is not likely that the constitution prohibited a religious (Christian) test or oath; for apparently it was practised for a considerable time after the constitution was ratified. And a Bible reading people knows that fearing God is required of a ruler. See II Samuel 23:3-4. Godly or Christian rulers would know about a balanced budget, to give an example. See Proverbs 11:1. Spending more money than is being taken in is unscriptural. But too many of to day’s ignorant, if not ungodly, politicians, which think that it is better to obey ungodly judicial decisions rather than obey God, seem to think that considering God is unconstitutional (as though the constitution is above the word of God). That is a reason why rulers ought to be religious, (Christian) and ought to have a religious (Christian) test, which is not the same as a religious (denominational) test.

50. Prohibiting a religious or denominational test should be consistent with the establishment clause. But forbidding a religious or Christian test should have been inconsistent with what early Americans believed. (It could also be a violation of the free exercise clause.) But whether it was or wasn’t, it should (shall) have been contrary to the scriptures, which are higher than a man made document (constitution).

51. If I was a judge, knowing what I know now, I don’t think that I would have a difficult time judging some cases. But some judges apparently need some help (which is not to imply that I never need help). Therefore although I wouldn’t need either the national or state constitutions to be amended, because some judges don’t see things like I have been blessed to see them, (Consider Isaiah 59:8-10.) I think that it might be better for the American constitution to be theonomically amended first before our state constitution is amended. But whether that happens or not, I think that our state constitution ought to be amended. Information can be brought to the attention of the United States’ Supreme Court (which is not to imply that a sufficient amount of the present judges have eyes to see). If judges don’t judge properly, there might be a recourse. Things can be changed to provide for that, such as a constitutional amendment for the legislative or executive or popular review of the judiciary, and its decisions.

52. Considering what has been written, religion, is not a light word. I think that the people, politicians, attorneys, judges, and preachers, ought to pay closer attention to it. Mistaking that word has led to unnecessary problems in the American union of republics. Part of Ohio’s constitution says, Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government. Religion or Christianity has been taken lightly by some judges recently that don’t seem to have read the Bible, or Mr. Webster’s definition. Religion (Christianity) has been marginalised. Then morality went. Fornication was talked about, and somewhat practised, during the time that I went to school in the 1960s and 1970s, although that was natural. But now the perverted sin of sodomy (homosexuality) is being practised, and recklessly tolerated by politicians that seem to be too stupid to recognise the potential damage that could be a result of that in the light of Genesis 19 and Leviticus 26. Morality is being lost. Now we have a problem of knowledge. Some of the people and the politicians do not have the simple knowledge to know that the law of the Creator (God) is superior to the laws of creatures (men).

53. Nevertheless, religion, or what I call, Christianity, is essential to good government. We may and ought to include religion (Christianity) in the real world outside of church buildings, such as in the schools and governments, such as using a Bible upon which to legislate; for I know of no better or higher law than God’s. Because some judges apparently need help to understand some things, (Don’t we all?) I think that we probably ought to amend the state constitution to either clarify or correct some of section 7 of article I; for the scriptures can correct constitutions of men when those constitutions are wrong.

54. I think that specifying the Bible, and a particular version, is a step or two in the right direction for clarification. What the godly legislators did in the midnineteenth Christian century was much better than most of what to day’s politicians wouldn’t do. But to day some of the religious provision appears to some to be so ambiguous, and because court cases are arising due to a lack of clarity, that I think that some things need to be made clear for our day.

55. It is insufficient to talk about worshipping God apart from his word, (See Matthew 4:4.) as though our conscience without a written law is sufficient, although there is a law written in our hearts according to Hebrews 8:10. But when writing laws, it helps to have a written foundation. It is difficult presently to get agreement of some persons about the meaning of some written documents, such as the second (2nd) amendment to the American constitution. To allow diverse persons to believe what they will without a written document should of course be worse.

56. Regarding our duty to God, for that you may search the scriptures. And some of my wording was influenced by article 3 of chapter I of the constitution of the state of Vermont. For that you may see the following link.

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/const2.htm

57. Regarding precluding judicial review, that is a bit over my head. I have a few things to say about that. Slightly more than half of the state of California knows what a marriage is. [Concerning the other part, which is almost half of an American state, that blows a hole in the idea of evolution (in the sense that men are becoming better) as taught by some.] I heard that prohibiting judicial review is based on section 2 of article III of the federal constitution. Apparently it pertains to the congress deciding whether the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction about certain cases, or not. An apparent example of disallowing judicial review is 22 U. S. C. section 6450. Because the word, review, could be taken differently in the future as some judges have taken the word, religion, to day, when considering the past, I made a parenthetical statement to make it difficult to twist. But recently it occurred to me that precluding judicial review is for the congress. The general assembly is not the congress. But because provisions can be made, I left division (B) for possible future reference, unless I missed something that Ohio can do. Regarding the state of California, the people barely passed a state constitutional amendment to recognise marriage to pertain to a man and a woman (as though that needed to be said). But a party has taken that to a court in an effort to show it to be inconsistent with the federal constitution. Therefore being aware of that possibility, I think it meet to disallow a court to judge against my amendment proposal.

58. When Roy S. Moore was the chief judge (Justice so called) of the supreme court of the state of Alabama, he publicly acknowledged God being the supreme source of law by placing a monument of an abbreviation of the ten commandments, which had other inscriptions, in the rotunda of the state’s judicial building. He was unconstitutionally ordered to take that monument out of the building. My opinion is that it was an unconstitutional order because it violated the free exercise clause. (My opinion is that it did not allow for the unrestricted practise of religion or Christianity.) Judge Moore, having a backbone, and esteeming the constitution and the divine law to be above that order, and thinking himself to be in America and not under communist oppression of the former Soviet Union, courageously disobeyed that unconstitutional and unscriptural order. For that reason he was put out of his judgeship. Apparently there was an effort in both the senate and house of representatives of the United States’ congress to forbid that which wrongly happened to that godly judge. Although I don’t think that it was passed, it is an example of a congressional attempt to legislatively preclude judicial review. You may see that at the following links.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h1070ih.txt.pdf

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s520is.txt.pdf

59. Although my English is not flawless, I attempted to improve some of the wording of section 7 of article I of Ohio’s constitution (the religious section). I sought to make some changes to be nonsubstantive. I basically sought to make as few changes as I could to honour the decent men that made that religious section. But being mindful that I am to honour God more, I think that for our time some changes are probably needed for the present judiciary.

60. An idea occurred to me to reword some of the American constitution’s first (1st) amendment to illustrate what I’m saying. If the congress sought to have the federal government give no preference to car makers, but allow the continued use of cars, it might write an amendment of the following sentence. The congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of automobiles, or prohibiting the free use thereof. (That sounds ambiguous, such that attorneys would be lining up for business.) Then it is ratified (for my illustration). Attorneys clamouring that the government may not endorse religion (confusing religion with an establishment of religion) leads me to think of this illustration. In the future after the government has been building roads to provide for the free (unrestricted) use of cars, and not showing favouritism to any automobile manufacturer, (establishment of automobiles) an attorney argues that the government must stop building or fixing roads; for that is an endorsement of automobiles. But it was a measure so that the government should not purchase cars from one car maker exclusively. Of course the unlimited (free) use of cars was intended.

61. I suppose that that illustration hit home. You relate to cars, because they take you to and from work, which you need for survival. And you can see cars. But for some of you, you don’t relate to God as much as you ought to. You can’t see him. (You can’t see the necessary air that you breathe either.) Although God provides for that which we need for life, some of you disregard him. Some of you think more of your car than you do of the person that created the earth that you need to live off of.

62. Other than attempting to obey God, which is right, and hopefully be blessed by God, you might be wondering why we ought to clarify something about religion. Because our society is so ungodly, considering irreverence, fornication, bastards, (offspring born without wedlock) poverty, crime, perversion, and other problems such as an atheistic attitude, if we can get a word (religion) right, and appropriately amend our constitution, and the American constitution too if that is necessary, I think that we could have a better life. One good thing about that is that we could put Bible reading back into our public schools here in America, which is not the Soviet Union, which could have a righteous influence on dear children.

63. Rather than your daughter being immoral and coming home pregnant, and making your first grandchild a bastard, or a mulatto, and becoming poor, you might train up a moral girl, with the moral support of a godly government. She might get the good sense to marry first, then produce a child of her own people within marriage. (Presently Caucasians are being a bit intimidated into gradually mixing our race into extinction. But Bible reading can give you a firmer character.) For that you might consider I Corinthians 6:9-10, and Ezra 9 and 10, (chapters nine and ten) and other scriptures.

64. My thanks to those of you that cared enough to take the time to read my concern about our state, and our society. I hope that you will do something about this, such as contacting your state representative and senator. Waiting for others to fix problems for you might not happen.

65. In Matthew 24:35 the Lord Jesus Christ said, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

March 26 A. D. 2010

This second (2nd) edition was revised on March 29 A. D. 2010.

2010.03.26.1b.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5, and 77 – 78, and 81 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly. If you choose to only read those seven (7) paragraphs, for your convenience you may read the page called, Preface.

2. For your information, the following paragraph was the one hundred and third (103rd) article of the charter of the United Nations (U. N.) that was included in a dictionary of the year of 1979.

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present Charter and any other international obligations to which they are subject, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

3. Other than that, I have in this article presented five (5) forms pertaining to the 103rd article of the charter of the U. N. The following is a link to that charter.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

4. Form 1.

The present one hundred and third (103rd) article of the charter of the United Nations (U. N.) is the following paragraph.

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

5. Form 2.

The current 103rd article of the charter of the United Nations is the following paragraph: but the parts that I propose to be changed are emboldened.

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

6. Form 3.

The following two (2) paragraphs are my present proposal in addition to the current article: but the parts that I am proposing changing pertaining to the current 103rd article of the United Nations’ charter have been emboldened.

      1.    In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

      2.    The Creator of heaven and earth is the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The holy scriptures, (the scriptures) which include the law of God, are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments, which is expressed in the King James Version. To obey the Creator, defend Christianity from ungodly laws, and produce godly and blessed nations, no thing in this charter shall be contrary to the law of God, and the rest of the scriptures. If any thing in this charter conflicts with the scriptures, the scriptures shall prevail.

7. Form 4.

The following two (2) paragraphs are the combined current 103rd article of the United Nations’ charter and my proposal, with the proposed additions underlined.

      1.    In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

      2.    The Creator of heaven and earth is the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The holy scriptures, (the scriptures) which include the law of God, are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments, which is expressed in the King James Version. To obey the Creator, defend Christianity from ungodly laws, and produce godly and blessed nations, no thing in this charter shall be contrary to the law of God, and the rest of the scriptures. If any thing in this charter conflicts with the scriptures, the scriptures shall prevail.

8. Form 5.

The following title and two (2) paragraphs are how the 103rd article of the charter of the United Nations should appear if the proposal to amend that article is ratified.

Article 103

      1.    In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

      2.    The Creator of heaven and earth is the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. The holy scriptures, (the scriptures) which include the law of God, are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments, which is expressed in the King James Version. To obey the Creator, defend Christianity from ungodly laws, and produce godly and blessed nations, no thing in this charter shall be contrary to the law of God, and the rest of the scriptures. If any thing in this charter conflicts with the scriptures, the scriptures shall prevail.

9. The file name of my proposed new second (2nd) paragraph to article 103 of the charter of the U. N. is 2009.12.14.2a.

10. Of course not all members of the U. N. will agree with my proposal. But not all of the citizens agree with the present charter. In either case there are going to be dissatisfied parties.

11. Although I am not necessarily attempting to displease some of the people, the people are creatures. The important person to consider and please is the Creator, which I have reasons to think to be the God of Israel, who is the Father of his Son the Lord Jesus Christ. God, or the Creator, is superior to us: we are subject unto him, and therefore ought to act in a way that is according to our inferior position.

12. Although I don’t always obey the scriptures, I assay (attempt) to. And I encourage you to obey God by obeying his written word.

13. We creatures are necessarily subject unto our Creator. Sir William Blackstone, Kt., understood that. In his Commentaries on the Laws of England he showed that, according to the edition edited by William Carey Jones. Of book I, which is in volume I, the title of the second section of the introduction is, Of the Nature of Laws in General. In § 38 of that, the title of which is, Law as a rule of human action, the Honourable Mister Justice (so called) Blackstone wrote that in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which is the following. Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being.

14. Based on the scriptures that I have read, best expressed in the King James Version, I think that one of the reasons why some or all of the various nations have the problems that we have is because of our (including America) disobedience to the will of God that is expressed in writing in the holy scriptures.

15. Nations ought to understand that. The various nations have laws, and unpleasant consequences when those laws are disobeyed. God has a law. And when his law is disobeyed, it is understandable that there can be unpleasant consequences.

16. Considering Hebrews 7:12 and John 1:29, I recognise that some of God’s law was changed by the new testament. The sacrifice of animals for sin was abrogated: (nullified) for Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

17. Some of the problems that some or all of the nations on God’s earth have are the following. Irreverence and ungodliness, idolatry, selfishness, covetousness, greed, poverty, lack of health, famine, harsh weather, (such as droughts, strong winds and floods,) earthquakes, infidelity, lust, immorality, crime and violence, racial affliction, and wars.

18. Some or all of our problems are because of our disobedience to the scriptures. Some of the politicians ignore sound scriptural advice, and would rather do things their way. (For that you may consider Job 34:17,27 and Daniel 11:3.) And some of the people that vote for them have the same attitude. (A bad people can get bad rulers according to I Samuel 8.) Too many of the people would rather live their lives their way than God’s way. Having some of our problems is an high price to pay for doing things our way rather than God’s way.

19. Lessons can be learned from the old testament people of God, and the God of Israel. I am thinking that the various nations could be blessed by God if we obey the commandments of God. But if we continue to go astray, I think that we can expect our present problems to continue.

