Print Friendly

It is better to trust in Yahweh1 than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in Yahweh than to put confidence in princes. (Psalm 118:8-9)

QUESTION: Do elections benefit or harm America?

ANSWER: Depends upon whether we’re talking about Constitutional or Biblical elections.

Constitutional Election

Two hundred and twenty-six years of unbiblical constitutional elections selecting Biblically unqualified candidates for non-Biblical positions of leadership2 have consistently produced an America that is more ungodly, less Christian, and further enslaved. This is true regardless whether a Democrat or a Republican has been elected.

Of course, if we’re to believe the pundits, this time will be different! The Internet bloggers have been abuzz for several weeks with a plethora of articles such as “One Day Left to Save America!,” “Your Vote is Sacred,” and “Vote As If Our Country’s Survival Depended On It…Because It Does.” Do not overlook the ring of humanistic self-reliance in these titles. When has We the People ever been able to save themselves from anything?

Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. (Psalm 146:3)

The eternal optimism (AKA: extremely short memories) of the American electorate is astounding. Repeatedly doing something that hasn’t been able to improve America in over two centuries is, at best, foolhardy. Worse, constitutional elections are a societal opiate. People end up believing, “Provided I’ve made my biennial pilgrimage to the voting booth, I’ve done my duty as a Christian and a patriot!”

Trading possible short-term improvement for the long-term solution is selfish and short-sighted. It only postpones what this generation’s Christians should be working toward on behalf of a future generation. The fact is, in trying to save the Republic by non-Biblical means, Christians have all but lost the Kingdom.3

For two reasons, constitutional elections can only, at best, produce the lesser of two evils:

1) Article 6’s Christian test ban all but eliminated Biblical qualifications.

2) The majority of people who vote are in the broad way leading to destruction4 and are inevitably not going to vote Biblically.

Election day is the Constitutional Republic’s high holy day, when the American voting public (non-Christians and Christians alike) worship at the altar of America’s national idol—the humanistic,5 antichristian,6 and polytheistic7 U.S. Constitution.

Constitutional elections demand of those elected that they swear allegiance to a thoroughly Biblically seditious document.8 Anyone who helps elect someone who would swear to uphold the Constitution becomes complicit in this sin, as well as any other Biblical violations committed while this person is in office.

Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thus share responsibility for the sins of others…. (1 Timothy 5:22)9

Biblical Election

America cannot vote herself off the precipice of moral depravity and destruction. She must repent, beginning with her national idol (the 18th-century founders’ Constitution based upon capricious Enlightenment and Masonic concepts) and its unbiblical election process.

America needs to restore government based upon God’s immutable moral law, including His election process. Under a Biblical election system, Yahweh elects civil leaders from among two or more Biblically qualified candidates. This provides us the best of the best, every single time.

Thou shalt in any wise set him king [or any other ruler or judge] over thee, whom Yahweh thy God shall choose…. (Deuteronomy 17:15)

But how do we determine whom Yahweh elects? The same way they did in Acts 1:

And they appointed [put forward, NASB] two, Joseph called Barsabas … and Matthias [for a replacement for Judas’ place as a leader in the ecclesia]. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen…. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:23-26)

Lots are the only surefire way of determining Yahweh’s choice of two or more candidates, nominated by people who can personally attest to their Biblical legitimacy. Consider the following promises regarding lots:

The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of Yahweh. (Proverbs 16:33)

The lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty. (Proverbs 18:18)

“Election” is a Biblical term that belongs exclusively to Yahweh. Man has usurped the term and relegated this authority to We the People with horrific consequences. There’s a better way if only Christians will lead the way in returning to it.

Choose Ye This Day

Our choice for election boils down to a popularity contest based upon campaign promises versus a proven record based upon Biblical qualifications and Yahweh’s immutable moral law.

