The United States of America
—A Nation of Christianity Because of the Law—
© 2014 Cameron Rebigsol
Everyone knows what country The United States of America is. How has the name of this country been designated by law? One may be surprised that this name is not given by the Constitution adopted by this nation in 1787. Unless a constitution can declare to whom, or to which country it would deliver its service, it must remain as a document of no sovereignty, and cannot be protected by any organization and does not have jurisdiction over anyone, anything. Though the country name is unfound in the US Constitution, however, the same Constitution does clearly declare to the world that it serves the country called The United States of America with its bold statement found in its Article VI, which reads:
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
Immediately, through this inheritance pledge, the US Constitution of 1787 emboldens the country with a name that it serves, as this name is found as one of the engagements the Confederation honors and records. In Article I of the Articles of Confederation (AOC) adopted by the Confederation, we found:
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."
Without this inheritance pledge, the only statement according to which one can find the Constitution of 1787 stressing its service is its preamble, mentioning “the United States of America” as the beneficiary of its service. However, without a capitalized “T” in the first word, “the United States of America” is only a phrase to indicate some uncertain political combination but not any defined political conglomeration that can exist as a country. Coupled with the fact that all nouns are capitalized in the original copy of the 1787 Constitution, English grammar, logic, and the context of the Constitution must all lead people to accept that the name for this nation is lawfully and solely given by Article I of the AOC, not the Constitution of 1787. Indeed, some organization as “the United States of America” had existed quite a while before “The United States of America” was formed. Furthermore, the original copy of the Constitution of 1787 did not even give itself a formal title as “The Constitution of The United States of America”, and thus it needs to rely on the Article I of the AOC to tell people who owns the Constitution and whom this Constitution is serving.
Upon acknowledging what the above inheritance pledge affirms, Americans must find themselves having been outrageously led by one misconception too far in law practice for too long. This misconception tells them that the AOC has been retired by the Constitution of 1787. If what this misconception says is ever true, the name style Article in the AOC must also be inescapably retired. Then, Americans must accept that they have never had a country to live by since 1787, but have been international political orphans in this land for nearly two and a half centuries. This is dead serious!
The AOC is the only document Americans can find to have a country name defined for them, and the name is affirmed with the inheritance pledge in the Constitution of 1787. No document of any legality significance can affirm and reject (or retire) the same thing at the same time.
It is true that many highly influential people in our history, politicians and scholars included, told people that AOC retired as soon as the Constitution of 1787 assumed the highest authority to govern in this land. However, no matter what opinions these people have given, they all are of personal opinions only, not something ratified by the common will of the Founding Fathers in Congress. Subsequently, none of such opinion can stand as a constitutional statement.
If no document that has constitutional significance can be found to retire the AOC, all engagements recorded in the AOC must “be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation”. Subsequently, going along with the name style engagement, entitled by the word “all” in the inheritance pledge, another engagement in the AOC must also continue to be actively ruling in this land:
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. (Article III)
This is a plain statement of engagement to institute a government. Logic concluded by both this statement and by the inheritance pledge of 1787 thus leads to an inevitable certainty: Among many principles and purposes that America as a nation is formed and its government is instituted, religion defense occupies the topmost account. The word “all” in the Constitution’s inheritance pledge empowers the Constitution to fully, seamlessly, and unconditionally weld the AOC into the Constitution of 1787 as its inseparable part. Technically, indeed, not assigning itself with the legality of naming a country but choosing to inherit a name from the AOC, the Constitution of 1787 places itself in a position as amendment to the AOC. What is found more essentially done in this amendment is not to add more principles but to elaborate the technicality how to institute a more efficient government for a more perfect union. As far as principle is concerned, such an amendment also continues the same nature of religion revering by enthroning our Lord in its chronology, just like what is shown in the AOC. Indeed, even more is added in this amendment: the government needs to abide to Sabbath.
It is only of common sense to everyone’s understanding that religion, or theistic faith, and atheism, typified by belief such as evolution, must rescind each other’s validity in ideology. With the responsibility of religion defense being so loftily regarded in the Constitution, allowing dominance of atheism in any sector of public life in America by any measure and in any form must be in violation of the US Constitution. So, if not atheism, what theistic faith, among so many in the US, does our Constitution single out to defend?
First of all, no logic whatsoever will enable anyone to imagine that the Constitution drafters came together only to draw a document serving an interest of disagreeing each other, and thus encouraging each of them to defend idea that any other must object. Therefore, a religion that they all felt the need to defend must be a religion that they all felt commonly acceptable in their worshiping. Indeed, such common acceptance is witnessed by words “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent” specified in the Constitution. Comparison among all religions that people know, the only religion that all these Founders singled out to defend with the power of a Constitution must inevitably be
not Islam, not Buddhism, not to even mention atheism or some extremely religious ideology such as Marx’ Socialism, which never allows absence of human “gods” in its practice…
Not only logic deduction concluded from historical environment must show Christianity being exclusively the religion earning the Founders’ unanimous reverence, but Christianity’s unshared supremacy above any faith is also literally bolted with text in the Constitution of 1787, which so expresses:
Done … the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.
