Archive for March, 2010

Clarifying religion in Ohio’s constitution.

March 26, 2010

Clarifying religion in Ohio’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, 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.

Advertisements