Because of my opposition to elections, I’m often accused of giving up on America. Quite the contrary. I believe America can be saved by election, but only by Yahweh’s election of Godly men who will refuse to compromise His sovereignty and His moral law.10

For Yahweh is our judge, Yahweh is our lawgiver, Yahweh is our king; he will save us. (Isaiah 33:22)

For a more exhaustive presentation on this vital subject, listen to the audio series Election: Man’s or Yahweh’s? Part 1 and Part 2, and read Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.


Related posts:

Election: Man’s or Yahweh’s? Pt. 1

Election Man’s or Yahweh’s? Pt. 2

Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

Republic or Kingdom: Which Are You Promoting? Pt. 1

Republic or Kingdom: Which Are You Promoting? Pt. 2


1. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. It was unlawfully deleted and replaced with “the Lord” and “God” by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the numerous Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”

2. Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

Chapter 6 “Article 3: JudicialUsurpation” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

3. Republic or Kingdom: Which Are You Promoting? Pt. 1

Republic or Kingdom: Which Are You Promoting:? Pt. 2

4. Matthew 7:13-14

5. Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

6. Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

7.  Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.

8. Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective

9. Petition for Forgiveness Signature Pledge

10. Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant

  1. Seldena says:

    I disagree with you on so many points! The Constitution is not a biblical document!! i t has many biblical principles. We are human beings and we are flawed. But the Constituion is what makes us different from a ruler or tyranny!

    • Seldena, thank you for responding.

      You wrote that the Constitution “has many biblical principles.” Would you like to enumerate them, please.

      • psychicbloodbrother says:

        Individual sovereignty, free will, the trinity, bill of rights that mirrors the ten commandments, rights come from god and cannot be taken away or given by government, free speech, right to defend yourself, property rights, trial by jury, law, justice, representative government, peaceful transfer of power by election, consent of the governed & the pursuit of happiness……etc. The parallel principles are undeniable. America was born in the spirit of Liberty and threw out the divine right of kings. America is sick and ailing because she has chosen a path of Tyranny and it will depend on the people and their Christian faith and morality to restore liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is Love they neighbor, Tyranny is Force thy neighbor. Its really simple. This website is anti-constitution, anti-american as founded and in my opinion anti-Christ in its claim to be more righteous than the righteous. In my opinion it is a collaboration of Nicolaitans. BTW. I will now receive an onslaught from this sites minions as a response to this post that will try to distract, deceive, diminish, delude, demonize, demoralize, demagogue and otherwise denigrate me for this post because it does not comport with the “Cult” like following at this site. Have a wonderful day.

        • Your list is a joke. For example: The “bill of rights that mirrors the ten commandments”!?!

          With the exception of the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights (particularly Amendment 1) is perhaps collectively the most Biblically egregious aspect of the Constitution. For evidence, see “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at Of course, I don’t expect you to do so anymore than you’ve been willing to do so previously.

          God’s Word is the ultimate authority and standard for everything. If rights come from God, cite the Biblical passages that declares this.

          There are two inherent problems with the oft-parroted claim that constitutional rights are God-given: 1) Except PERHAPS as the document’s timekeeper in Article 7, the Constitution knows nothing of God, and 2) God and His Word know nothing of optional Enlightenment rights. Instead, the Bible is replete with non-optional, God-expected responsibilities. See “America’s Road to Hell: Paved With Rights” at and “Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights” at

          Your recommendation of Christian faith and morality is ironic, to say the least, since both of those are what your position ultimately rejects.

          You accusation of a cult following is likewise ironic in that there is no greater cult in America than the one you so tenaciously defend: The Cult of the U.S. Constitution, America’s national idol.

          Your cultic tenacity only goes to, once again, prove idols die hard. In Acts 19, the Ephesians cried out for two solid hours “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” Americans (ironically led by Christians) have been crying out for 226 YEARS “Great is the Constitution of the United States!,” despite the fact it is easily demonstrated to be Biblically seditious in nearly every Article and Amendment. See “Could YOU be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know It?” at

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            It may not be as eloquently stated as inalienable rights ….the principle. The ever questioning dialectical reasoning you use is what diminishes your own arguments with a micro view discarding the macro principles. Go ahead with your throw the baby out with the bathwater positions they fall on deaf ears………I love your tenacity and your persistence but you’re only fooling yourself.

