Theonomise the state’s constitution.

Theonomise the state’s constitution.

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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: