The war flag

The Gold
Fringed Flag

Home page.

First page in this series.

 Previous question.

 Separation of Church and State

U.S.S.R. vs. U.S.A.

The following is copied from the book,
The Myth of Separation by David Barton
pages 26,27 and 28.

George Washington, in his inaugural address, urged Congress to move quickly to form some type of declaration of the rights of states and individuals to be added to the Constitution. James Madison, at that time a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, submitted nine articles to the Congress that expressed protection for fundamental rights. Madison's articles were passed on to the Committee of Eleven, a select committee in the House that included one member from each of the eleven states. The committee reviewed his nine articles and referred them to the House for full consideration. In the House, additions were made that resulted in seventeen total articles. Those seventeen were passed to the Senate which, after consideration, reduced the number to twelve.    A conference committee of the two houses convened to work out the differences in the two lists. James Madison led the House delegation and Oliver Ellsworth the Senate delegation. This committee agreed on final wording for twelve amendments and returned them to the full Congress for final approval. These twelve were first accepted by the House on September 24, 1789, and then by the Senate on September 25, 1789. They were then submitted to the states for ratification.    Of the twelve proposed amendments, the states approved only ten. On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the last state to ratify them. These ten articles were added as Amendments to the Constitution and are now known as the Bill of Rights--a declaration of what the federal government could not do! Thus, Congress had provided for the states the promise of state sovereignty and individual protec­tion in at least ten specific Amendments.    The states had already stipulated that Christians were the ones who would serve in public office, and the federal Constitution had made no change in that. Had it attempted to violate or reverse the provisions of the states' constitutions, it would have been defeated by the delegates or rejected by the states.    The historical records of the drafting of the First Amendment show a strong reliance by the delegates on provisions from their own state constitutions. Notice the various proposals that led to the final House version of the First Amendment: JUNE 7 [1789]. Initial proposals of James Madison. "The Civil Rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be estab­lished, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, nor on any pretext infringed." JULY 28. House Select Committee. "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." AUGUST 15. Full day of debate with many alterations and additions, with some question, still, whether any such amendment was necessary. Following the suggestion of his own state's ratifying convention, Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed: "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." AUGUST 20. Fisher Ames (Massachusetts) moved that the following language be adopted by the House, and it was agreed: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." This last version was sent to the Senate, which began its own work on the wording: SEPTEMBER 3. Several versions proposed in quick succession.    "Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society." "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed."    "Congress shall make no law establishing one religious society in preference to others, or to infringe on the rights of conscience."    Passed at the end of the day: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." SEPTEMBER 9. "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion."    This version was sent back to the House where a Conference Committee convened to eliminate the differences in wording. This committee agreed that the final wording should be: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."    It was then retuned to the full House and Senate, where it was approved as recommended by the Conference Committee.    As evident from these records, the word "religion" was used interchangeably with "religious sect," "religious society," and "particular denomination." Today we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, "Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination."

Editorial opinion.

  Separation of church and state is a non-Constitutional battle-cry in the war against Christianity. It is used to frighten godly Americans out of the polls, out of government, and back to the pews.

   Separation of church and state is a blatant distortion of the intent of the framers of the First Amendment. Are the wicked afraid that Christianity and government are somehow going to unite in the future? No, they are fearful because they know that Christianity and government were already united here in America. It is the connection between Christianity and government that they have to destroy if they ever hope to take complete control over America.

   To sever the connection between Christianity and government, they have to separate us from the knowledge of our Christian history. They must keep us ignorant of the truth that government in America was Christian from its very beginning.

   Most patriots realize the left-wing and the anti-Christ want to destroy Christianity. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, all communist leaders have made that plain in a thousand different ways. Well, if it is Christianity that they are against, why don't they just try to change our religion? The answer is obvious. They do, but they also realize that they cannot destroy the Christian religion until after they have prevented the government from upholding and protecting the Christian religion.

   How do they stop the American government from being a protector of Christianity? Well, they cause Americans to forget their Christian history. They re-write history, put it on television and call it a Docudrama. 

   'Program' us with hidden agenda's embedded in television programming. (see Yada, yada, yada below.) They remove information from our history books, change the meaning of words, or distort the writings of our colonial founders. They keep us from reading the Maryland Charter that ended with a proviso that no interpretation of the charter should be allowed whereby God's holy and true Christian religion might in any wise suffer. They deny us the knowledge that our forefathers wrote into the Rhode Island Charter that the very reason for the Rhode Island government was that the people might be in a better capacity to defend themselves in their rights and liberties against all the enemies of the Christian faith.

   When we Christians want to have a say in the selection of public school text books, cries of outrage come forth; "book burners," "separation of church and state" and "who are you to impose your morals on us?" In short, they want to deny us and our children the truth that government was established in America for the protection of general Christianity in to protect their practice of their particular choice Christian faith or denomination. That was the main purpose of colonial government. Through control of the TV., movies, schools and even some pulpits they have denied to us and our children the knowledge of the origin of our government and the origin of its laws in the Christian Bible. Through television 'programming' they promote a moral standard contrary to traditional moral standards.