          • Hmm!?! “Inalienable rights!” Where’s the Scripture that teaches inalienable rights?

            Perhaps you look to the Declaration of Independence as your moral authority just like you do the Constitution. But lest you’ve overlooked something, let me remind you that the Declaration’s principle author was Thomas Jefferson who cut the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and ascension of
            Christ – what he described as a “dunghill” – out of his cut-and-paste
            New Testament.*

            In other words, Jefferson was an antichrist. Be warned:

            “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your [personal, State, White, or] house [of Representatives], neither bid him God speed [e.g., by promoting his heretical ideas such as inalienable rights]: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 1:7-11)

            * Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, 24 January 1814, Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams (Williamsburg, VA: Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1988) p. 384.

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            Excellent. To pass judgment on our founding fathers in this way is an injustice because you are not telling the whole truth. You can no more condemn a man, than he you. We will all be judged by our fruits by the one and only judge. When you cast aspersions like this it is an injustice to the truth itself. You could just as easily be talking about yourself in this post because you are not perfect. The very idea that we, in this day and age, would judge other men through the prism of perfectionism is unjust. This is old testament thinking. By the same comparison nothing you or I say is worth anything because we are not perfect either. I do not worship our founders or our constitution. I recognize these things for what they are, their significance in the American enlightenment, the period in which these men lived and the common sense of that age. I love America and the republic for which is stands. I love God and rely on Jesus to represent me before God.

          • Best read Christ’s example in Matthew 23, His charge in John 7:24, and Paul’s in Ephesians 5:11.

            Furthermore, how does someone guard against 2 John 1:10-11 without first determining whether someone is guilty of 2 John 1:7-9?

            I wonder what’s you evaluation of Obama? Christian, non-Christian, or something else?

          • Johnnygo7 says:

            Thank you. You are right on target.

        • Joe says:

          Nicolaitans were anti-nomians. Ted is most definitely not anti-nomian. How do you claim that individual sovereignty is Biblical when the whole duty of man is to fear God (or as Ted would say, Yahweh) and keep his commandments?

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            individual salvation….its not a claim its the truth. You must choose it, is not forced. It is the choice that matters and it is an individual choice. It is free will and we must choose to do our duty. That’s what makes us sovereign. If you reject free will you will disagree with me on that premise.

          • Joe says:

            I agree that we have been given a choice to choose to obey God or not. I disagree that the possession of that choice makes us sovereign. So we disagree, but not for the reason you presumed.

        • COMALite J says:

          One thing you said really jumped out at me:

          … bill of rights that mirrors the ten commandments,…

          Well, yes, yes it does, when you remember just what it is that a mirror actually does: it reverses that which is seen in it!

          Other than there being ten of each, there is nothing similar about the Ten Commandments (either of the two wildly different lists in the Bible called by that name [only one of which calls itself by that name, and it’s not Exodus Chapter 20 — more on that some other time]) and the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

          Wanna try a little experiment? Let’s compare Amendment #1 with Commandment #1 (from Exodus Chapter 20), then #2 of each, and so on until #10 of each, or until one of the following two things happen. If we find even one like-numbered pair that agree with each other, then we stop right there and you are declared the winner on the spot. If, on the other hand, we find a like-numbered pair that not merely have nothing to do with each other, but rather are outright 180° diametrically opposed to each other, then again, we stop right there, but Ted R. Weiland is declared the winner on the spot.

          If neither happens and we get all the way to #10 of each, then we start over and compare Amendment #1 with Commandments #2 – #10, then Amendment #2 with Commandments #1 and #3 – #10, and so on, for all 100 possible combinations of the two, until we meet either of those situations, or get all the way to Amendment #10 compared with Commandment #9, in which case you still lose because there would be no similarity between the two lists other than there being ten of each.

          Deal? Okay, let’s get started!