20. Some of the scriptures that I consider for this proposal to improve the United Nations’ charter are the following. Genesis 1:1; 9:1; 10:8-10; 11:1-9, Exodus 12:12; 20:1-3, Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28, Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, Psalm 1:1-3; 2:1-12; 7:8-9; 9:17-20; 10:16; 11:2-3; 12:3-8; 18:20-30; 19:7-11; 21:7; 22:26-31; 24:1; 33:4-5,12, Proverbs 3:5-6, Isaiah 1:16-20; 2:1-5; 8:20; 9:6-7; 10:1-4; 11:1-6; 13:9-14; 14:5-7,26-27; 16:3,5; 24:5-6,21; 26:2; 28:26,29; 30:1-2,8-13,18-23; 31:1-3; 32:1,13-17; 33:22; 40:8,10-11,13-31; 42:1-9,21,24-25; 43:8-12,15; 44:8-21; 45:5-13,20-23; 46:5-13; 47:10; 48:17-19,22; 55:8-11; 58:1-14; 59:19; 60:12; 61:11; 66:18,23, Jeremiah 3:1-4, Daniel 2:44, Mark 1:1, Luke 2:33, John 3:16,35, Acts 5:29, Romans 1:25, I Corinthians 11:3, Philippians 2:9-11, I John 5:7, Revelation 11:15, and other scriptures.

21. If those are too many scriptures for you, I recommend Deuteronomy 28. If that chapter is too long for you, I recommend the second (2nd) psalm. If you only have time to read one verse of the Bible, I recommend Psalm 9:17. But I recommend that you (both the people and politicians) set aside the time to regularly read the Bible, learn it, and practise it.

22. In modern times the nations may consider the United States of America. America basically obeyed God. And apparently God blessed America. Persons of various nations, and of Christian and nonchristian beliefs, came to America. Not to imply that the people always choose rightly, that is one indication that can be used to show that a Christian society and government, or a society and government based on Christianity, are superior.

23. Christians and nonchristians are better under accountable Christian rulership that is according to the scriptures. You may consider the audio and visual presentation at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HhpEXuaMI

24. But recently we Americans have been disobeying God, which includes politicians that are enacting some ungodly laws, and judges which have crossed the line by some ungodly judgments. And apparently God has cursed America.

25. The Bible is not only for the church; it is for living by and governing in the world without (outside of) church building walls. In addition to being a book of salvation, the scriptures are about law and government. The scriptures have the the law of God in the four (4) books of Exodus through Deuteronomy. In that law there are instructions about how to govern a nation. And the Bible has an history of how God blessed the Israelites when they obeyed the commandments of God. The scriptures also have an history of God cursing the Israelites when they disobeyed his commandments, and lived their lives their way.

26. An example of following the scriptures to improve our world is to stop illicit copulation. Sex without marriage is wrong, such as fornication according to I Corinthians 6:9-10. If persons stop committing fornication, there should be no children born outside of marriage. That should decrease crime, the population, the consumption of resources, and poverty. Various problems could be solved by following two (2) verses from the Bible.

27. Both the Israelites and Americans can be used to teach the nations a lesson that it is better to obey the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ according to the scriptures.

28. In addition to the scriptures mentioned, a scripture for your consideration is Jeremiah 12:17, which is the following sentence. But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the LORD. That could be said about most if not all of the nations on this earth. If you wonder why some unpleasant things are happening to your nation, you might consider those events in the light of that scripture.

29. If the various peoples on the earth would like to believe in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, I would like that. But whether they do or not, I think that all nations could be better if we and they obey the commandments of the God of Israel, and practise the teachings of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

30. Jesus is not only the Messiah or Christ, he is also the Lord under God. We are subject unto him. God made his Son Jesus Christ to be above us. According to Acts 2:36 it is written, Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

31. Because the charter of the United Nations is amendable, if a theonomic or theocratic Christian amendment is ratified, and if the nations practise the holy scriptures, and if God blesses the nations for our obedience, if after being God blessed the nations prefer their ways and to be cursed, I suppose that that theocratic amendment could be repealed.

32. We have practised various ideas of creatures. Where has that taken us? I think that if we creatures obey our Creator, that God will probably bless us. If that occurs, I hope that we will continue to have the good sense to continue to handle matters God’s way.

33. But getting God’s blessings ought not to be the primary motive. We creatures ought to obey our Creator because it is right. We ought to consider that which God provided for us, and love him for it. If you love some one, you seek to please that person.

34. If you would like to try that, I suggest that you read and practise the scriptures, request your politicians to show the truth in their legislation, which is the superiority of the law of God and the rest of the scriptures; and request your country’s ambassador or representative to the United Nations to amend the charter of the U. N. to show that the law of God and the rest of the scriptures are superior to the charter.

35. Pertinent articles for amending the charter of the U. N. are 108 and 109 of chapter XVIII.

36. My thanks to you for taking the time to read this, and to consider this proposal.

37. Since initially posting this article, for the convenience of persons that read other languages, I am adding some paragraphs to this article, to show my proposed new paragraph, in other languages, that is to be added to the charter of the U. N.

38. I do not guarantee the accuracy of the following translations into other languages. English is my standard. My thanks to the internet translation services that can be used at the links that are under this paragraph. Although I used those services, they were not the only sources for all of the translations that are presented here. Basically I entered the text into the box for the initial language, chose the target language, (language to be translated into) and had the translator translate it. It was as fast as clicking my fingers. To check it, I then took that translation, and had it translated back into the first (1st) language, which is English. If I found problems, I worked on them, such as breaking up a sentence, rewording some of the initial statement, or using books.

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/

http://translate.google.com/#

39. I don’t always follow the advice of others. But if one has advice, I attempt to listen. If any person thinks that he or she (he) can improve any of the translations that are presented here, you may submit your suggestions. Thanks to you.

40. The security council of the U. N. uses the six (6) languages of Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. [Five (5) of those languages are mentioned in article 111.] Some pertinent rules of the security council are 41 and 42, under chapter VIII called, Languages, of the provisional rules of procedure of the security council. Those rules are dated for 1983. They can be found at the following link.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/scrules.htm

41. For the Arabic language, or العربية, you may consider the following paragraph, the file name of which is 2010.01.05.1a.

خالق السماء والأرض هو إله إسرائيل ، والأب من الرب يسوع المسيح. الكتب المقدسة ، والتي تشمل قانون إله ، هو الكتب المقدسة المسيحي من الوصايا القديمة والجديدة ، وهو ما يعبر عنه في نسخة الملك جيمس. على طاعة الخالق ، والدفاع عن المسيحية من القوانين الفجار ، وجعل دول مختلفة لتكون ورعة والمباركة ، لا شيء في هذا الميثاق ما يكون مخالفا لقانون إله ، وبقية الكتب المقدسة. إذا كان أي شيء في هذه الصراعات الميثاق مع الكتب المقدسة ، الكتب المقدسة سوف ينتصر.

42. For the Chinese language, or 漢語, you may consider the following two (2) paragraphs, the file names of which are 2010.01.05.2a and 2010.01.05.3a (in the order that is according to the order that they are presented herein). The first (1st) paragraph is in simplified Chinese. The second (2nd) is in traditional Chinese.

天堂和地球的创作者是以色列的上帝和阁下耶稣基督的父亲。神圣的圣经，(圣经)包括上帝的法律，是旧约和新约。这是基督教圣书，并且是詹姆斯国王的版本(King James Version)。我们必须服从创作者。我们不能允许坏法律反对基督教。我们必须服从上帝和从而做适当的国家。我们希望上帝保佑国家。因此，有关这一宪章和上帝的法律，不得有冲突。关于这个宪章和圣经，不得有冲突。如果宪章和圣经冲突，圣经应居优先。

天堂和地球的創作者是以色列的上帝，也是閣下耶穌基督的父親。神聖的聖經，(聖經)包括上帝的法律，是舊約和新約。這是基督教聖書，並且是詹姆斯國王的版本(King James Version)。我們必須服從創作者。我們不能允許壞法律反對基督教。我們必須服從上帝和從而做適當的國家。我們希望上帝保祐國家。因此，有關這一憲章和上帝的法律，不得有衝突。關於這個憲章和聖經，不得有衝突。如果憲章和聖經衝突，聖經應居優先。

43. For the French language, or français, you may consider the following paragraph, the file name of which is 2010.01.05.4a.

Le créateur du ciel et de la terre est le Dieu d’Israël et le Père du Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Les saintes lettres, (les Écritures) qui incluent la loi de Dieu, sont la Bible chrétienne du ancien testament et le nouveau testament, qui est exprimé en le Roi Jacques Version (King James Version). Pour obéir le créateur, défendre le christianisme des lois impies, et produire des nations pieuses et bénies, rien dans la présente Charte ne doit être contraire à la loi de Dieu, et au reste de les Écritures. Si quelque chose en cette Charte est en conflit avec les Écritures, les Écritures prévaudront.

44. For the Russian language, or русский, you may consider the following paragraph, the file name of which is 2010.01.05.5a.

Творца неба и земли, Бог Израиля и Отца Господа нашего Иисуса Христа. Священное Писание, (Писания) которые включают Закон Божий, являются христианской Библии Ветхого и Нового Заветов, которое выражается в версии короля Джеймса (Иакова) (King James Version). Повиноваться Творцу, защищать христианство от нечестивого законами, и помогать различными нациями на эту землю, чтобы быть благочестивым и благословил, этот Устав не может противоречить закону Божию, а остальные Писания. Если какая-либо вещь в настоящем Уставе конфликты со Писанием, Писание имеет преимущественную силу.

45. For the Spanish language, or español, you may consider the following paragraph, the file name of which is 2010.01.05.6a.

El creador del cielo y de la tierra es el Dios de Israel y el Padre del Señor Jesucristo. Las Sagradas Escrituras, (las Escrituras) que incluyen la ley de Dios, son la Biblia cristiana del antiguo testamento y el nuevo testamento, que se expresa en el rey Jacobo Versión (King James Version). Para obedecer al creador, a defender cristianismo de leyes impías, y producir naciones santas y bendecidas, ninguna cosa en esta Carta puede ser contraria a la ley de Dios, y al resto de las Escrituras. Si cualquier cosa en esta Carta está en conflicto con las Escrituras, las Escrituras prevalecerán.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

United States of America

Posted on December 14 anno Domini 2009.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on January 5 A. D. 2010.

2009.12.14.3b.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5 and 77 – 78 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly.

2. Additionally you might read some related articles called, Theonomic amendment, and, Theonomise the state’s constitution. Persons that claim to be Christians might read, Church discipline. (Not every person that claims to be a Christian is a Christian. See II Corinthians 11:26, and other scriptures.) And if you have the time, another related article that you might be interested in is, Christianise the preamble. The charter of the county of Cuyahoga (County of Cuyahoga) can be viewed at the following link.

http://www.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf/CCCharter.pdf

3. I have in this article presented five (5) forms pertaining to the preamble of the charter of the county of Cuyahoga, that is in the state of Ohio. That was issue number 6 of Cuyahoga county. The official count of the voting for that was two hundred thirty and four thousand three hundred forty and six (234,346) votes for the charter, and one hundred and nineteen thousand six hundred threescore and six (119,666) votes opposed to it. That can be seen at the link that is below this paragraph. It is near the bottom of that internet page, which is about eighty percent (80%) of the way down that page.

http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/Nov03officialCanvass.HTM

4. The following is my present proposal to amend the preamble of the charter of the county of Cuyahoga.

5. Form 1.

The following two (2) paragraphs are the present preamble, that was proposed by a petition, and sent to the voters by mail, of the year of 2009; the year that it was initially approved by the voters.

We, the people of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, desire a reformed County Government to significantly improve the County’s economic competitiveness. With it, the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County can have: (1) focused, effective and accountable leadership; (2) job creation and economic growth as a fundamental government purpose, thereby helping the County do a better job of creating and retaining jobs and ensuring necessary and essential health and human services; (3) collaborative leadership with Cleveland, suburbs and others within the public and private sectors; (4) an improved focus on equity for all our communities and citizens; (5) long-term regional and global competitiveness; and (6) significant taxpayer savings by streamlining and eliminating unnecessary elected offices.

Desiring to secure for ourselves and for our successors the benefits of self-determination as to local matters that are afforded by the assumption of home rule powers for this County and the establishment of a county government that provides for the separation of administrative and legislative powers and for a more representative and accountable form of governance for this County, We, the people, adopt this Charter of Cuyahoga County.

6. Form 2.

The following two (2) paragraphs are the present preamble; but with the parts emboldened that are proposed to be altered or changed.

We, the people of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, desire a reformed County Government to significantly improve the County’s economic competitiveness. With it, the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County can have: (1) focused, effective and accountable leadership; (2) job creation and economic growth as a fundamental government purpose, thereby helping the County do a better job of creating and retaining jobs and ensuring necessary and essential health and human services; (3) collaborative leadership with Cleveland, suburbs and others within the public and private sectors; (4) an improved focus on equity for all our communities and citizens; (5) long-term regional and global competitiveness; and (6) significant taxpayer savings by streamlining and eliminating unnecessary elected offices.

Desiring to secure for ourselves and for our successors the benefits of self-determination as to local matters that are afforded by the assumption of home rule powers for this County and the establishment of a county government that provides for the separation of administrative and legislative powers and for a more representative and accountable form of governance for this County, We, the people, adopt this Charter of Cuyahoga County.

7. Form 3.

The following title and three (3) paragraphs are a proposed preamble, with the parts emboldened that are proposed to be altered or changed.

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the County of Cuyahoga, in the state of Ohio, in the fœderal republic of the United States of America, acknowledge that we and our laws are under the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge that the holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments expressed in the King James Version. We acknowledge the superiority of the Creator (God) and his law, and the rest of the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are subject unto the higher powers that are not contrary to God’s expressed will in the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are to walk in the ways of God by seeking to observe and do his commandments; because he is worthy, and to avoid his curses. We hope that the blessings of God might come on us if we hearken unto his voice. We desire to be righteously ruled by godly rulers, that the evil be terrorised, and those which do good be praised.

We, the people, desire a reformed county government to significantly improve the county’s economic competitiveness. With it, the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County can have: (1) godly, focused, effective and accountable leadership; (2) job attraction and economic growth to be a fundamental governmental purpose, thereby helping the county do a better job of attracting and retaining jobs, and ensuring necessary and essential health and human services; (3) collaborative leadership with Cleveland, its suburbs, and persons within the public and private sectors; (4) an improved focus on godliness and honesty to benefit all of our communities and obedient citizens; (5) long-term regional and global competitiveness; and (6) significant taxpayer savings by streamlining and eliminating unnecessary elected offices.

Desiring to secure for ourselves and for our successors the benefits of self-determination pertaining to local matters that are afforded by the assumption of home rule powers for this county, and the establishment of a county government that shall have the separation of administrative and legislative powers, that is provided for by this charter, and for a more representative and accountable form of governance for this county, we, the people, adopt this Charter for the County of Cuyahoga.

8. Form 4.

The following title and three (3) paragraphs are a combination of the current preamble, and the proposed altered preamble, with the proposed additions underlined, and the proposed omissions struck through.

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the County of Cuyahoga, in the state of Ohio, in the fœderal republic of the United States of America, acknowledge that we and our laws are under the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge that the holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments expressed in the King James Version. We acknowledge the superiority of the Creator (God) and his law, and the rest of the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are subject unto the higher powers that are not contrary to God’s expressed will in the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are to walk in the ways of God by seeking to observe and do his commandments; because he is worthy, and to avoid his curses. We hope that the blessings of God might come on us if we hearken unto his voice. We desire to be righteously ruled by godly rulers, that the evil be terrorised, and those which do good be praised.

We, the people, of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, desire a reformed County Government county government to significantly improve the County’s county’s economic competitiveness. With it, the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County can have: (1) godly, focused, effective and accountable leadership; (2) job creation attraction and economic growth as to be a fundamental government governmental purpose, thereby helping the County county do a better job of creating attracting and retaining jobs, and ensuring necessary and essential health and human services; (3) collaborative leadership with Cleveland, its suburbs, and others persons within the public and private sectors; (4) an improved focus on equity for godliness and honesty to benefit all of our communities and obedient citizens; (5) long-term regional and global competitiveness; and (6) significant taxpayer savings by streamlining and eliminating unnecessary elected offices.

Desiring to secure for ourselves and for our successors the benefits of self-determination as pertaining to local matters that are afforded by the assumption of home rule powers for this County county, and the establishment of a county government that provides for shall have the separation of administrative and legislative powers, that is provided for by this charter, and for a more representative and accountable form of governance for this County county, We we, the people, adopt this Charter of Cuyahoga County for the County of Cuyahoga.

9. Form 5.

The following title and three (3) paragraphs are the proposed altered or changed preamble in a regular form, the file name of which is 2009.12.09.2a.

PREAMBLE

We, the people of the County of Cuyahoga, in the state of Ohio, in the fœderal republic of the United States of America, acknowledge that we and our laws are under the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge that the holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments expressed in the King James Version. We acknowledge the superiority of the Creator (God) and his law, and the rest of the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are subject unto the higher powers that are not contrary to God’s expressed will in the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are to walk in the ways of God by seeking to observe and do his commandments; because he is worthy, and to avoid his curses. We hope that the blessings of God might come on us if we hearken unto his voice. We desire to be righteously ruled by godly rulers, that the evil be terrorised, and those which do good be praised.

We, the people, desire a reformed county government to significantly improve the county’s economic competitiveness. With it, the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County can have: (1) godly, focused, effective and accountable leadership; (2) job attraction and economic growth to be a fundamental governmental purpose, thereby helping the county do a better job of attracting and retaining jobs, and ensuring necessary and essential health and human services; (3) collaborative leadership with Cleveland, its suburbs, and persons within the public and private sectors; (4) an improved focus on godliness and honesty to benefit all of our communities and obedient citizens; (5) long-term regional and global competitiveness; and (6) significant taxpayer savings by streamlining and eliminating unnecessary elected offices.

Desiring to secure for ourselves and for our successors the benefits of self-determination pertaining to local matters that are afforded by the assumption of home rule powers for this county, and the establishment of a county government that shall have the separation of administrative and legislative powers, that is provided for by this charter, and for a more representative and accountable form of governance for this county, we, the people, adopt this Charter for the County of Cuyahoga.

10. If you have not taken the time out of your busy schedule to read the other articles that I referred to, I will attempt to accommodate you by addressing you about the obvious. You are probably thinking that my proposal is against the American constitution.

11. My proposal is not unconstitutional. But if it is, the constitution is unscriptural, and ought to be amended to conform to the higher document of the holy scriptures, (the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments, best presented in the King James Version,) which are of God (the Creator). The laws of man are of creatures, and are therefore inferior to that which was issued by the higher person that the English scriptures call God.

12. Although I think that initially making and ratifying a theonomic or theocratic or Christian amendment to the constitutions of both the United States of America and the state of Ohio should make theocracising the charter of Cuyahoga county easier, I can show that it might not be necessary presently. But considering the way that the United States’ Supreme Court has been judging recently within the past few decades, (since the death of the authors of America’s constitution,) such constitutional amendments might be a necessity.

13. One of my explanations of the two (2) religion clauses of the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution is the following sentence. The congress shall not legislate to show any preference for any denomination of Christianity, [more than any other Christian sect] nor may the American legislature make any law to halt the unrestricted practise of the God ordained way of his Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

14. If my understanding of the first sixteen (16) words of the first (1st) amendment is correct, that means that we Americans may practise Christianity in all areas of our God given lives. And that is not only in church buildings, but also without (outside of) those buildings in public. We may exercise or practise the Bible in our homes, public schools, businesses, and our governments.

15. If that is true, that means that we may have students in public schools audibly read from the King James Bible, praying nonsectarian Christian prayers, and sitting in rooms that have the ten commandments exclusively and prominently posted. And we should have the legal basis to make the sometimes filthy entertainment industry comply, such as with Revelation 3:18-19.

16. Doesn’t that sound scary? Yes. It sounds scary to persons that intend to disobey God, or commit crimes, or are already doing so, or are immoral.

17. What concerns me is the amount of crimes that our society is tolerating, which are partly a result of the American Supreme Court effectively ruling against God and his word (which it may not do) by some of its ungodly decisions. It concerns me that too many persons of the American people have allowed those bad decisions to stand. By so allowing that, we deserve God’s judgment, in addition to deserving his judgment for our sins or transgressions of his law. See I John 3:4.

18. I am hoping that the sun shall be setting on the days of apathetic Americans tolerating ungodliness. (By that I don’t mean the people waiting for some one else to solve their problems while they continue to sin against God. I mean the people obeying God, and working to accomplish God’s will. We the people ought not to be negligent. See James 4:17.) If the American Supreme Court doesn’t amend its bad decisions, we may and ought to consider recourse, such as checking and balancing the judiciary, or enacting theonomic constitutional amendments, in addition to obeying God’s expressed will in the scriptures.

19. But presently, some of you have been led to think that the government may not advance religion. That is based on a decision, or more, of America’s Supreme Court, that was ostensibly based on the first (1st) amendment.

20. I suggest that you read the first (1st) amendment, and see if you can get that out of the amendment. No such prohibition exists in the constitution. Some one has put one over on the American people, (although not all of us are buying it,) and the judiciary. Attempting to teach that the government may not endorse or advance religion (not to be confused with an establishment thereof) is like making an effort to pull something out of thin air (while causing you to believe that it came from an official document, such as by using some of the words of that document, like, establishment, and, religion).

21. Dear people, the two (2) religion clauses of the national constitution each have a prohibition. When the prohibition of the first (1st) clause is applied to the second (2nd) clause, that makes three (3) prohibitions.

22. Firstly let us consider the establishment clause [the first ten (10) words of the first (1st) amendment]. It is my opinion that that prohibition pertains to congressional legislative sectarian favouritism. The congress may not prefer any denomination of Christianity more than any other Christian sect. But there is no prohibition of congressional legislative favouritism of religion or Christianity.

23. Secondly let us ponder the free exercise clause [the eleventh (11th) through the sixteenth (16th) words of the first (1st) amendment]. The prohibition (shall make no law, which is found in the preceding clause) pertains to prohibiting the free exercise of religion (or Christianity). The two (2) negatives acting against each other eliminate congressional legislation stopping the unlimited exercise of religion (Christianity). (The congress may not legislatively stop the unrestricted practise of Christianity or religion.)

24. That’s it. The two (2) clauses of religion have two (2) or three (3) prohibitions, which were briefly explained (though some would not agree with me that religion means Christianity exclusively). Did you find in the first (1st) amendment any teaching that the government may not aid, or help, or endorse, or advance, or promote religion (which I think means Christianity)?

25. Although the government may not prefer Methodism more than Presbyterianism, (to give an example,) to say that the government may not advance religion is wrong, unconstitutional, deceptive, (whether so intended or not,) according to my opinion, and, more importantly, is unscriptural. See Nehemiah 9.

26. The holy scriptures (the scriptures) are not only a book of salvation, the Bible is a book of law and government. If you don’t believe that, you may read it, and see that. The founders of the American republic knew that. If you think that they meant to exclude God pertaining to government, and public life, you ought to read more American history. (I’m not writing that in a denigrating tone. There is much history that I am not aware of.)

27. But whether they did or not, we have the good guidance of God in a book to know what we ought to do; and we have the power to fix that which is wrong.

28. Although I do not agree with the present form of the charter of the county of Cuyahoga, I am encouraged that some persons had an idea, circulated a petition, put it on the ballot, (regardless of the present governmental officers,) and that the people enacted it by their power of voting.

29. We, the people, have power. [See article X of the amendments to the federal constitution, and section (§) 1a of article II of Ohio's constitution, and § 12.10 of the county's charter. And for those that have the courage to think outside of the box, ye (you all) may consider Nehemiah 9:38, preferably in the context of that chapter.] But that power is not to be abused, or delegated and not checked. (Although power may be delegated, the delegates or representatives are to be kept accountable.) We are not locked into the bondage (See Exodus 20:1-2.) of keeping God and his word out of government and our public lives. We are free to include God, and his good law, in our governments, and our public life. For your information, the following is a link to Ohio’s constitution.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

30. Whether we choose to either include or exclude God and his commandments, we ought to ponder Deuteronomy 28, and other scriptures, such as II Kings 17 if you would disregard God and his written word.

31. Presently some attorneys, and the majority of the Supreme Court of the United States, would apparently like you to believe that by being allowed to believe the Bible inside of church buildings (as long as some parts of the Bible are not much practised outside of church buildings in our public life) that the free exercise clause [the eleventh (11th) through the sixteenth (16th) words of the first (1st) amendment of America's constitution] is being fulfilled.

32. That’s a partial fulfillment. If you may not practise the word of God in public life, that is a restriction. That is not freedom. That is limited. That therefore is not a free exercise. And pertaining to the scriptures, such a restriction dishonours God. If you are taught a good way in a building; but may not practise that without (outside of) the building, of what value is that? That has been rendered meaningless. God is not a person that is to be ignored. See Psalm 9:17.

33. Part of the lives of children growing up is playing. They can learn things, such as sharing, not hitting each other, saying that they are sorry when they do bad things, and various other lessons that they can apply to their lives then, and when they become adults.

34. Not to denigrate children that are playing, the effect that some of the decisions of the United States’ Supreme Court is having on Christianity and American public life is to basically keep Christianity in church buildings like little children playing in a sandbox. To take lessons learned from the Bible and apply them to the real world outside of church buildings is for some persons not something that they would welcome; for they are disobedient to God: they would rather do things their way, such as bilk the people, or commit various crimes or sins, or simply do things their way. They don’t desire the Bible to be taken seriously, and applied to the real world: it could disturb their way.

35. Such persons are impediments. They are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem.

36. Because of disobedience to God, some of the Jews (the Israelites of the southern kingdom of Judah, whose capital was Jerusalem) were taken captive to Babylon. After some of the Jews returned to the land of Israel, which was after an unpleasant experience, some of them learned a lesson. And they did something to improve their lives. For that you may consider Nehemiah 10:28-33. One of the lessons that can be learned from that scripture is that the people to day through our governments may, and ought to, advance religion, or the way of God, which to day is Christianity.

37. Too many of to day’s politicians won’t obey God to improve the lives of the people. (Apparently they won’t give the steering wheel over to God. They apparently would rather drive our society, whether that means recklessly damaging it or not. Consider Job 34:17,27 and Daniel 11:3.) But we the people need to live our lives according to the scriptures: otherwise consider that a bad people can get a bad ruler according to I Samuel 8. An obedient people will vote for better and godly politicians.

38. Regarding some reasons for my proposal to amend various portions of the preamble to the county’s charter, laying a better and godly foundation upon which the county’s government is to act is one reason. Some of the scriptures to support that are the following. Proverbs 3:5-6, I Corinthians 11:3, II Timothy 3:14-17, Luke 2:33, Mark 1:1, I John 5:7, Isaiah 40:28, Romans 13:1-10, Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Deuteronomy 28, Acts 5:29, Leviticus 26:3-4,14-17, Revelation 4:11, Genesis 1:1, and other scriptures.

39. Of the version that was on the petition and the one that was mailed to us voters, I found three (3) nonsubstantive differences. The charter provides for such corrections in § 12.11, which is under article XII. For this article I used the one that was posted and sent to us electors.

40. Before continuing, my thanks to the persons that worked on the charter, and that organised and paid for the circulation of the petition for it, even though I voted against that charter. Now that that document belongs to the people, my comments are presented to you the people (including the aforementioned persons) for your consideration for improving it.

