The Constitution --- Plain and Simple

Religion, Politics, and the Constitution (Part I)

Curtis W. Caine, MD

This column on the Constitution appears in the Medical Sentinel to remind us that it is the unConstitutional (and thus illegal) activities in medicine and all other facets of our lives that have trampled on and outlawed our God-endowed freedom and liberty.


I often hear (am told): 1. "our church may not mix politics with religion," or 2. "the Constitution declares 'separation of church and state' which means our church must not dabble in politics," and 3. "if we have anything to do with politics our church will lose its tax exempt status."

My response to the first two points is "hogwash." The Constitution doesn't say either, and neither does Scripture. And these two documents are the "Law of the Land" in both spheres. Here verbatim is what Amendment I to the Constitution actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." [Emphasis added.] This brings us back to etymology.(1) Particularly note the little word "an"; it is not "the." If the text had read "...no law respecting the establishment..." (which is the way most people [mis]quote the reference), the proscription would have to do with federal law governing the tenets of a church. Were this the case, a church building and lot would still be the property of the local/area congregation/corporation/synod/diocese, but its doctrines (private) would be directed by the government (public), i.e., fascism (public/private "partnership").

However, it reads "...AN establishment..." So, the Fed may neither establish an official Church of/for the United States, paralleling the official Church of England - a government church, i.e. a branch of the government. Nor may the Fed oversee the tenants of a church; but it has. Though it lacks the authority to do so, it has arrogantly usurped the power and done so. The official illegally promoted church in America is secular atheist humanism. (More etymology --- not atheistic humanism, which means "smacks of atheism" or "a little like atheism"; but straight out-and-out atheism = atheist humanism --- without the "ic.")

In the body of the Constitution, the States had already delegated to the federal central government NO authority to be in religion, education, health, welfare, power, banking, agriculture, etc.(2) Not being delegated to the federal government, the creator States thereby FORBADE activity in these areas. But the Colonists (well learned in history) were so fearful of government oppression from which they had fled in Europe, and under which they were currently suffering from the Crown even in America, that they prophetically insisted on the double protection, redundantly repeated, in the Bill of Rights.(3) They wanted the assurance of both a belt (the Constitution) and suspenders/galluses (the Bill of Rights) to make darn sure their pants didn't fall, leaving them unprotected --- naked to tyranny.

That is the "Constitution, plain and simple." But big government proponents, collectivists, socialists and their ilk have brazenly overruled the Founders and made an end run around the Constitution by arrogating to themselves, usurping, the power, without authority, to function in these prohibited areas. Today, these usurpations comprise 80 percent of the federal government's activities.

As far as #3 --- tax exemption --- is concerned, the central government has expropriated the prerogative to threaten to tax churches as the means of blackmailing churches into shutting their mouths, and it has done so very effectively. Honor and integrity demand that churches pay the tax and boldly speak out, anyway.

The last thing too many politicians want is strict enforcement of God's Law and/or the Constitution because doing so would cramp their style, to wit: a.) Thou shall not bear false witness, vis-à-vis, a non-existent "surplus," or the "Davidians set the fire" in Waco; b) Thou shall not steal, vis-à-vis, welfare, which is theft (legal plunder); c) Thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain, vis-à-vis, oath taken "So help me, God" and then the vow is broken; d) Thou shall not commit adultery, vis-à-vis ....?; e) Thou shall do no murder, vis-à-vis, government-sanctioned, protected, and financed abortion, etc, et cetera.(4)

The lying, cheating, amoral, illegal tyranny under which we now suffer from the imperial "Crown in Washington" can be traced directly to its premeditated, intentional silencing/removal of religion and churches from the political arena by intimidation, taxation threat, political correctness, social/cultural Marxism for the express purpose of banishing modern Nathans (God's men) who are pointing their fingers at the bureaucrats (the king David politicians) and saying " 'thou art the man' (2 Samuel 12:7) breaking God's Law and the U.S. Constitution. You must stop for we will allow no more of it." The religion-motivated Founders of our Constitutional (not democratic) Republic told the Crown in London "NO" over two hundred years ago. When are the churches in these United States today going to exhort those in the pews to tell the abusers in Washington, "NO"? This is less likely to happen until the clergy repeat history and counsel and encourage their congregations to do so. Why not? And why not now?

America exists and liberty is supposed to prevail because for several decades in the 1600s and 1700s freedom from oppressive government was extolled from the pulpits of the land, culminating in the Declaration of Independence from the tyranny of the Crown of England.

I am further told, "If you can show me anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus said that a church should speak out on politics, then I/we will." At this point I am referred to Mark 12:17, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. QED!" But, of course, this reference is in no way germane to the topic at issue. Does Caesar own our children being "sex (mis)educated" in grade school? Of course not. Do the unborn made in God's image belong to Caesar for him to dismember? Of course not. The question is not either one or the other, but both, as God assigned.

The New Testament is replete with supporting references. Take John 14:15, for instance, which records that the Law Giver, Himself, said, "If you love me keep my commandments." And Romans 10:14-15 outlines that preachers are to inveigh against the breaking of, and the breakers of, "my commandments."

Ephesians 6:11-17 instructs us to do battle "...against the rulers of the darkness of this world." Not to cower, but to fight.

Alexis de Tocqueville, in commenting on America's love for freedom and religion, stated:

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.(5)

The word "politics" is used by apologists as a prejudicial term, denoting bad/evil. Whereas "religion/church" is supposed to conjure up thoughts of good/right/noble. This myth self-destructs when we study history which records that the worst of evils throughout the millennia have been fostered by "churches" under the color of religion. It is not so much that politics corrupts religion, but, on the contrary, without religion, politics is corrupt, ipso facto.

Do not forget! Remember! The ultimate authority of, control by, and power of civil government is DEATH. The proper exercise of this power is justice --- differentiated/demarcated from its improper use, which then is tyranny, murder, slaughter, barbarism. And/but this dichotomy is inextricably tied to right versus wrong --- religion, id est, Jehovah God and consequently His Law. Hence, for civil government ("politics") to be à propos, religion ("church," if you please) must be involved. When church is involved in civil affairs (politics), death by government is more likely to be justice. When church is not involved, death by government is more likely to be murder. The vicissitudes of history, as well as logic and common sense, support this thesis. Higgaion. Selah. Psalms 9:16.

We will conclude this essay on the fallacy of separation of church and state in Part II of "Religion, Politics, and the Constitution" in the next issue of the Medical Sentinel.

 

References

 

1. Caine CW. Lexicology and the Constitution (Parts I and II). Medical Sentinel 2000;5(6):215 and Medical Sentinel 2001;6(1):32-33.
2. U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, 18 paragraphs.
3. Amendments I-X.
4. Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.
5. Flood R. The Rebirth of America. The Arthur S. DeMoss Foundation, 1986, p.32.

Dr. Caine is an anesthesiologist in Jackson, Mississippi, and a member of the editorial board of the Medical Sentinel. His e-mail is LandCCaine@msn.com.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2001;6(2):69-70. Copyright©2001 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)