          • Amendment #1: “Congress shall make no law … respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
          ↑ a blanket endorsement of the concept of Freedom of Religion. ↑

          • Commandent #1: “I am the Loʀɒ [YHWH] thy God, which hath brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” ← a blanket condemnation of the concept of Freedom of Religion.

          Gee, we didn’t get very far, now, did we!?

          180° diametrically opposing contradiction found, right at the start! @TedRWeiland:disqus wins!

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            Its a parallel and simply stated. If you concluded that I meant that the real ten commandments and the bill of rights were the same is grasping at straws. The Cult here at constitutional mythmakers never ceases to impress. These straw man arguments don’t persuade anyone as you are making a false equivalence argument against the founding documents & principles of our great country. There is no morale equivalence. While I appreciate a good debate, arguments must begin with a sound premise. I appreciate that you are contending for the faith and that is admirable. What I cannot fathom is the premise that to love god is to hate America, its founding, its founders and today to cast aspersions on American citizens. I understand the idolatry that those who worship America like godless modern progressives are a problem but that is a factional argument and we cannot make sweeping judgments that all Americans are idol worshipers. Nice try, but the argument is not persuading anyone and if winning an false argument is more important than seeking the truth then we are wasting our time. It is nice to see the devotion you have for Ted. Have a blessed day.

          • COMALite J says:

            Okay, last thing first: in the interests of honesty, I must inform you that I am not “contending for the faith” and I do not have “devotion … for Ted.” I used to be a fully believing Christian for the considerable majority of my life, but for the past few years had to finally admit to myself that I no longer believed. I am a “soft” agnostic “soft” atheist.

            But even when I still believed, I was a secularist as far as politics go. Unlike Ted or (apparently) you, I did not believe that God wanted Jesus to rule the world (including America) overtly just yet. That’s supposed to happen at the Second Coming, when He is crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and rules all nations with a rod of iron (the Law) for a thousand years (the Millennium).

            In short, I’m one of those “godless modern progressives” you so decry.

            Ted and I disagree vehemently on whether Christianity should rule America. But I cannot fault his research into the history and nature of the Constitution as it relates to the Bible. I had come to similar conclusions myself, even while still a believer, decades before I’d ever heard of him. The Constitution is simply non-Biblical, if not outright anti-Biblical. Ted and I do agree on that. We disagree on whether that’s a good or bad thing. Ted thinks that it’s a very bad thing. I think that it’s a very good thing.

            Ted claims that the 1620s colonies were founded to be Christian theocracies. Only a few of them (two that I know of) were: Massachusets Bay and Connecticut, and maybe some others. So even in the 1600s, Christocrats (portmanteau of “Christian theocrats and wannabe theocrats) were in the definite minority on this continent.

            I have repeatedly asked Ted to explain his view on some of the more obvious ramifications of his assertions. If, for instance, he believes that the (few) 1620s British colonies were right and that the antichrist Jefferson (as per John’s definition in his Epistle, he would indeed qualify — like it or not, he would) and most of the other Founders and Framers were at the very least deluded by Satan and led this nation astray, then does he not oppose the whole concept of the very existence of the United States of America as a nation separate from Great Britain? It’s the American Revolution itself that he seems to be opposing!

            Despite my asking him repeatedly on a variety of Disqus forums (Patriot Update, Godfather Politics, CNS News, et al), he has never answered this. Now, on his own blog’s Disqus forum, I ask him once again: Mr.¹ @TedRWeiland:disqus, do you or do you not believe that the Colonies should never have rebelled against the Anglican Christian King of England, and should never have formed the secularist United States of America? “But let thine answer be Yea, Yea, or Nay, Nay, for more than this cometh of evil.” Yes or No?

            The United States really was founded as a secularist nation. Even the Christians among the Framers (with a few notable exceptions such as John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) didn’t want Christianity to rule America.

            They were Christian, yes, but they weren’t your particular kind of Christian. None of them were. Not a single one of them was. We know this for a fact, because the sort of Christianity that most (not all — Ted himself being a notable exception) Christocrats follow, which they claim is a sort of generic “non-denominational” or “inter-denominational” “Born-Again” “Bible-believing” evangelical Protestant Christianity, does actually have a name: it’s called “Dispensationalism” and it hadn’t even been invented yet, let alone gained anything even remotely resembling its modern popularity and credibility.