41. Once when I was reading the charter’s preamble, I was struck by how it appeared. I’m sorry to say that it reminded me of selfish disobedient little children that had not been properly trained by their parents. It was about getting jobs without recognising the superior person that created the earth that we live off of. Seeking to get that which amounts to be God’s blessings some way other than God’s way is unseemly.

42. Concerning the preamble that is without an acknowledgment of God, we creatures ought to acknowledge our Creator. (See Proverbs 3:5-6.) The preamble expresses a financial desire. Of course money is part of our modern world. But to esteem money as highly as some esteem it, and to disregard the Creator when our county is as sinful as it is, is inappropriate. See Matthew 6:24.

43. That charter, like some other modern documents, misuses the word, create, and other familiar (related) words. Because only the Creator can create, it is improper to misuse those words. (You may consider Isaiah 40:25,28; 42:8; 43:3-7; and 45:12,21, and other scriptures.) For some charter examples you may see the following sections (§§) in addition to the preamble. 2.03(2), 2.04, 3.04(3), 3.11(b), 7.01, and 12.05. Although those sections ought to be appropriately amended, this article is basically about amending or correcting the preamble.

44. I don’t know as much about economics as much as some others. But based on some things that I have heard, I don’t necessarily think that it is the government’s job to make jobs for us. We pay taxes for the governments to govern. To govern they hire hirelings or employees. But to build a government for making jobs could place a greater tax burden on those that are not employed by that government, which (if that is true) is inconsistent with another part of the preamble. It could produce laziness among some of the peoples of our county such that they would expect job provisions. Don’t we have enough and too much of that now?

45. I attempted to keep the preamble basically as it was to honour the desires of those which worked on it and wrote it. But because of some things that I think are either wrong, or could be improved, I have some suggestions for the people to consider.

46. Concerning the fourth (4th) point of the original first (1st) paragraph, or the second (2nd) paragraph according to my proposal, a foundation was laid for treating all of our communities and citizens equally. Although such wording might have helped to get that charter elected by the voters, the people need truth, whether it hurts their feelings or not. (We all ought to welcome the truth about ourselves. I’m bald. I don’t like that. But I have learned to face the truth about myself regarding that, and other matters. See I Corinthians 11:28,31.) A society based on lies is inferior. (See John 1:1,14 and 17:17 and Matthew 7:24-29.)

47. Treating that to be equal which is demonstrably unequal is wrong. Although you personally might do that, to expect the people to bear the burdens of those that won’t do their part, or made bad decisions, isn’t fair to them. And if we are all equal, why do some persons move from one community to another seeking a better life? (God did not treat all nations or persons to be equal. See Deuteronomy 7:1-8 and Romans 9:13, and other scriptures. When some persons committed sins, they were to be punished by others that had not so sinned. To see that you may search the scriptures.) Lying to the people or misleading them is not improving our situation. I therefore promote honesty. And if any peoples or persons react untowardly when the truth is presented, that is an indicator that they are probably not part of the solution, but are part of the problem.

48. I think that part of that part about equity was about treating perverts (sodomites or homosexuals) to be equal to persons that are assaying (attempting) to live decent and godly lives. By looking at §§ 9.01 and 12.07(3) of the charter, one could see that by using the two (2) words, sexual orientation, there was an apparent attempt to treat sodomites to be equal to persons that seek to obey God. (Candidly I admit that simply because one has an orientation so called, that does not necessarily mean that the same shall cross the line by committing an act that is according to his orientation. But I wonder how many that have unnatural affections seek to obey God by abstaining.) Although those sections ought to be amended, presently I seek to correct the preamble by making it to promote obedience in the citizenry. (Copulative or erotic perversion is disobedience to God, and is grossly immoral.) For your information, sodomy is condemned in God’s divine law in Leviticus 18:22, which was confirmed in the new testament in Romans 1:25-27,32.

49. By seeking to please sodomites rather than or more than God in a meaningful way in a matter or more, (Consider Exodus 20:1-3.) the cities of Lakewood, (I’m sorry to say,) and Cleveland, and the county of Cuyahoga, may not rightly expect God to bless us presently, although he might for those which are living according to his commandments. The toleration of sodomy could present a safety issue when considered in the light of Genesis 19.

50. If you knew that there were persons that were bringing down your society, would you treat them to be your equals, or would you either expect them to act well, or punish them? Not punishing some of the guilty could become a practise that could be spread, and ruin our civilisation. See Psalm 33:4-5.

51. It is my opinion that we need to look to God’s standard, and order our society according to it. Those which oppose that apparently hate God. See Exodus 20:5.

52. Section 12.10 of the county’s charter simply states how the charter may be amended. It is the manner provided for by the state’s constitution. (See §§ 1, 1a, and 1g of article II of Ohio’s constitution, and § 1, and perhaps §§ 2 and 3, of article XVI of Ohio’s constitution.) If I understand that correctly, either the legislature (In our case I take that to be the county’s council.) may place it on the ballot, or it may be placed on the ballot by a circulated petition (by the people).

53. Because § 3 of article I of Ohio’s constitution allows citizens to instruct their representatives, you may contact your district councillor, after he or she (he) has been elected and enters the office; and make your proposal to your representative.

54. For circulating a petition, consider § 12.02 of the charter. You may also desire to read §§ 3501.38 and 3519.05 of title XXXV (35) of the Ohio Revised Code (O. R. C.). (The board of elections of the county might be able to give you some information.) Then the electors (we the people that are registered to vote) may decide for or against the proposed charter amendment by voting.

55. My thanks to you for taking the time to read and consider this proposal.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on December 9 anno Domini 2009.

This fifth (5th) edition was revised on January 10 A. D. 2010.

2009.12.09.3e.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5 and 77 – 78 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly.

2. I have in this article presented five (5) forms pertaining to the preamble of the charter of Lakewood, Ohio.

3. Form 1.

The present preamble of the second amended charter of the city of Lakewood is the following paragraph.

We, the people of the City of Lakewood, in the County of Cuyahoga and State of Ohio, in order that we may have the benefits of municipal home rule and exercise all the powers of local self-government, do frame and adopt this Charter for the government of the City.

4. You might notice that an important person was not acknowledged in that preamble that is acknowledged in two (2) documents that are superior to the city’s charter, even (which are) the preamble of the constitution of the state of Ohio, and the holy scriptures that are expressed in the King James Version. You may find Ohio’s constitution at the following link.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

5. Not to disregard the American constitution, although the word, God, is not mentioned in the United States’ constitution yet, his Son is acknowledged by a title, not by his name, when a date was expressed in article VII. And the word, religion, was used in the first (1st) amendment, which makes an implication of an acknowledgment of God.

6. For some reasons I recommend that the preamble of the charter of Lakewood, Ohio be improved. I am considering the present sinsome (Although Lakewood is not full of sin, we have some of it, which could provoke God to judge us. I believe that his judgment on our city has begun.) condition of our city. And I am considering the word of God.

7. Considering those reasons and more, I submit to the people of the city of Lakewood, for your consideration, a rough draft for a godly preamble, which is the following paragraph, (which appears later in this article to be form 5,) whose file name is 2009.11.04.2a.

We, the people of the city of Lakewood, that is situated in the county of Cuyahoga, in the state of Ohio, in the fœderal republic of the United States of America, do frame and adopt this charter for the government of this city. We, the people, acknowledge that we and our laws are under the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge that the holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments expressed in the King James Version. We acknowledge the superiority of the Creator (God) and his law, and the rest of the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are subject unto the higher powers that are not contrary to God’s expressed will in the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are to walk in the ways of God by seeking to observe and do his commandments; because he is worthy, and to avoid his curses. We hope that the blessings of God might come on us if we hearken unto his voice. Thus we desire to have the benefits of scriptural municipal home rule, and to exercise all the powers of local self-government. We desire to be righteously ruled by godly rulers, that the evil be terrorised, and those which do good be praised.

8. Of course some of you are thinking that that violates the separation of church and state so called by some. Although I cannot read minds to the letter, that was a response that I heard too often when I was running for Council-at-Large (councillor at large) of this city during the summer of the year of our Lord Jesus Christ two thousand and nine (anno Domini 2009). In my article called, Lakewoodites for McCartney, I wrote about that which some call the separation of church and state. But I have written somewhat about that in this article.

9. Additionally you might read some related articles called, Theonomic amendment, and, Theonomise the state’s constitution. Persons that claim to be Christians (Not every person that claims to be a Christian is a Christian. See II Corinthians 11:26 and other scriptures.) might read, Church discipline.

10. What if my proposal violates, so called, the separation of church and state, so called? If I may be forthright, if you think that any decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are superior to God and his word, you are probably wasting your time reading this article. You can go back to watching television programming. Those of you that care about Lakewood, (and are not simply using this city for what you can get out of it,) and, more importantly, care about the good instructions that the Creator has issued, you may continue in this article. The rest of you can live your lives your way. To be blunt, you probably cannot be reasoned with.

11. But persons which have open and considerate minds, concerning that which some call the separation of church and state, do you wonder where that phrase came from? Generally that phrase these days is used by persons that seek to keep God’s guidance out of our every day lives. Those of you that that describes, where did you get that phrase (the separation of church and state) from?

12. It is ostensibly based on the establishment clause, which is the first ten (10) words of the first (1st) article of the amendments to the constitution of the United States of America. And it is based on that which the Supreme Court has recently (within the past few decades) said about that clause. Although that court is not always wrong, my opinion is that some of its decisions are not as right as they could be.

13. If any of you, including attorneys, would like to express your idea of the meaning of that which is called the establishment clause, you may.

14. Some have rightly gotten some bad impressions of some attorneys. When I mentioned attorneys in the previous paragraph, that was not in denigration. I have talked with and gotten to know some attorneys within the past few years. Although we don’t always agree, I have grown to like some of them. Some of them can be talked to, will listen, consider, and some (Thanks be to God.) will receive correction.

15. Much has been spoken of and written about the two (2) religious clauses [the first sixteen (16) words] of the first (1st) amendment of the American constitution by the United States’ Supreme Court, and others. We can be impressed by some of that. Remember, some persons have to justify their jobs. If matters were so simple that the average man on the street could figure them out, who would need judges? (But not all matters are simple.) Some matters are simple enough that the average person ought to be able to rightly judge it, (Consider I Corinthians 6:1-4.) such as knowing the superiority of the law of God, and the inferiority of man’s laws. (Any judge that doesn’t know that ought not to be judging any where in America, such as any judge that judges against judges, such as Roy S. Moore, that display God’s ten commandments in a courtroom.)

16. If the congress does not write any laws showing a bias or preference for any denomination of Christianity, or if the congress and inferior (lower) legislatures use the scriptures to be the foundation for their (and our) laws, and if a person told you that neither of those violates the constitution, would you believe that person? If the congress, or inferior legislatures, such as state or city, sought to advance Christianity by opening up a Christian Bible, (of the old and new testaments) and wrote their laws or ordinances based on what they saw in God’s word, (such as banning fornication based on I Corinthians 6:9-10,) and you were told that that is constitutionally permissible, (as though the constitution allows law makers to obey God) would you believe that?

17. Firstly neither the constitution nor the American Supreme Court are above God or his word such that they have any place to either allow or disallow you to obey God. But my point is about whether a society may legislatively express itself through its elected representatives to write godly laws without conflicting with the American constitution, or not. Although I think that it may, if it may not then the constitution ought to be amended (corrected) so that our society may; because I think that God (the Creator) and his law are above man (a creature) and his laws.

18. Based on some history that I’ve read, to paraphrase the two (2) clauses of religion of the first (1st) amendment to the federal constitution, one of a few similar ways that I think it could be written is the following. The congress shall not legislate to favour any denomination of Christianity more than any other Christian sect, nor may the fœderal legislature make any law to stop the unlimited practise of the way of the Lord Jesus Christ.

19. Although I know that some would disagree with that, especially nonchristians, presently we Christians are tolerating such a marginalisation of the way of Christ in American public life that Christianity has basically been rendered meaningless. I don’t plan to continue to tolerate a situation that I think is wrong. Erroneous ideas that are allowed to stand can produce problems. Error ought to be knocked over (refuted).

20. Although I think that a theonomic amendment to both our national and state’s constitutions could help, if that does not occur I think that I can argue for Christianity presently about things that pertain to this life, so that the practise of Christianity is not limited to the interior of church buildings, and slightly beyond.

21. The King James Bible was read in some public schools without sectarian comments. The ten commandments (or excerpts therefrom) were exclusively and prominently (not along with heathen statements) posted in some public school rooms. Nondenominational prayer was said in some public schools. Since all of that godliness was taken out of our public schools by the American Supreme Court so called, crime has entered, and a generation of irreverent children has grown up, some of which are writing the laws that they would like you and me to live by (which is not to imply that all of their legislation is wrong).

22. Damage ought to be considered when one judges. Some of the American Supreme Court’s decisions have caused a considerable amount of damage to the American republic, which produces grief, which ought to be redressed (rectified). See the first (1st) amendment to the constitution for the United States of America.

23. Although I think that proposing a Christian preamble to a city’s charter should be easier if the national and state’s constitutions are theonomised or Christianised first, (given a provision to make them to conform to God’s law and all of the scriptures that are presently applicable) I am presently proposing a Christianised preamble to our city’s charter, whether that is adopted soon, or in the future (such as after theonomic or theocratic or Christian amendments are made to our constitutions, or not). That is consistent with my effort to not only curse the darkness, but to light a candle.

24. Nonchristians came to America for a reason. Apparently God blessed America. Consider Deuteronomy 28. America was more obedient to God than recently. Recently due to America’s disobedience to God, my thinking is that God is probably punishing the United States. Consider II Kings 17. If nonchristians, whether they came here or were born here, would like to practise that which I think is a false way and idolatry, which could bring God’s curses on this country, they may and ought to leave this land if they don’t stop their ways. Although I don’t think that any way other than Christ’s ought to be practised any where on the earth that his Father created, (See John 14:6 and Revelation 11:15, and other scriptures.) I desire that a curse bringing (cursed) way not be practised here in America, because this is my home. There is a reason why heathen lands are cursed of God.

25. Nonchristian rule has been shown to be inferior. (A Judaist or Israeli citizen that I talked to in the state that is called Israel expressed a desire to come to America.) American history has shown that Christian rule is superior.

26. Christians and nonchristians are better under Christian rulership. You may consider the audio and visual presentation at the following link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HhpEXuaMI

27. For your consideration some scriptures that I considered for proposing a Christianised preamble to our municipal charter are the following. Proverbs 3:5-6, I Corinthians 11:3, II Timothy 3:14-17, Luke 2:33, I John 5:7, Isaiah 40:28, Romans 13:1-10, Deuteronomy 10:12-13, Deuteronomy 28, Acts 5:29, Leviticus 26:3-4, Revelation 4:11, Genesis 1:1, and other scriptures.

28. My proposal involves the possibility of a risk. I am not necessarily looking to cause our city a financial burden by the possibility of a Christian preamble being taken to a court to decide whether it is constitutional or not, which is why I proposed church discipline, and a theonomic amendment to both the American constitution and Ohio’s constitution, in that order. See I Corinthians 14:40. But some things are worth studying and thinking about, proposing, discussing, arguing for, paying for, and fighting for. (Consider some divine history in the Bible, and some American history.)

29. Some of us like smooth streets, which have to be paid for. I desire a godly city and society that are God blessed, which might have to be paid for one way or another.

30. If you are satisfied with the present inferior state of affairs of your city and society, you can ignore this. (Consider Revelation 22:11.) But if you desire a better city and society, and if you desire it to be God’s way, you may consider this or a similar proposal. See Matthew 5:5-6.

31. There are a couple of ways of changing our charter. One way is to request the city’s council to make an ordinance to place the proposal on the ballot. That is the easy way for both the people and the council. The other way requires more time and work, which is to circulate a petition. For that you ought to consider our city’s charter, or parts of it, which can be found at the following link.

http://www.onelakewood.com/CityCouncil/CityCharter.aspx

32. Some articles that you might consider reading in the charter are numbered XIX through XXI, and section (§) 6 of article XXIII. You might also consider some of the Ohio Revised Code (O. R. C.) about petitions, such as §§ (sections) 3501.38, 3519.05 and 3519.16 of title XXXV (35).

33. Although a Christian preamble is not going to solve all of our problems, I think that it can help. It could be used to show politicians what the people think, and what God’s will is. Some politicians consider. But the burden to improve this city is not all on the shoulders of our elected office holders (officers). We, the people, have a responsibility to search the scriptures, find God’s will, and obey it.

34. For your convenience, some of the following paragraphs have the present preamble, and my proposal, in various forms to show that which is current, and that which I propose to change.

35. Form 2.

The current preamble of the city’s charter is the following paragraph. But the parts that I propose to be changed are emboldened.

We, the people of the City of Lakewood, in the County of Cuyahoga and State of Ohio, in order that we may have the benefits of municipal home rule and exercise all the powers of local self-government, do frame and adopt this Charter for the government of the City.

36. Form 3.

The following paragraph is my present proposal: but the parts that I am proposing changing pertaining to the current preamble have been emboldened.

We, the people of the city of Lakewood, that is situated in the county of Cuyahoga, in the state of Ohio, in the fœderal republic of the United States of America, do frame and adopt this charter for the government of this city. We, the people, acknowledge that we and our laws are under the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge that the holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments expressed in the King James Version. We acknowledge the superiority of the Creator (God) and his law, and the rest of the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are subject unto the higher powers that are not contrary to God’s expressed will in the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are to walk in the ways of God by seeking to observe and do his commandments; because he is worthy, and to avoid his curses. We hope that the blessings of God might come on us if we hearken unto his voice. Thus we desire to have the benefits of scriptural municipal home rule, and to exercise all the powers of local self-government. We desire to be righteously ruled by godly rulers, that the evil be terrorised, and those which do good be praised.

37. Form 4.

The following paragraph is the combined current preamble and my proposal with the proposed omissions struck through, and the proposed additions underlined. Some of the word order has been changed from the current preamble.

We, the people of the City city of Lakewood, that is situated in the County county of Cuyahoga and State, in the state of Ohio, in the fœderal republic of the United States of America, in order that we may have the benefits of municipal home rule and exercise all the powers of local self-government, do frame and adopt this Charter charter for the government of the City this city. We, the people, acknowledge that we and our laws are under the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge that the holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments expressed in the King James Version. We acknowledge the superiority of the Creator (God) and his law, and the rest of the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are subject unto the higher powers that are not contrary to God’s expressed will in the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are to walk in the ways of God by seeking to observe and do his commandments; because he is worthy, and to avoid his curses. We hope that the blessings of God might come on us if we hearken unto his voice. Thus we desire to have the benefits of scriptural municipal home rule, and to exercise all the powers of local self-government. We desire to be righteously ruled by godly rulers, that the evil be terrorised, and those which do good be praised.

38. Form 5.

The result of that is the following paragraph, which is the same that I brought forth near the beginning of this article. It is my present proposal to amend the preamble to the charter of Lakewood, Ohio.

We, the people of the city of Lakewood, that is situated in the county of Cuyahoga, in the state of Ohio, in the fœderal republic of the United States of America, do frame and adopt this charter for the government of this city. We, the people, acknowledge that we and our laws are under the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. We acknowledge that the holy scriptures (the scriptures) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments expressed in the King James Version. We acknowledge the superiority of the Creator (God) and his law, and the rest of the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are subject unto the higher powers that are not contrary to God’s expressed will in the scriptures. We acknowledge that we are to walk in the ways of God by seeking to observe and do his commandments; because he is worthy, and to avoid his curses. We hope that the blessings of God might come on us if we hearken unto his voice. Thus we desire to have the benefits of scriptural municipal home rule, and to exercise all the powers of local self-government. We desire to be righteously ruled by godly rulers, that the evil be terrorised, and those which do good be praised.

39. My thanks to you for taking the time to read and consider this proposal.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on November 17 anno Domini 2009.

This third (3rd) edition was revised on January 9 A. D. 2010.

2009.11.17.1e.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5 and 77 – 78 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly.

2. I also recommend an article that is similar to this, which is called, Theonomic amendment. It is about theonomising our national constitution. If a theonomic amendment to the American constitution is proposed and ratified first, that could make it easier to propose and adopt a theonomic amendment to our state’s constitution: otherwise it could be argued that a conflict exists, which does not necessarily mean that one exists. And to support this article from the scriptures I suggest reading a chapter from the Bible, even (which is) the six and twentieth (26th) of Leviticus in the King James Version.

3. There is so much propaganda about the separation of church and state, so called by some persons, that some would make an argument that a theonomic or theocratic or Christian amendment to a state’s constitution violates the United States’ constitution. But I think that such an unchristian argument is an house of cards that can be blown down when the truth is presented.

4. Concerning the establishment clause of the constitution of the United States of America, which is the first ten (10) words of the first (1st) amendment, I have reasons to believe it to mean, the congress shall not legislate to favour any denomination of Christianity more than any other Christian sect.

5. Although I think that the Supreme Court of the United States has muddied the waters about the simplicity of the establishment clause, I think that it simply prohibits congressional legislative sectarian favouritism. An example of that is that the United States’ congress may not prefer any denomination of Christianity (an establishment of religion) over any other Christian denomination. An example of a denominational or sectarian bias is if the Presbyterians should not taxed; but the Baptists so called should be taxed. (That was an example: I am not implying that Baptists are being taxed.)

6. One method to marginalise Christianity in this country, and have it ignored, is to shift the meaning of words. I have seen information showing that an establishment of religion is a denomination of Christianity. But to overthrow Christian influence in this country an attorney could shift that by saying that Christianity is an establishment of religion, (which could cause the congress to lose the legislative respect for the way of Christ,) or that it is a religion, like other faiths are religions, for the purpose of defining the word, religion, in the first (1st) amendment. Although the word, religion, has been used to mean various faiths, I’m talking about how that word (religion) is used in an influential document, [the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution] or ought to be used.

7. Television can be used to promote truth and that which is good. It can also be used to deceive the people, which is an abuse of the first (1st) amendment’s freedoms of speech and of the press. If I remember correctly, one time on television when various faiths were being talked about, Christianity was called a denomination, (or something like that) like it is like any other faith, and may not be respected by the congress. For the purpose of the first (1st) amendment, my opinion or thinking is that Christianity is religion, and has denominations, (establishments of religion) such as the Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists so called, Lutherans, Mennonites, and others.

8. If any person thinks that other faiths so called are equal to Christianity, and ought to be tolerated, and that they all (including Christianity) ought to be equally disregarded in the real world, you might have a look at the following scriptures whether they change your mind, or not. Deuteronomy 13, II Chronicles 34:1-7, Psalm 119:104, John 3:16-21,36 and John 10 and John 14:6, I Corinthians 16:22, and Philippians 2:10-12. You may ponder that.

9. Concerning the free exercise clause, which is the eleventh (11th) through the sixteenth (16th) words of the first (1st) amendment of the federal constitution, I think that it means that the congress shall not legislate to stop the unlimited practise of Christianity, which is not according to the opinion of the United States’ Supreme Court of those six (6) words.

10. I think that the Supreme Court of the United States has caused some problems about those sixteen (16) words. It seems to have mistaken part of one clause for the other. And it seems to be guilty of attempting to pull a rabbit out of a hat. If one is assaying (attempting) to promote something that is not supported by a document, but claims that it is supported by that document, that could or does indicate a bias. For further information, I again suggest that you read my article called, Lakewoodites for McCartney.

11. Regarding blather about it not being permissible for the government to advance religion or Christianity, and that that is ostensibly based on the first (1st) amendment of the American constitution, that is an example of attempting to pull a rabbit out of a hat. That could indicate an unchristian bias. The government advancing religion (Christianity) is not prohibited by the constitution, regardless of what the Supreme Court says about it. If you doubt it, you may see this by reading the pertinent part (establishment clause) of the constitution.

12. The prohibition pertains to a federal governmental sectarian bias. If you don’t believe that, you may read the first ten (10) words of the first (1st) amendment, (the establishment clause) regardless of long statements by attorneys of the A. C. L. U. to the contrary. And don’t forget the next six (6) words of that amendment, regardless of contrary arguments of lawyers of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (Consider II Timothy 3:13.)

13. Not to imply that history indicates that Americans were always godly and right, some times they were. If you think that advancing Christianity is an impermissible function of the government, [like the Supreme Court may decide against God, (But see II Chronicles 26.)] in addition to reading the first (1st) amendment, I suggest that you read the Mayflower Compact of A. D. 1620. That is for you to consider.

14. Further information may be gotten from Matthew 28:18-20 in the light of I Corinthians 11:3 and Revelation 11:15. Advancing Christianity is mainly if not entirely the job of the church. But my opinion is that it is unconstitutional to enforce the idea that a constitutional prohibition exists of the government advancing religion. If godly governments seek to honour God and his Son by displaying nativity scenes, for an example, if it shows no sectarian bias it is my opinion that the government doing that is not prohibited by the American constitution.

15. Presently Christianity has been marginalised by some Supreme Court decisions to the extent that a considerable amount of Americans (including governments) do not take it seriously of things that pertain to this life, thus causing damage. Some Supreme Court decisions have had the effect of limiting the practise of religion or Christianity, (like it belongs only in church buildings,) which violates the constitution, and the scriptures. See Isaiah 8:20 and II Thessalonians 3:1 and II Timothy 2:9 and other scriptures.

16. To be consistent with both the scriptures and the American constitution, we may practise the scriptures in our homes, schools, businesses, the entertainment industry, and in our governments: otherwise that is not a free exercise of religion (Christianity). You may ponder a principle taught in II Chronicles 34:29-33.

17. Does it makes sense to you that the government basically keeps the good influence of God out of our public lives in the real world? Does it make better sense that the government ought to not hinder the proper influence of God so that the word of God may be freely propagated, discussed, considered, and practised in all areas of our God given lives?

18. For some examples of acting in a manner that is consistent with the free exercise of Christianity, regarding our homes parents may corporally punish their disobedient children according to the book of Proverbs (which is not to be confused with abuse). Regarding our public schools, the ten commandments may be placed in every room, the King James Bible may be read without denominational comments, and there may be meaningful nonsectarian Christian prayers in Jesus’s name according to I Timothy 2:1-6 and John 14:6,13-15.

19. Regarding businesses, they are to be run ethically. Money may be gained; but practises that place money before God are to be curbed. (We have seen the damage done to America by unscriptural practises.) See I Timothy 6:10 and Exodus 20:1-3. Regarding the entertainment industry, which is being abused to corrupt our country’s morals, consider Revelation 3:18.

20. Regarding our governments, legislatures may and ought to consider the law of God and the rest of the scriptures (Christian Bible of old and new testaments) when legislating. Judges may not disregard the scriptures. They ought to consider what their superior has said.

21. And when the judiciary acts tyrannical, such as some judges and courts apparently do to day, to check and balance that the executives (the United States’ president, the states’ governors, and our cities’ mayors) probably ought to look into the possibility of ignoring unscriptural or unconstitutional decisions when the judges or courts ignore (and thereby incorrectly show contempt for) the superior law and word of God, or the pertinent constitutions. Consider The Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton (Publius).

22. For information about checking and balancing the judiciary, you may read pages 27 – 30 of the petition to the United States’ Supreme Court for Roy S. Moore, the former chief judge (Chief Justice so called) of the supreme court of the state of Alabama, at the following link.

http://www.morallaw.org/PDF/MvG_cert_petition.pdf

23. (His proper placement of excerpts of the ten commandments of God in a public judicial building was more than an apparently ungodly judiciary could handle. Rather than being honoured, Mister Moore therefore wrongly lost his job. But see I Samuel 2:30 and Romans 13:7.) The parties were Roy S. Moore v. Stephen R. Glassroth. The petition, which was denied on November 3 of 2003, was dated for September 26, 2003.