Statement parallel to this is also found in the AOC, which so expresses:
Done … the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.
Among all religions that we know, only a calendar serving a Christianity Lord and dominated by the same would apply chronology with dates as shown above. Conversely, and naturally, a calendar following this chronology in the name of Lord will not entitle any deity from other religion as Lord; only the Christianity God can so entitle. In fact, for example, if Lord in the above chronology is to mean Allah in Islam, Muslims would consider it an insult, if not an attack, against their religion. That the Muslim’s sentiment cannot abide to the Christian dating in chronology can be clearly witnessed in the two treaties of Tripoli, one singed in 1796 and another one in 1805. Therefore, God, and Lord, and similar terms in the Constitution must be the Christian God; all American official documents inferior to the Constitution, such as the president’s oath “help me God”, must all indisputably, exclusively and coherently refer to the same supernatural figure, a Christianity God.
Since the chronology in both the AOC and the Constitution of 1787 is also applying the time mark “of the independence” following the Lord’s timing, this referral must solely and adequately entitle the Christianity God being the Nature’s God, the Creator, and divine Providence revered in the Declaration of Independence of America.
Besides verbal respect to the religion of Christianity, the US Constitution also enforces Christian practice in the top administration in our government. The (Sundays except) found in Section 7, Article I is a practice respecting Sabbath―even the president’s message concerning law enactment cannot interrupt, but wait for another day.
While respects embedded in the US Constitution to the religion of Christianity are found so imperatively many, disrespect is found none. However, for each of their own demands, some people do try hard to dig evidence from the US Constitution to promote their argument that the US Constitution is established on the principle of secularism. These people include atheists, secularists, Socialists, and followers from other religions that must have adverse view against Christianity. The “evidence” they usually say they found includes (1) the First Amendment, (2) the statement “no religious Test shall ever be required” in Article VI, (3) Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796, (4) The signatories of the Constitution worshiped multiple deities and some of them were even atheists. All these so called evidence are either fabricated with foul logic or with baseless contortion on the Constitution texts.
(1) Here is the statement from the First Amendment concerning religious reverence:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
This statement emphasizes its concern on some entity that fits the description of “an establishment of religion”, but not at all any religion. For secular people using this statement to support their sentiment of repelling Christianity, they must confuse their listeners to accept “…an establishment of religion” being the same as “religion”. Common sense dictates that an establishment of religion can never be equal to a religion, just like a citizen of America being never equal to America. Law can find an establishment of religion committing certain crime, but no law can ever find a religion committing crime. As pointed out in all previous analysis, the US Constitution has ample separate and prominent texts singling out Christianity to receive respect. The 1st Amendment cannot sanction such texts because this amendment has restricted itself to mediating matters between establishments, not religions. An establishment of religion must be inferior to the religion it serves. So the secularists’ evidence one is self-defeated.
(2) Here is the statement of the no-test-required clause found in Article VI:
…Officers…shall be bound by Oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.
No logic would possibly lead this statement to be warped into a statement to force secular test, and thus to mandate secularism, upon all government officers, or any officer referred herein. From the point of view of rhetoric, a religious test is simply a pledge, but a pledge either to show affinity with or animosity against some theistic faith. So mandating secularism is just nakedly forcing a pledge of animosity against religion. In so forcing, the secular test has not only deprived the freedom of religion granted by the no-test-required clause, but the secular requirement is even forced upon with a reason “…no religious Test shall ever be required…” No contradiction more openly sordid than this can be found in mankind’s reasoning! After so “constitutionally” enforcing, only the type of “freedom” satisfying the secularists and atheists is allowed to dominate in the public life in this nation. A Constitution respecting Christianity but not secularism has been ruthlessly forced to disgrace itself!
As one of the results of such disgracing, the Christianity followers have been forced to relinquish their privilege of educating the posterity of the Founders with morality in the public schools. Can any person with a reasonable mindset accept that the purpose for those Christian Founding Fathers to found a country and establish the Christianity revering Constitution is to institute a government to brainwash their posterity with atheism? Can any of today’s US citizen claim that he has most faithfully abided to the Constitution because he has most faithfully insulted the Founding Fathers’ will with his diligent promotion of the atheistic evolution? Yes, our Founding Fathers do show generosity on freedom of religion with the no-test-required clause, but no one can find in the Constitution that they pre-condition the freedom with any “constitutional” persecution against their own faith, such as forcing the Christianity teaching out of the American public schools, in the name of the US Constitution. Indeed, the Founders pre-condition the freedom with a declaration in the Constitution that their own faith must be singly defended by the government against any attack from any source, including secularism and atheism.
The second evidence serving the secularists and atheists is thus self-defeated.
