Archive for October, 2009

Theonomic amendment.

October 20, 2009

Theonomic amendment.

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.

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 (ยง) 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.

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.