            Dispensationalism, like Mormonism, is a Nineteenth Century cult of Christianity. Its founder, its “Joseph Smith” if you will, was one John Nelson Darby. Guess what? He wasn’t even born until December 18, 1800! So he’d have to’ve been really precocious indeed to have written works that influenced the Framers back when he was a rather young negative thirteen years old!

            Unlike Mormonism, Dispensationalism didn’t catch on for nearly a century, well into the Twentieth Century in fact. Its “Brigham Young” came along much later. His name was Cyrus I. Scofield, who adapted and extended Darby’s Dispensationalism, and it was the publication of his Scofield Reference Bible (a KJV with Dispensationalist “study aids”) in 1909, and especially its revision published in 1917, that boosted Dispensationalism into becoming the popular force in mainstream Christianity that it is today.

            (Another interesting parallel between Dispensationalism and Mormonism: both had their own version of the Holy Bible [I’m not talking about the Book of Mormon here] penned by their respective founders, but the mainstream versions of both don’t use it as their preferred version, using their own printings of the Authorized King James Version with their own “study aids” instead. In the case of the LDS, there’s the Joseph Smith Translation. John Nelson Darby also had his own translation, the Darby Translation [available online for free at various multi-translation searchable Bible websites], but most Dispensationalists [many of whom have never even heard that word, nor of Darby] prefer the KJV in general and the Scofield Reference Bible in particular. I will grant that unlike the JST [aka “Inspired Version”], the Darby Translation is a valid translation, rather than an “inspired” interpolation with changes and additions not justified by the manuscripts.)

            It should be noted that Ted isn’t the only prominent Christocrat who believes this way. Have you heard of Dennis Oliver Woods? He’s the founder and headmaster of the very Christian King’s Way Classical Academy in Oregon (motto: “Discipling the Nations One Student at a Time”). He had a website called “America-Betrayed-1787·com” but its domain registration has expired. Here’s one of its most recent fully functional Internet Wayback Machine archives. (1787 is, of course, the year that the Constitution was written.)

            Like Weiland, Woods has done considerable research into the Framers from a Biblical and Christocrat perspective (much of his research is detailed on the above site), and concluded that the Constitution is at best non-Biblical if not downright anti-Biblical. Unlike Weiland, Woods puts most of the “blame” on the Federalists, and makes the case that the Anti-Federalists were in the right and were the proper sort of Christians who wanted a true Christian Nation. He thus puts the digression from what he considers God’s will for this nation about a century later than Weiland, and believes that most of the Founders (not Framers) were indeed theocratic Christians (but not Jefferson, of course — yet they signed his document which Woods considers seditious against YHWH aka “the Loʀɒ” and Jesus, so what does that say about them?

            Neither of these guys holds a candle to a man I used to debate online, who claimed to be one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation. Unlike Woods and Weiland, this guy has a very good explanation as to why God would’ve allowed this nation to enact such a Biblically seditious Constitution and even Declaration if it was His Will that this be an exemplar Christian Nation (in a nutshell: it’s not God’s Will. God’s Will and Plan for this nation is pretty much the 180° diametric opposite of that — and even I, atheist that I am, have to admit that he makes a darn good Biblical case, and even made what appear to be some pretty detailed prophecies that actually did come true to the letter years after he made them).

            I have repeatedly asked Weiland in various forums (and again ask him here, in his own) to explain why God let this happen. The only time he answered me was to give basically the usual “mysteeerious ways” cop-out (if God’s ways are so mysterious and His will unknowable to humans, then how, Mr. Weiland, do you know that what you’re doing, what you’ve made your life’s work, isn’t going against His will for this nation!?). But this other guy (who goes by “Bands” after one of the Two Staves of the Loʀɒ [the other being “Beauty”] in Zechariah Chapter 11) does have an explanation. Most of you wouldn’t like it, though. But what if it’s true?