(3) Here is the statement of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion… it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Clearly, this article is specifying the religious (or non-religious) character of the government of the USA, but absolutely not the character of America as a nation. Even so, the Congress at the time still felt that the word “not founded on the Christian religion” was not exactly proper in qualifying the US government, as this government is an employee of a nation whose Constitution exclusively respects the spiritual reign of Christianity. Only six years later, a second similar treaty that superseded the first one deleted the wording concerning the religious character of the US government and correspondingly presented the following statement:
As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen,…It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house…
Common sense in law must dictate that government is merely an employee of AMERICA as a nation, and the employment relationship is bound by a contract called the Constitution. The US government is thus inferior to the nation and the Constitution. Its structure that is free of religious hierarchy can never decide the spiritual nature of either AMERICA as a nation nor the US Constitution. As an employee, the US government is obliged to defend Christianity against any attack launched by any source according to the employment prerequisite stipulated in the Constitution!
People hijacking the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 for their secular scheme must defeat themselves as no one can castrate the words “the government of” from the treaty and logically applying it to describe the spiritual nature of the entire nation. In their so contorting, the same people never mention the existence of the second Treaty, as if they did not know the first one had been superseded by the second one. What they do know, however, is that, if Americans learn the existence of the second but superseding one, the first one would become powerless in influencing any of the secularists’ listeners. So, their avoiding the second treaty just reveals to us their timidity that is caused by the awareness of the self-defeated fate of their third evidence.
What most fatally to the secularists’ strategy of employing the Treaty of Tripoli is that both Treaties have died. One of the only two beneficiaries of this Treaty has vanished long ago and thus this Treaty can no longer support or oblige anyone.
(4) Work regarding the religion devotion of the Founding Fathers has been overwhelming by various people in history. The diligence put up by the secularists in corresponding work is of course for them to formulate an opinion that the Founders are not coherently from Christianity and therefore they could not have established a Constitution respecting Christianity. To dispute against such opinion, there is not even a need of putting up personal effort to verify the religious background of each signatory of the Constitution, the worldwide historical sentiment has been disagreed with them for nearly two and half centuries. It is because of the tracked record of worshiping Christianity shown by the overwhelming majority of the Founders, everyone in this world has an impression, either as acknowledgement or prejudice, that this country and the religion of Christianity intertwines and mutually supports each other. Friends feeling Christianity benevolent to them are delighted for that, and foes feeling Christianity repellent put themselves in guard of caution because of the same when dealing with America. Cautious guard from power disagreeing Christianity in dealing with America can be well witnessed by the following statement found in the Treaty of Tripoli:
…no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house…
These words tell people that religious opinions can be so utmost influential from each house that the harmony between the two nations may face the danger of interruption. Why? As far as America is concerned, religious opinions have always enjoyed spiritual privileges bestowed by its Constitution. Could these religious opinions indicated in the Treaty be of any secular nature in America? In case it could, the consequence would be (1) the above words will find no necessity to enter the Treaty. Otherwise the Musselmen will find they are insulting themselves by showing worrisome that the harmony they expect could be interrupted by the then trivial secular population in America. It was the pronouncedly popular Christians in America that made them feel the need of guard of caution. (2) The American senate would also feel self-insulting that they could be pivoted so much as to agonize another nation by a trivial population, whose opinion is nowhere found favored by the Constitution. So, trying to refute the Christianity respecting nature of the US Constitution by blemishing the Founders’ religious background must also fail its purpose. Secularists’ fourth evidence ends up self-defeated.
Secularists, actually Socialists in essence, never intend to respect this Constitution no matter what they have found. Their asking other people to abide to the Constitution is only to serve their conspiracy of having the Constitution crumbled. In case they succeeded in blemishing the Founders’ religion background, they would not ask people to respect the Constitution that they assert as being secular. Instead, they just tell people they found how and why this Constitution violating secularism and should be removed. No more typical example of this conclusion on their hostile hypocrisy against the Constitution can be found with their attitude towards Thomas Jefferson. When they feel they need to attack the wickedness that they claim to have found with the Constitution, they would put up how Jefferson had been a slave owner with debatable double personality. When they need a heavy weight politician to support their secular contortion on the Constitution, they also constantly quote what Jefferson said, as if Jefferson had been their indisputable and irreplaceable mentor. Ironically, they maximally exploit the freedom they take it for granted from the Constitution to which Jefferson is one of the chief drafters, but their exploitation is for a purpose to trash it.
Now, enough evidence has convinced us that the US Constitution spiritually enthrones the respect of Christianity in this nation, and that the US government is obliged by the Constitution to defend Christianity against any attack. This article has collected positive evidence from the text of the US Constitution for the support, and has also collected the anti-Christian people’s negative “evidence” to expose how fallacious their arguments are. All popular arguments against the Christianity nature of this nation and of this nation’s Constitution are proven baseless, self-defeated by any measure. Subsequently, all “legal” decisions drawn based on these arguments are simply in violation of the Constitution of The United States of America.