24. Although it can be shown that the word, religion, means, Christianity, it can also be shown that it has been used in a broader sense. Therefore for Christian rulership, things could be easier if the American constitution is theonomically amended first.

25. Although I think that to theonomically amend a state’s constitution could be argued to not conflict with the American constitution presently, if the fœderal constitution is not theonomically amended first haters of God (See Exodus 20:5.) could take that to the courts, which could cause state theonomic constitutional amendments to be defeated considering the present condition of the judiciary.

26. Therefore a theonomic American constitutional amendment to clarify or modify or correct the constitution one way or another could help efforts to theonomise the states’ constitutions.

27. Although I recommend an effort to theonomise our country’s constitution first, I think that it is constitutionally allowable, but more importantly scripturally right, to theonomise our states’ constitutions whether the American constitution is given a theonomic amendment or not. (Consider II Chronicles 23:16.)

28. Although I don’t think that one has to be an attorney to know how to get us out of this legal mess, attorneys are educated, and are not to be taken lightly. Their knowledge can be useful. If one would provide some information gratis, with no strings attached, for the love of God, I would like that.

29. Regarding Ohio’s constitution, there is a situation that I am not sure of, and don’t necessarily desire to upset. States’ laws are under the constitutions of their states. But I think that I heard that in Ohio municipal charters are to prevail if they conflict with the state’s statutes or laws. But I am not sure of that. Therefore due to my lack of knowledge I was not sure how to write a theonomic amendment for Ohio’s constitution.

30. Although you might not have to be a lawyer to help me, being one could help.

31. The proposal to theonomically amend Ohio’s constitution that I sent to my state’s representatives, (of both the house of representatives and the senate,) is the following three (3) paragraphs, the file name of which is 2009.10.15.2a.

The holy scriptures, (the scriptures) which include the law of God, (the Creator) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments, which is expressed in the King James Version.

Save (except) the law of God and the rest of the scriptures, which are supreme, this constitution, (which is inferior to the scriptures,) and the laws of the state of Ohio which shall be made in pursuance thereof, under the authority of the state of Ohio, shall be the supreme law of the state; and the judges in every county and city shall be bound thereby, regardless of any thing in the charter or ordinances of any county or city to the contrary, except that which is otherwise provided that does not conflict with this constitution. But no provision shall disregard the meaningful superiority of the scriptures.

To obey the Creator, defend religion (Christianity) from ungodly laws, and produce a godly state of Ohio, no thing in this constitution shall be contrary to the law of God, and the rest of the scriptures. If any thing in this constitution is contrary to the scriptures, the scriptures shall prevail.

32. Ohio’s constitution can be found at the following link.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/constitution.pdf

33. When I read Ohio’s constitution, I did not recall finding a supremacy clause like we find in our national constitution. (See article VI of the constitution of the United States.) If any one can correct me, you may (about this or any thing else). I therefore sought to provide a supremacy clause for Ohio’s constitution to make clear that in Ohio our constitution is anthroponomically (pertaining to man’s laws) supreme, but that that constitution is inferior to the law and word of God, thereby showing that the words of the Creator are supreme. (We live in a day when the obvious about some things has to be stated.)

34. If municipal charters prevail if they conflict with the Ohio Revised Code, (O. R. C.) my intent was (and is) to preserve that while seeking to state that the law of God and the rest of the scriptures are supreme. It is also my intent to show that the state constitution is inferior to theonomy (the law of God) and the rest of the scriptures, and that the state’s laws and cities’ charters and ordinances are subordinate to Ohio’s constitution.

35. It should have been easier to write my proposal if I could place the municipal charters under the state’s laws. If I did that, I would have omitted the last twenty and four (24) words of the second (2nd) paragraph of my proposal.

36. Although the last sentence of the second (2nd) paragraph of my proposal was intended to handle the matter of municipal charters, I like the appearance of it whether it handles that or not. It gave me an idea. Some times when amendments to Ohio’s constitution are written, they negate the effect of part of the constitution on the new amendment. Although the people don’t have to approve of such a new amendment, they can. A concern that I have is that if a theonomic amendment is made and approved by the voters, a subsequent amendment could nullify its effect on that amendment.

37. But a theonomic amendment could be repealed like any other amendment.

38. Although I don’t desire a properly written proposed theonomic amendment to be repealed if it becomes part of our state’s constitution, my proposal is like a regular proposal: if approved to be an amendment, it may be repealed later. I am hoping that if we Ohioans rightly make and approve a theonomic constitutional amendment that God will bless us based on Deuteronomy 28 if we obey him. And if he blesses us, I am hoping that the people of the state of Ohio will desire to keep Ohio going God’s way.

39. But I don’t think that the main motive to obey God ought to be to get his blessings; for that seems to be selfish, and inconsiderate of the person that created the earth. I think that we ought to obey God, because it is right, whether he blesses us or not. We creatures owe the Creator our obedience. For the provision and beauty of the Creator’s creation, the loveliness of some of his creatures, his righteous law, his obedient and loving Son Jesus Christ, and of course because of the magnificence and love of the Creator, we ought to desire to obey God.

40. In addition to my proposal to constitutionally show the superiority of God’s law and the rest of his written word, because it is right to do that, and hopefully to get God’s blessings if he would be pleased to bless us if we obey him, my proposal is to accomplish a few things.

41. My proposal to theonomically amend Ohio’s constitution is to correct the parts of it that misuse the four (4) words, create, created, creating, creation, and any other familiar (related) word, if any, that is in our state’s constitution; for only the Creator (God) can create.

42. And my proposal is intended to clarify or modify or correct the two (2) words, Religion, and, religious, of section (§) 7 of article I of Ohio’s constitution to mean, Christianity, and, Christian. But regarding the word, religious, of that section, what I wrote there pertains to its occurrence in that section, save (except) for the second (2nd) occurrence, which I think means or ought to mean, denominational, or, sectarian, when the last paragraph of article VI of the American constitution is considered, and when that (article VI) is considered in the light of history. For information about that you may consider paragraph 36 of my article called, Lakewoodites for McCartney.

43. When we have governmental officers that don’t know that God’s law (and the rest of the scriptures) is supreme, or when they disregard scriptural supremacy, some of us have seen some damage done by that ignorance or disobedience. I therefore think that there ought to be a religious (Christian) test for governmental officers, not a religious (denominational) test. Consider II Samuel 23:3-4, Romans 13:1-6, and other scriptures.

44. There are a couple of ways to amend Ohio’s constitution. The easy way for the people is to contact our state’s representatives to the general assembly of the state of Ohio according to § 3 of article I of the Ohio constitution. We have a representative in the house of representatives, and a senator in the senate. Such a method of amending Ohio’s constitution is according to article XVI of the state’s constitution.

45. You might get some help from your city’s council. Although some legislatures are ungodly, regardless of the direct or indirect claims to be Christians of some of them, (Consider II Corinthians 11:26.) you might be surprised to discover that there are some persons that desire to obey God in a meaningful way. You may request your city’s council to make a resolution to be sent to Ohio’s general assembly through your state’s representatives requesting the general assembly to propose an appropriate state constitutional amendment to show the meaningful supremacy of the law of God and the rest of the scriptures.

46. Another way to amend the constitution requires some work. It is found in § 1a of article II of Ohio’s constitution. It is about circulating an initiative petition.

47. If you are satisfied with that which appears to be God’s curses against our disobedient society, you can continue to go astray. (But you may not rightly expect God to bless us.) But if you believe that the Creator is worthy of your obedience, and that obeying him is the right thing to do, I suggest that you live according to the scriptures, and promote an appropriate constitutional amendment that is consistent with that idea.

48. Presently some of the people are probably too busy to have thought of an idea of a theonomic constitutional amendment, even though it is based upon the scriptures, which some read. Others of course oppose doing things God’s way. And when they vote for such politicians, such politicians are not part of the solution; but are part of the problem.

49. Some of the people and some of the politicians would rather do things their own way, rather than God’s way. When one is piloting a ship, it is best when a qualified man is doing that job. To insist on doing things one’s own way when it is demonstrated that damage is occurring, is childish, selfish, inconsiderate, and reckless.

50. When thinking about that, I realised that criminals act similarly. A criminal does his thing regardless of contrary laws. He will do his will, and cause damage. That is being selfish, inconsiderate, and is reckless.

51. When the ungodly people and their ungodly politicians insist on keeping the ship of state, which they could run aground, rather than letting a superior person (God) pilot it by men obeying and enforcing God’s law, that causes damage to themselves and others. That is one reason why a theocracy is superior to a democracy so called (although America is a republic).

52. To make a better people we need to be able to publicly teach the children about God and his law and the rest of his word, and have the scriptures applied meaningfully to things that pertain to this life. Then a better people can elect better (Christian) politicians that take the Bible seriously about matters in the real world. As a better recipe produces a better product, so a better constitution produces a better society.

53. A result of a theonomic amendment is that Ohio should become a theocracy, or a theocratic state, or a theocratic republic. If that should happen, my opinion and hope is that we should have a better state than we have presently. But an amendment is not enough: we ought to obey the commandments of God.

54. By an improved state constitution, we could have godly laws approved without fretting about valid claims against them by unchristian litigants. (That is not to imply that complaints against godly laws presently are valid.) A godly constitution could lead to, and protect, godly laws. We could place Bible reading, prayer, and the ten commandments, in public schools, which could help to improve the children, which could grow up to vote for godly politicians. And some of them could become those politicians.

55. Rather than having a government that basically ignores God and his law, we could have a government that seeks God’s will by reading and studying the scriptures, and applying them via scriptural legislation; or by listening to citizens that know the scriptures, then acting accordingly.

56. We could have an improved society if we turn the steering over to God, and obey and enforce his will that has been revealed in writing in the holy scriptures. We could correct the erroneous idea that the Bible is only for churches. The law of the Creator and the rest of his word are for all areas of the lives that he caused.

57. We reap that which we sow. See Galatians 6:7. If we make bad decisions, we shall reap the bad fruit of that. But if we make right decisions, we can reap the good fruit of that. Our destiny is in our hands under God. The decision is our’s to make. I encourage you to make the right decision.

58. My thanks to you for taking time out of your busy schedule to read and consider my concern.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on November 3 anno Domini 2009.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on December 8 A. D. 2009.

2009.11.03.1b.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5 and 77 – 78 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly.

2. If the Supreme Court of the United States does not receive information showing the superiority of the law of God and the rest of the scriptures, (Christian Bible of the old and new testaments according to the King James Version,) I think that the American constitution ought to be amended to clarify or modify or correct the constitution, or some if not all of that.

3. When bad decisions occur for decades, I think that the time has come when the obvious has to be stated. As the Creator is superior to creatures, so that which the Creator issues is superior to that which is issued by creatures. The law of God and the rest of the scriptures are to be treated to be superior to any law, or other sets of words, of man.

4. I think that a theonomic amendment to the constitution ought to either state that the constitution is inferior the law of God and the rest of the scriptures, or that the amendment ought to make the law of God and the rest of the scriptures prevail when there is a conflict.

5. Some things are so obvious that they go without saying. The sun is shining. Water is wet. A man needs a woman to reproduce. And the law of God, and the rest of his word, is higher than the laws of man, and any thing else that man issues.

6. But we have reached a low point in American history when a statement about the obvious superiority of God’s word has to be placed in the constitution. If that isn’t bad enough, some persons oppose such an amendment. (Consider that some persons hate God according to Exodus 20:5.)

7. The United States’ Supreme Court has ruled against the public practise of the following.

A certain type of Bible reading (for guidance) in public schools with no denominational comments.

Nondenominational prayer in public schools.

The prominent and exclusive posting of the ten commandments (or excerpts therefrom) in public schools, and some other public places.

[That court has thereby ruled against God, (See Romans 3:4.) which is unwise, and is a usurpation.] (Have you noticed that some or all Supreme Court decisions against God occurred after the death of the authors of the constitution?)

8. All of that was nondenominational, and therefore did not violate the establishment clause [first ten (10) words of the first (1st) amendment]. But if it did, do the Supreme Court judges (Justices so called) and you not know the superiority of God’s word? Man can do some things with his word, but not create: only the Creator can create. See Genesis 1:1-4,6,9,11,14,20,24,26-27,29, Psalm 33:6,9 and Hebrews 1:1-4. Within those scriptures is the teaching of the superiority of God; for God is the Creator, and we men are only creatures.

9. Based on that which I have read, both within and without the scriptures, I think that the establishment clause means, Congress shall not legislate to favour any denomination of Christianity more than any other Christian denomination. To learn a bit about America’s Christian history, you may consider some of the following video, although the speaker seems to have been uscripturally influenced to not favour the death sentence for sodomites, which can be found in Leviticus 20:13. That video’s link is the following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuwS64j5GNc&feature=PlayList&p=D8FA643A1E23459F&index=1

10. One might think that the American Supreme Court was seeking to please communist rulers of the Soviet Union. Article 52 of the Soviet constitution adopted on October 7, 1977 (See paragraphs 20 – 22 of my article called, Lakewoodites for McCartney.) provides for the right to profess any religion so called, (which could be argued to be meaningless lip service,) and to conduct religious worship. [Although in America it could be argued that that means the right to exercise or practise religion; for the word, worship, is associated with the word, worthy, (If one is worthy, you are to heed his word.) that probably should not have flown in the Soviet Union under communist rule, when the atheists were persecuting and torturing Christians.] In the free exercise clause of the American constitution, [the eleventh (11th) through the sixteenth (16th) words of the first (1st) amendment,] it provides not only for the exercise of religion or Christianity, (which is more than lip service,) but the free exercise of the way of Christ. (If you think that ways other than Christ are valid and ought to be tolerated, you may consider John 10 and John 14:6 and Psalm 119:104.)