            To comment on some more things in your comment: what, precisely, are “these straw man arguments” that “the Cult here at constitutional mythmakers” are making? How, precisely, are they not what Constitutionalist Christocrats are actually claiming? To qualify as a “straw man” argument, it must be an argument that the opponent is not actually making, but which the user of the fallacy falsely claims that the opponent is making, so that the fallacy user can knock it down and thus claim to have defeated the opponent. In what way has Ted or anyone else in “the Cult” done this? Be specific, please.

            “To love God is to hate America” is not Mr. Weiland’s premise as you falsely claim (thus you yourself have just committed the very same “straw man” fallacy that you just accused Weiland and “the Cult” of! Something something plank / beam something your eye something mote something Weiland’s eye). It’s not even his conclusion so far as I can tell (still waiting on the answer to the first question I asked above, about whether he believes that the Colonies should never have rebelled against their Anglican King).

            ¹ Despite being an ordained minister, Mr. Weiland does not claim the title “Reverend,” because he knows that that word occurs only once in the Bible (Psalm 111:9) and then only as a name of God! He (as did I when I was still Christian) considers either arrogating such a title to oneself (let alone expanding on it with “Right Reverend” and “Most Reverend” and even “Most Right Reverend” and so on, when mere “reverend” [okay, “holy and reverend”] sufficed for Almighty God Himself — how arrogant is that!?) or calling any mortal man (or even angel) by that title, constitutes a form of blasphemy. So, I call him “Mr.” out of respect for his wishes, as he asked me to do when I specifically asked him about that. From fellow Christians, he may accept “Brother Weiland.”

          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            It is refreshing to see some humility and some great arguments. Great post. It is difficult to debate western civilization in a blog once it gets this involved. I have to admit you have some great arguments and some great points. The most important point is not whether we win the argument but that through the argument we can begin to find the truth. I must conclude that none of the efforts here however make any difference without the spirit of the truth to guide us. In fact I would argue that there is not much reason to get up in the morning if you have no purpose. I’m afraid I must exit here as I do not wish to spend anymore time in the hyperspin. If its any consolation some of the most inspirational and intellectual insights I have gained over the years have been from “self proclaimed” Agnostics & Athiests. Ironically this has bolstered my faith. As clearly stated by Aristotle we all know we are judged by something outside of ourselves. There is no escaping it and everyone knows this but not everyone has the strength to make the leap of faith, and in your case the strength to keep the faith. Have a blessed day. See you around.

          • Dave says:

            Nicely done!

      • Seldena says:

        Yes, I would. 1) Separation of Powers-jeremiah 17:9 2) 3 branches of Gov’t-Isaiah 33:22–3) Tax-exemptions for Churches-Ezra 7:24–4) Republicanism–Exodus 18:21–Article 1-sec.8-Uniform immigration-leviticus 19: 34–6) Article 2-Sec. 1–President Natural Born-Deut. 17:15–7) Article 3 Sec. 3–Witnesses-Deut. 17:6 8) Article3 Sec.3-Attainder–Ezekiel 18:20 are just a few! there is more…

        • First, while these are common claims by Christians who desperately want the Constitution to be Christian or Biblical document, the constitutional framers never made any of these same claims themselves nor attributed anything specific in the Constitution has having been derived from Yahweh or the Bible.

          In fact, the framers and other founders, time and again made it clear that their authority was the people not Yahweh. For primary source documentation, see “Could YOU be a Disciple of Baal and Not Know it?” at

          Furthermore, even if these claims were true, they don’t trump the fact that there is hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality. See “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

          Also, you can find some of these same components in other nation’s Constitutions, even the USSR. Does that mean that these other nation’s Constitutions were Biblical?