   Consider how helpless this situation has made those of you who oppose the wicked. Think of the various corruptions that are destroying your children; drugs, alcohol, abortion, pornographic material in magazines, movies, television and the porn plagued internet. Free love rather than marriage, and if married, easy divorce. When Christians oppose these things they call you bigots, right-wingers, extremists, kooks and fascist. Tell you to stay out of government. 

   They claim you cannot insist on the enforcement of laws against these things because, after all, we are a pluralistic society, or we are not a Christian nation. You even hear well known television evangelists using those same phrases. (Whose side are they on anyway?) You can't answer them if you don't know that we are a Christian nation. If men in government don't know America is a Christian nation, then they cannot use Moses instruction as a guide when writing law. The Speaker of The House of Representatives can figuratively look Moses in the eye because Moses sculpture is right in front of him on the opposite wall. If he goes beyond asking the House Chaplain to open each session with a prayer he will pay for it on the evening news, the late night comedy programs and on the editorial page.. They often say, you can't enforce morality, but that is exactly what early America did. America enforced God's Laws. We enforced morality!

   You may not have thought of it that way. Perhaps your minister had joined the chorus saying we can't enforce Bible Laws or use them as guided for modern legislation. Any way but God's way! But the writers of the New Testament knew that it was the job of government to enforce morality. In Romans 13 civil rulers are called ministers of God to punish evildoers. Paul said , 'government' beareth not the sword in vain. In other words, it is the job of government to maintain order and is authorized to use force if necessary. To punish those who violate laws. and, the New Testament says that government is to punish those who break God's Laws. Our Christian forefathers knew that. Our founding fathers believed that was the essence of good government.

   And here is more from the New Testament for those who have been persuaded that God's Laws have been put away or cannot be used by government to punish evildoers, 1 Timothy 1:8-10; We know the law is good, if a man use it lawfully. Knowing this, the law is not made for a righteous man, (We don't need speeding  laws for people who drive safely.) but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

  Do Romans 13 or 1 Timothy 1:8-10 sound like government should not enforce morality? Nonsense! Romans 13 makes it plain that is exactly the duty of government. To punish the evildoer, to enforce morality! And God determines what is evil and God determines what is moral. And your denomination determines whether baptism is by sprinkling or immersion. whether communion is to be with wine or grape juice, and whether the Sabbath is Saturday or Sunday. That is true 'separation of church and state'. 

For a second opinion click here.

It's A Mystery!

   While everyone knows that today's Supreme Court has forbidden prayer and Bible reading in the public schools, very few know the state constitution of Mississippi, in Section 18, says that the Bible is not to be removed from use in any public school in this state. We can have Moses holding The Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building but not on the School building.

   Why is it that Congress can have a Chaplain and open every session with prayer and public schools can not open anything with prayer?

 *

  How can President Ronald Reagan declare 1983, "The Year of the Bible. And then President George Bush declare 1990 The International Year of Bible Reading while the very same Bible is forbidden in public schools? 

   How can the same government both promote and forbid Bible reading?

Mississippi State Constitution
Section 18 - Click here.

   The answer is in the little known fact that, while we have one nation we have two governments! These two governments even have two different flags. The flags are similar but different. The difference is so slight that most people never notice.

   You know the familiar words, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all." 

  Notice that this is a pledge to a republic, not to a democracy! The flag of the republic (under God) is the traditional red, white and blue star spangled banner.←

   However there is a second flag. This second flag is very similar except that it has a yellow fringe. Have you ever wondered why some flags have a yellow fringe? The yellow fringed U.S. flag is found in many places especially court rooms. This second flag, the yellow fringed flag, it is the flag of the Legislative Democracy. 

Christian Republic v. Pluralistic Legislative Democracy

A Nation Within a Nation
A 33 minute MP3 explanation.

   What is the difference between a republic and a democracy? Is the United States a republic or a democracy? The answer, it is both. President Bush was the president of both nations. The Christian republic under God proclaimed 1983 The Year of The Bible and proclaimed 1990 The International Year of Bible Reading. 

   But it was the humanist, pluralistic legislative democracy's government that forbid prayer and Bible reading in public schools. Have you ever wondered why groups calling themselves 'patriots' always seem to be always at odds with the government? The dual nature of our government is part of the answer. This dual nature of our government is a mystery, when the mystery is understood, it answers many questions about, what in the world is happening here in America?

We and They

   This course is about WE and this America is represented by a red - white and blue flag. This is the United States, a Republic, mentioned favorably in the Bible.

   The other United States is the District of Columbia, a Democracy. Presently the District of Columbia lords it over the several States.

   Some churches claim the The United States is mentioned favorably in the Bible. Other churches claim that The United States is mentioned unfavorably in the Bible. Both points of view are right. How can this be?

   Both are right since there are two United States, but the world sees these two as one. Some even claim the Unites States one of the end-time beasts mentioned in the Books of Daniel and Revelation.