11. Not only may Christianity be practised in America, it may be practised freely, or without restriction. It is not to be limited. What that means is that to day’s common practise of marginalising Christianity to church buildings, so that scriptural or Christian influence is not considered much if at all by the governments, is inconsistent with the American constitution (the constitution).

12. No creature on the earth that the Creator created may ignore the person that created heaven and earth and creatures. That includes, but is not limited to, the United States of America. That includes, but is not limited to, the people, both privately and publicly. It also includes businesses, the entertainment industry, and all of our governments at all levels, such as federal, state, county, and local.

13. All three (3) branches of the governments are subject to the scriptures, which includes the law of God. The executives may not ignore it, nor the legislatures, nor the judiciary.

14. If America is smart, it ought to consider some scriptures which could admonish and help us. Deuteronomy 28 teaches that the Israelites were to be blessed by God if they did all of God’s commandments: but cursed by him if they did not. To ponder both (blessings and curses) you may read Joshua 21:43-45, II Kings 17, and other scriptures.

15. It is therefore my opinion, after studying the scriptures, observing America, and reading some decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, that that court, by some of its bad decisions, has jeopardised our nation: for God is a God of judgment. I am not implying that all of those judges are guilty of that. And I am not implying that all blame is to be directed at that court. We Americans have sinned against God, including myself. But by its bad decisions, the Supreme Court has temporarily stopped a proper remedy, brought shame to that court, and allowed some sin to continue which is so bad, it not only could bring God’s judgment of punishment on us, but I think that his judgment has begun.

16. Some of that court’s wrong decisions pertain to sodomy and pederasty, both of which are so bad that they grieve the godly persons in America, in addition to God. Consider Ephesians 4:30. Such decisions could rightly breed contempt for that court. (When a court shows contempt for the superior word of God by ignoring it, how are we to respond if not by having contempt for that court?)

17. Concerning sodomy, or homosexuality, the case of Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003), my opinion is that that case was misjudged (if not maljudged) according to the constitution; for both the white male and black male violators were equally protected from a penalty or punishment until there was a due process according to section (§) one (1) of the fourteenth (14th) amendment. My opinion is that that court did not judge correctly by man’s law. But why would we expect it to when we Americans have allowed that court to disregard an higher law? We reap what we sow.

18. If most of the judges thereof properly understood the constitution, such as the first (1st) amendment, and the supremacy clause of the sixth (6th) article, (that the constitution being of man is obviously subordinate to the law of God and the rest of his word,) that court would probably not be making such incorrect judgments.

19. I posted a letter, dated for October 16, 2008, with some pertinent information to a judge on that court, which is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [I chose a nonchristian judge, (I think that she is a Judaist.) thinking that if one could refute the submitted information, a nonchristian would.] Although I got no response, those judges are busy. I did not necessarily need a response. I desired that court to apply the information contained therein to its decisions, and overturn some of that court’s bad decisions previously made, and not make similarly bad decisions. But I don’t think that it did, which is not to imply that the Supreme Court is always wrong.

20. If that court properly understood the constitution, (which is not to imply that I understand all of the constitution,) and the necessary place of God’s word in American society, the petitioners (which committed the sin of sodomy) of the case of Lawrence v. Texas, should have lost that case. That court ought to have considered God’s prohibition of sodomy in Leviticus 18:22, and the death penalty that he provided in 20:13, and ruled accordingly.

21. But they failed to consider (or sufficiently consider) the obvious. That is an example of how a theonomic amendment could improve the judgments of the Supreme Court, and American society, some of which doesn’t know what a marriage is.

22. Another case that was wrongly decided by the United States’ Supreme Court, according to my opinion, was the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U. S. (2008). The constitution, in the eighth (8th) amendment, prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. There are various ways to use the same word. When that amendment was written, it was written by a people that probably knew more about the scriptures than the average American person knows to day. I doubt that they intended irreverence when viewed in the light of Isaiah 13:9. But because of that scripture, and because they ought to have known that some persons will use a word regardless of the scriptures, the constitutional authors ought to have chosen a different word than, cruel.

23. For a brief comment that I have about that amendment, you may consider paragraph 36 of my article called, Lakewoodites for McCartney.

24. The 2008 case of Kennedy v. Louisiana was about a pederast that copulatively (sexually) molested a child. The arguments for that case can be heard at the following link.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_343/

25. It was reasoned (so called) that because death did not occur to the child that the death penalty in that case is considered to violate the eighth (8th) amendment. (It could be argued that when a criminal acts in a cruel and unusual manner that to be judicious he ought to be given a cruel and unusual punishment.) Although that reasoning is not entirely wrong, that case was not about a mere assault of a man against another man in a fight: otherwise it could be successfully explained that because during a fight a man did not murder another man that the death penalty is too severe. See Exodus 21:23-25. But that case was not about two (2) men fighting each other. It was about a large man that copulated with a child. You ought to hear the woman attorney that argued for Louisiana in defence of the child victim.

26. Apparently some judges on that high court do not have a mind such that will or can grasp a crime, other than murder and treason, that is so bad that the proper response by our society is to end the life of the criminal. Such a lack of being appropriately judicious means, in my opinion, that such judges ought not to be judging cases in a municipal court, not to mention county, state, or federal courts.

27. That is another example of how a theonomic amendment could help direct judges to consider pertinent parts of the scriptures. Any judge that thinks that decisions ought to be made only by the constitution, and that God’s word ought to be disregarded, apparently doesn’t know or appreciate American history or the scriptures; and probably ought to be doing a different job that cannot adversely affect the country.

28. To show a death penalty for perverts that rape children, consider what the scriptures say about fornication in Romans 1:29,32, or read my article called, Rape, or both. And consider what the Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 18:6.

29. Other matters can be handled better by directing all three (3) branches of the government to either consider the scriptures, or not to conflict with them. (The scriptures teach that some of the law was changed. The old testament sacrifice of animals was abrogated by the new testament; for Jesus Christ is the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. See Hebrews 7:12 and John 1:29.) Unlike some persons that claim to be Christians, I don’t think that the judgments of the old testament were nullified by the new testament. I would like to see some criminals be given God’s judgment of the old testament law by the people publicly.

30. I wrote a proposal for governmental officers to consider for amending the federal constitution, and sent it to my federal and state representatives. The fifth (5th) article of the American constitution shows that there are two (2) ways to amend the constitution, which is that amendments can begin in the federal legislature, or in the states’ legislatures.

31. The theonomic amendment that I proposed has the file name of 2008.03.27.2a, which is the next two (2) paragraphs under this paragraph.

The holy scriptures, (the scriptures) which include the law of God, (the Creator) are the Christian Bible of the old and new testaments, which is expressed in the King James Version.

To obey the Creator, defend religion (Christianity) from ungodly laws, and produce a godly country, no thing in this constitution shall be contrary to the law of God, and the rest of the scriptures. If any thing in this constitution is contrary to the scriptures, the scriptures shall prevail.

32. There are various reasons why I chose that wording, which you may comment about or suggest a change thereto. Firstly it is wrongly stated in section 6 of article I of the constitution that an office can be created, which seems to imply that creatures can create. Secondly it is proper to establish a standard, lest there be a dispute. Rather than simply say, the Bible, I stated the version that I think is the best; for there are various versions which differ. (As there was and is to be one law, so there ought to be one version of the Bible for a standard: otherwise there could be a conflict. See Exodus 12:49.) Thirdly my proposal either clarifies or modifies or effectively changes or corrects the meaning of the word, religion, of the first (1st) amendment to mean, Christianity. (This proposal is not to replace the first amendment. The first amendment is to stay.)

33. If any one thinks that he or she has a better proposal than mine, I would like to see it whether I agree with it or not. You don’t have to be a Christian to make a suggestion. You can look upon it to be an academic exercise. I hope that the elements contained in my proposal, and this article, ought to be enough to guide you for your wording if you would alter my proposal.

34. In either case, if you agree that our country has gotten too far off of a right course, and would like to see a theonomic amendment to the American constitution, you can and may submit my wording, or your’s, or the idea, to both your federal and state representatives.

35. Although I would like to see similar amendments to state constitutions, I think that if the federal constitution is first amended, that shall probably ensure that there shall be no valid court challenges to theonomic amendments to state constitutions (which is not to imply that opposition to godly amendments now is valid).

36. Although one might call such a proposed amendment a theocratic amendment if it is ratified, it is theonomic; for it is about establishing the law of God (and the rest of the Bible) to be supreme according to the constitution. (God’s law is supreme; but an appropriate amendment would make theonomy officially recognised.) I think that the effect of a theonomic amendment should be a theocratic republic, (or a theocratic union of republics,) if not a theocracy.

37. In either case, like the other amendments, it should be repealable. If it is ratified, and if God blesses America, and if Americans prefer to be cursed by God as we apparently are experiencing now, America could repeal it; and we could go back to doing things man’s way. Consider Revelation 9:20-21.

38. A theocracy (or a republic with a theonomic or theocratic flavour) should not please every one. Some prefer to sin against God, such as by committing fornication, which produces bastards, which are more likely to commit crimes than sons and daughters born to married parents. But not every one likes the present anthroponomy (law of man). For some of those laws are inconsistent with theonomy (law of God). Therefore in either case, we are going to have persons that don’t like the state of society.

39. But the goal ought not necessarily to be to please the people. (See Romans 1:25.) The intent is to please God. (See I Chronicles 28:7 and 29:18-19,23-25 and Hebrews 11:6.) And if we please God, I think that we shall probably be pleased. Who doesn’t desire God’s blessings? But getting God’s blessings ought not to be the main intent. We ought to please God regardless of the consequence, because it is right.

40. To not falsely advertise, getting a theocracy might not bring God’s blessings forthwith. Whether we get the blessings of God or not is his decision. (Not every decision belongs to voters, or their elected officers.) There was a time when the Israelites turned back toward God after they sinned, but were judged for the sins that they committed before they went back to God-ward. We reap that which we sow according to Galatians 6:7. I hope that that is an incentive to do that which is right in the sight of the LORD, like some of the kings of Judah. See II Kings 22:1-2.

41. But we ought to please God because of who he is. He is our superior. He is the Creator. He provided for us. For man, he created woman. God has provided us with food, and water, and a beautiful earth. What considerate persons in their right mind would not please God?

42. Because a theonomic amendment could either clarify or modify or correct the first (1st) amendment, out the window should go arguments when the godly would turn this country back toward God by bringing back Bible reading in public schools without denominational comments, nondenominational prayer in public schools, the exalted and exclusive posting of the ten commandments (or an abbreviation of them) in public schools and other public buildings, the teaching of scriptural and scientific creationism in public schools, and other things to please our Creator, which could be a benefit to us. See Deuteronomy 5:33.

43. But because a theonomic amendment, such as I propose, would not alter the establishment clause, save (except) for either clarifying or modifying or correcting it, there should still be no congressional legislation showing denominational or sectarian favouritism. By that I mean denominations or sects of Christianity (establishments of religion). By that I mean, for an example, that the federal government may not legislate to prefer the Presbyterians more than the Baptists so called, such as by not taxing the one, but taxing the other.

44. But what it means is that the ten commandments, or excerpts therefrom, may be posted in court houses of the United States, (and elsewhere,) to give an example. It could also mean that judges may judge directly from the scriptures. (I heard that when the persons were told to rise when a judge walked into a court room, they weren’t rising for the judge: they were rising for the Bible that he carried.)

45. To make my intent clear, I am not only proposing that the constitution, and similar or inferior laws, not conflict with God’s law, I am proposing that the federal and other governments not only may promote religion or Christianity, but that they ought to promote it by basing their laws on the law of God, or the other parts of the scriptures, if not directly using the words of the scriptures. And I am stating that judges may judge directly from the divine law, or the rest of the scriptures. Consider Psalm 33:11-12.

46. I believe that that is the way that it ought to be and can be now. Although I read that the government may not advance religion according to a Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), which was ostensibly based on the first (1st) amendment, that is inconsistent with the first (1st) amendment, early American history, and the Bible that the colonists believed. (Consider II Chronicles 14:2-7 and Psalm 148:11-13.) If you will check the establishment clause, you might see that the prohibition does not pertain to congressional legislation respecting religion. The prohibition is to be applied to congressional laws respecting an establishment of religion. The congress may not legislatively favour (respect) any denomination (establishment) of Christianity (religion) more than any other denomination of Christianity (establishment of religion).

47. But because that apparently has been too much to understand for the Supreme Court for the past few decades, (which is a busy court,) perhaps it is time to clarify if not modify or correct the meaning of the first (1st) amendment by proposing and ratifying a theonomic amendment to honour God, and so that America might be corrected, and hopefully be God blessed rather than cursed of God. See Malachi 4:4-6.

48. It is reported commonly that there is a class or group of sinners that is practising gross immorality in America. Those perverts are organised, financially and vocally supported, and are politically active. They have made some impressive victories.

49. Although Muslims are against their sin, Muslims believe a book that is contrary to the scriptures; for the Qur’an teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, which is damnable. See John 3:16-18 and 20:30-31. Although Muslims do not have the truth, they are founding Islamic states throughout the world, which is admirable; for they are taking seriously a book that they claim to believe. And by so doing they prove that they believe it.

50. Therefore ought Christians [which have that which is tried, perfect, sure, right, pure, true and righteous, desirable, valuable, and sweet, (See Psalm 18:30, and 19:7-10, and John 17:17.)] to do as much and more by establishing, preserving, protecting, defending, and advancing a theocracy? (See James 2:14,17,26, I Corinthians 15:1-2, I Thessalonians 5:21, Psalm 146:10, Isaiah 33:22, and 61:11.)

51. I thank you for taking the time to read this and ponder it. Not to imply that we creatures are sinless, in consideration of I Chronicles 12:17 if you join me in an effort to improve the American union of republics in a godly way, my thanks to you; and may God bless you.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on October 20 anno Domini 2009.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on December 8 A. D. 2009.

2009.10.20.1g.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5 and 77 – 78 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly.