          More specifically:

          1) Huge stretch (almost laughable) for anyone to claim that Jeremiah 17:9 was the inspiration for the Constitution’s separation of powers. See our blog series “Straning at Gnats…” at, followed by our blog series “Swallowing Camels…” at

          2) Even if the framers were influenced by Isaiah 33:22, they completely overturned its intent by making We the People the basis and authority for those three branches. See Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “BL vs. USC” at, followed by Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation,” Chapter 5 “Article 2: Executive Usurpation,” and Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation.”

          3) There is nothing in the Constitution regarding churches being tax-exempt.

          4) “…Some Constitutionalists argue that the concept of representative government originated with Moses:

          ‘And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.’ (Exodus 18:25)

          “Nowhere in the framers’ copious convention notes, the Federalist Papers, or anywhere else in their writings, do we find any indication that the idea for the House of Representatives was inspired by Exodus 18:25. Christian
          Constitutionalists apply Exodus 18:25 to this section of the
          Constitution to give it an aura of Biblical authority. But Moses’ charge has nothing to do with representatives of the people. As proven by its context, it is a provision for judges – representatives of Yahweh:

          For more, see Chapter 4 “Article 1: Legislative Usurpation.”

          “…Constitutionalists insist the United States government is a republic, not a democracy, but they never stop to consider that the two are virtually the same regarding sovereignty.

          “Christian Constitutionalists further insist republics are Biblical. However, because republics (like democracies) rely upon the majority vote of the people for the selection of their leaders, rather than upon Yahweh’s choice (as per Deuteronomy 17:15), republics are not anymore Biblical than are democracies. Both democracies and republics culminate in a government of, by, and for the people rather than a government of, by, and for Yahweh. The same is true with other issues voted upon by the people: ultimately the majority’s will is exalted over the Yahweh’s will.

          “As demonstrated in Chapter 3, both republican and Christian governments are ultimately theocracies. As a result, they are incompatible and hostile to each other. A republic looks to the people as its sovereign; a Christian theocracy looks to Yahweh. The very definition of a sovereign, or supreme ruler, excludes
          simultaneous sovereigns.”

          For more, see Chapter 7 “Article 4: Republic vs. Theocracy” at

          5) Article 1, Section 8 has nothing to do with Leviticus 19:34-36. This is more straining at gnats.

          6) Once again, no reason whatsoever to think that “natural born” was inspired by Deuteronomy 17:7. What about the other conditions in Deuternony17.

          7) “…Section 3, Clause 1 requires two witnesses only to the crime of treason. Deuteronomy 19:15 requires two or more witnesses in all criminal cases:…

          “If Deuteronomy 19:15 was the inspiration for the two-witness requirement of Section 3, this is but another instance of the framers compromising Yahweh’s law.”

          For more, see Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” at

          8) More straining at gnats / wishful thinking.

          • Seldena says:

            I have your book on the Bible vs.The Constitution of the U.S. and find it difficult to get through. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

          • I’m sorry you’ve found “BL vs. USC” difficult to get through.

            I would suggest for you to do then as I have. If you agree that there is only one standard by which everything (including the Constitution) is to be ethically evaluated–that is, by Yahweh’s immutable morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments–take the Constitution line by line, Article by Article, and Amendment by Amendment and actually examine it by the standard.

            For example, how does Article 1’s provision for legislators compare to Isaiah 33:22 and James 4:12? How does Article 4’s provision for runaway slaves compare with the what the Bible says is to be done with runaway slaves? How does Amendment 8’s condemnation of cruel and unusual punishments compare with Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9)? etc., etc., etc.

            I would also recommend the blog series “Straining at Gnats…” and the followup series “Swallowing Camels…”

            This is a serious issue: If the Constitution is Biblically seditious as believe the standard proves, to promote the Constitution is to be complicit with the framer’s sedition.


          • Seldena says:

            I do believe every inspired word of God. I will do as you suggest and go line by line. It will take me awhile. But I will do it because I love the scriptures and I love the Constitution of the United States!! it is very serious and I take it very seriously.

          • Great!

            If after you have done so, you discover it is not the Biblically compatible document you have been let to believe it is, I hope you’ll retract the second half of your statement. If it is Biblically seditious, it’s not to be loved but exposed for what it is and what it has done to America.