2. Although this article is intended mainly for persons that are either Christians or that claim to be, nonchristians may read this too. I think that the lost ought to see that Christians ought to, are willing to, and are able to, handle some problems within the church, although some procedures for discipline ought to exclude the attendance of nonchristians or nonmembers, unless they are interested parties.

3. Based on my reading of the King James Version of the Bible, I think that there are basically three (3) steps to helping to solve the world’s problems. And those step are in the following order.

1. Christian.

2. Church.

3. World.

4. Individual Christians are to be living rightly before God according to the scriptures, being led by the Holy Ghost. If they see a church problem, they may handle it, and rightly expect it to be handled within the church: otherwise unsettled problems could lead to grief. Churches ought to care about the members by doing judgment and justice. (Consider II Chronicles 9:8.) If the church puts its house in order, it may then rightly instruct the world about solving some of its problems: (such as legal, immorality, crime, racial violence, and financial,) otherwise the world doesn’t have the time, and won’t feel the need, to listen to hypocrites.

5. Therefore when I desire to improve this world, I need to live rightly before God, which I don’t always do. Then when I am proper, I may then seek to handle church problems, which I have assayed (attempted) to do. That has not been easy, I’m sorry to say. I have learned that some persons which claim to be Christians are false. See II Corinthians 11:26. Some persons that claim to be Christians have resisted calls for church discipline according to the scriptures.

6. They are so blind or reckless that they seem to either not see or care that the lost world is not about to take seriously that (the scriptures) which the church so called won’t practise. Such nonfeasance (See James 2:17.) is a stumblingblock, and is against God’s law according to Leviticus 19:14. In the light of Matthew 7:16, about knowing one by his fruits, that is an indicator that such an one is probably not of God.

7. It is a lack of practising and enforcing the scriptures that has led to some of our problems in the world to day. Christians, so called by some, that read the Bible, but don’t apply it to the real world, have a vain faith according to James 2:26 and I Corinthians 15:1-2.

8. An example of not exercising (practising) the scriptures is a state that has a difficult time executing (enforcing) its death penalty because it cannot find a vein into which a needle may be inserted to kill a capital criminal. If the state should follow the scriptures, such as death by stoning or sword, it could kill those criminals forthwith.

9. But why would a government take the Bible seriously when some of the church so called won’t?

10. I advocate the establishment of church courts, or the provision of a forum for each church that would like to be known to take the scriptures meaningfully, whereby cases can be heard for judgment. The nonchristian world has enough sense to have courts. But some churches falsely so called will not honour the Lord by setting up church courts. Thus the world puts to shame false Christianity. But some false Christians do not have enough of a sense of scriptural righteousness to be ashamed of themselves. (See Jeremiah 3:3.)

11. Some scriptures for Christians to ponder for enforcing church discipline in an orderly way are I Corinthians 14:40, Matthew 7:1-5; 5:23-24; 18:15-18, James 5:16, Luke 17:3, I Corinthians 5 & 6, (chapters five and six) Matthew 5:14, I Peter 4:17-18, Leviticus 26, and other scriptures.

12. Every Christian is accountable, including pastors.

13. If a Christian so called trespasses against you, [whether you are saved (a Christian) or lost, (a nonchristian)] you ought to read those scriptures, and confront that person privately, which I’ve done. If that doesn’t work, you ought to take with you a witness or more, and confront the trespasser again, which I’ve done. (But by the time of the initial date of the posting of this article, that happened one (1) time. And it took years for me to convince one (1) person to be a witness. Such a lack of care and effort can be discouraging. Allegorically, dead wood is fit for the fire, and so is a tree that produces bad fruit. Consider Matthew 7:16-20.)

14. If you don’t gain that person, which is made manifest by that person not confessing and repenting, you are to then bring the matter before the church. (I attempted to do that; but failed to find any Christians that took the scriptures seriously enough to obey them in a meaningful way in this matter. Shame is on both the trespassers and them, because they were made aware of a problem, and neglected to act in a Christian way. Consider John 15:22.)

15. I suppose that there are various ways to bring a matter before a church. I read that some churches have a church court. And the world uses courts. Therefore that seems to be a reasonable suggestion.

16. There ought to be an hearing provided for both sides of a cause. There is to be a due process according to the scriptures. See Joshua 20:9 and John 7:51. (America practises that scriptural principle.)

17. If you would like some ideas you may read court rules. Some of what the world practises it got from the Bible, and has retained those scriptural practises more than some churches have. And worldly courts seem to be basically okay, except they basically if not entirely will not judge directly from the scriptures. You may consider the following link for a pertinent video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZhpSmsTm70&feature=PlayList&p=D8FA643A1E23459F&index=7

18. If you need a witness, and your church is in or near Lakewood, Ohio, or if would like some ideas about establishing a church court, you may contact me after you read the scriptures that are referred to in this article.

19. If a matter has been brought before a church, and the accused is shown and found to be guilty, and the trespasser refuses to confess his fault, and won’t repent, refuse him. According to the last sentence of I Corinthians 5:13 it is written, Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

20. Neglecting to do that tells the world and its governments that persons that are called Christians do not take the Bible or God seriously. Therefore why would a Christian expect the world and its governments to take the same seriously?

21. I have stood before a local legislature, and addressed it based on the scriptures about immorality. And although the legislators politely listened to me, they basically ignored me (and thereby ignored God). Why would they take me or the Bible seriously? When they see me alone, with little or no visible support, why would they take me seriously?

22. When candidates that tolerate the sin of sodomy get thousands of votes from a city, and a Christian candidate that takes God and his word seriously only gets hundreds of votes, why would a legislature take a Christian or the Bible or God seriously?

23. The world and its governments are all accountable before God. I can and do expect them to take me, the holy scriptures, (including the law of God,) and God seriously. And I can prove the validity of myself, and them.

24. But when they see a lack of support, they could conclude that they don’t need to heed God or his word or his people. And although it could be argued that such legislators are wrong, one way or another, (such as by being satisfied with some American Supreme Court decisions which have disregarded God,) because of the lack of support by persons that present themselves to be Christians, such persons (that claim to be Christians) that do not practise the scriptures are going to give account of themselves to God, with those that don’t claim to be Christians. See Romans 14:11-12 and other scriptures.

25. We can have a better world. But you that are Christians have a job to do. Firstly you individually are to live rightly before God. Secondly you are to cleanse the church by practising church discipline.

26. Thirdly you are to instruct your rulers, which I do. You may do it. (See section 3 of article I of Ohio’s constitution.) You ought to do it.

27. As a flat tire doesn’t change itself, so a problem doesn’t solve itself. As a man has to change a flat tire, so a problem ought to be handled. And it ought to be handled according to the scriptures. See Isaiah 8:20 and I Corinthians 15:3.

28. If you are satisfied with man’s way, you’ll get man’s results. But if we rightly do this God’s way, we’ll get God’s results. Better recipes produce better products when followed.

29. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope that you will search the scriptures, and justify them by acting according to the word of God.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on October 13 anno Domini 2009.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on December 8 A. D. 2009.

2009.10.13.1f.

1. Before continuing in this article or any article in this blog, I recommend that you read the article entitled, Lakewoodites for McCartney: (which was originally written when I was running for a seat on the city’s council,) otherwise the paragraphs that are numbered 2 – 5 and 77 – 78 of that article. But persons ought to know that they (and you) are responsible, (although some act recklessly,) and ought to act responsibly.

2. While I was attempting to do my part to make Lakewood a better city for myself under God, which could eventually have resulted in a better city for persons that seek to please God, I got some support from some persons that took time out of their lives to listen to me, and sign my nominating petition, and that voted for me, or what I stand for. [Signing the nominating petition does not necessarily mean perfect (complete) agreement with me, nor does voting.]

3. I circulated a nominating petition, which was signed by a sufficient number of registered voters. Although some did not agree with my theonomic (promoting God’s law) or theocratic (promoting God’s rule) position, they signed it, which helped to put me on the ballot for the September 8, 2009 primary election for Council-at-Large. Republicans, Democrats, and Independents signed it; for Lakewood has nonpartisan elections for city offices.

4. I was pleasantly surprised by the liberal (generous) attitude of some of my fellow Lakewoodites. Although some did not agree with my political position, they generously gave me the opportunity to appear on the primary ballot to let the voters decide. My thanks to them.

5. And of course my thanks to persons which basically agree with my theonomic or theocratic position. (Some agreed more than others.)

6. Petitioning was a learning experience for me. I met various persons. I was offered a drink of water. See Matthew 10:42. That was a kindness that I remember.

7. After learning that I had more than enough valid signatures to become a candidate after filing my petition, I began to pass out literature promoting my candidacy and theocratic position based on Deuteronomy 28. I did not hand it out to every one. If I thought that I would not represent a soul, or if that person did not agree with my theocratic position, I usually did not hand out my literature to such a person, which saved me money. My thanks to those which took the time to talk with me, and to those that basically agreed with my position of promoting God’s rule on the earth that he created, and to those which took my literature, and took the time to read it.

8. At both the petition and campaign stages, regarding persons that were polite and decent to me, my thanks to them (or you).

9. Only six (6) of the nine (9) candidates passed on to the regular municipal election (general election) to be held on November 3, 2009. I was eighth (8th) of the nine (9) candidates. Therefore I did not pass through the primary election that was held on September 8, 2009.

10. More than 500 persons voted either for me, or, preferably, for what I stand for, which is scriptural rule. (483 was the unofficial count. After the absentee ballots were counted, 512 was the official number according to the following link. http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/pdf_boe/en-US/Sep08OfficialCanvass.HTM) My thanks to all of you. I think that that was brave, and right, not so much to vote for me, but to vote for the right type of ruling or governing: for theocracy is being publicly denigrated in America. Some call Islamic rule a theocracy, and thereby muddy the waters of the people’s understanding. (I am for Christian government according to the scriptures, which includes the law of Moses, except for the sacrifice of animals which was abrogated by the new testament.) But candidly I am not sure why all of those persons voted for me. I do not know if some were unaware of my theocratic position, which I attempted to make clear to every person that I contacted when campaigning.

11. McCartney is an Irish name. Perhaps I got some votes for that reason, which is not necessarily wrong when considering a principle taught in Deuteronomy 17:15 about seeking to have one’s kindred to be a ruler. (Although I am part Irish, it is not by the McCartney name; for my grandfather McCartney was not originally named McCartney. He was adopted by Red McCartney in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.)

12. I do not know if more advertising could have helped me, or hurt me (for a considerable number of persons are not theocratic). I did not do as much as I could have done. For that, I am sorry. I did not have yard signs. My money for campaigning was not as much as I desired. I basically did what I could with what I had.

13. But it was recommended to me to use the internet, which I initially resisted. (I assayed to be old fashioned.) When I got a blog, which was on August 26, 2009, I suspect that it was too late; for by then some had sent in their absentee ballots. Campaigning was a learning experience for me.

14. I went door to door in wards IV and III. I am sorry that I did not visit you people in wards II and I. I was working my way toward you. But being eliminated in the primary election stopped my candidacy.

15. Although I did not come close to qualifying to be voted for in the regular municipal election, I am encouraged by over 500 persons voting for theocratic rule, or something like that (unless it was for other reasons).

16. I learned that when the American separation from Great Britain began, the majority of the colonists were not in favour of separating. But after a while, and some shed blood, it became popular to oppose the British.

17. We are seeing to day in America the denigration of God’s law and God publicly by some governmental officers, such as judges, which makes such judges appear to be either ignorant, stupid, unjust, antichrist, or something that is not good. (Contempt for God and his law is not good.) I do not intend to tolerate such marginalisation of the right ruler to the effect that God is ignored and disobeyed.

18. There have been some arguments that have had the effect of twisting the constitution, according to my opinion, such that it appears that deception was employed. And enough judges of the United States’ Supreme Court agreed with it to the extent that they ruled against God’s law for some public applications, and thereby ruled against God. That is a usurpation. (The Supreme Court so called is under God, not equal to him, and not above him.) One of the reasons why an American revolution began was a usurpation. For that you may read The Declaration of Independence.

19. The American Civil Liberties Union (A. C. L. U.) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, (Americans United, or, A. U.) which are not always wrong, have made some arguments about the first sixteen (16) words of the first (1st) amendment to the American constitution, which have had an ungodly effect on the American union. Those two (2) organisations have built an house of cards which can be upset by the truth. But to get some judges to recognise the truth about those sixteen (16) words almost seems to be harder than getting a Klansman to like violent blacks.

20. Some of the decisions of the American Supreme Court have gone against the ten commandments, the Bible, prayer, and God, for public purposes. That could give one the impression that that court is seeking to please ungodly communist rulers in the old Soviet Union rather than God or Christian Americans.

21. If the Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t judge rightly regarding God and his law soon, we Americans may through our representatives enact a theonomic constitutional amendment.

22. I encourage you that seek God’s rule on this earth to become politically active. Some perverts are active. How about you? If you don’t become active, they will gladly make decisions for you. Some of them would redefine marriage, and practise a sin that is so bad that God destroyed two (2) cities or more for it. (See Genesis 19, and other scriptures.) That ought to concern you. Consider what a founding father said before the sin of sodomy was shamelessly practised like it is to day.

23. Thomas Jefferson said, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever. That quotation was taken from the jacket of a book by William J. Federer called, America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations. According to that book it was from Notes on the State of Virginia of 1781. (And see Hebrews 10:31 and 12:29.)

24. If you would like help, I suggest that you read, study, believe, obey, and practise the Bible according to the King James Version, and contact the board of elections of the county. And if you would contact me, you may.

25. Again, my thanks to all of you that supported me, or, more importantly, that which I stand for, which is the Creator, and his rule according to the scriptures being led by his Spirit.

Edward M. McCartney

Lakewood, Ohio

Posted on October 11 anno Domini 2009.

This second (2nd) edition was revised on December 8 A. D. 2009.

2009.10.11.1f.