          • psychicbloodbrother says:

            When it is not the truth it is hard to swallow. Thanks for your post Seldena. It is clear to me that the founding principles are irrefutable and western civilization is based on these principles. We need to focus some time on Scottish Common Sense and get back to the original writings of the bible and the founders themselves and keep this in context. Why the folks here at this site rail against the tenets of western civilization is beyond me. Fascinating discussion.

        • COMALite J says:

          In addition to what @tedrweiland:disqus said:

          • Jeremiah 17:9 — “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” — how in God’s green Earth do you get Separation of Powers out of that!? Did you even look those passages up, or just accept some Christian Constitutionalist website or blog or Fw:Fw:Fw: chain Email’s word for it?

          • Isaiah 33:22–23: “For the Loʀɒ [YHWH] is our judge, the Loʀɒ is our lawgiver, the Loʀɒ is our king; he will save us.” — Three branches of government, but not the same three (a King was not just an executive, not even Chief Executive — he was also a Chief Judge as well, and could issue edicts that had the force of law and so was a lawgiver as well), and by no means can that be considered separation of the three powers — it says the 180° diametric opposite — it invests one Entity (YHWH) with all three Powers!

          No one has ever managed to show me (despite decades of asking on a wide variety of online forums dating back to the days of dial-up online services that predate the World Wide Web) a single uniquely Biblical or Christian principle (not mere formal dating syntax) anywhere in the legally active text (Articles I–VI [Article VII is mere closing formalities, not legally active text] and their §s and ¶s).

      • Randy Hudgins says:

        ~FAITH FACTS~

        • admin says:

          Randy, thanks for joining the discussion.

          I’m familiar with the site you provided. I would suggest the same could be done with nearly any nation’s Constitution, including the USSR’s. All constitutions reflect God’s laws to one degree or another. This does not make them biblically compatible, especially if they’re biblically seditious in other locations. Case in Point: The US Constitution.

          Hopefully, you’ll agree that there’s only one standard by which everything (including the Constitution) is to be ethically evaluated: By Yahweh’s unchanging morality as reflected in His Ten Commandments and their respective statues and judgments. When the Constitution is actually examined by this standard (instead of a bunch of dead politicians’ cherry-picked quotations), it’s found to be anything but biblically compatible. In fact, there’s hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality.

          For evidence, see free online book “Bible Law vs. Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at

          Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

        • admin says:

          You might want also check out our blog series “Straining at Gnats…” in which I address many of the claims made on the site you provided, beginning at

  2. Dave says:

    Thanks for the post, Ted. There are so many things wrong with the “Constitution” and the cult of the “Constitution”. Obviously key among them are the anti-Christian/anti-God elements that you’ve so well expressed. Another issue is the idea, with thanks to Lysander Spooner, that the contract of the “Constitution” cannot be made to apply to people not party to that contract. What is the first thing that happens when someone is before a judge and argues a defense based upon the “Constitution”? The judge judges that “Constitution” and the personal relationship a lowly person has to it has no standing in his courtroom… and that’s right because it is “law”, not the “Constitution”, that is applied (because you are not party to the contract called the “Constitution” but, rather, fall under the violent force of the police state!) (see Marc Stevens and the No State Project). And another issue is the creation and the implementation of the “Constitution”. None, not one!, of the participants at the “Constitutional” convention had any authority from their state’s government/people to scrap the Articles of Confederation nor create a supposed replacement… the “Constitution”. The fraud continued with the dog-and-pony show from community to community, state to state to lie to, mislead and trick states into ratifying this fraud called the “Constitution”. So, even if the “Constitution” were a binding contract upon you and me (which it’s not), it was created as a fraud to our detriment; as such, a contract created as a fraud is of no effect and no binding upon you and me. In fact, Ted, you and I should seek remedy and damages! The mind boggles at the outcome of that!

    • Dave, thanks for your excellent thoughts. I hope they will help to open more eyes and hearts.

      • psychicbloodbrother says:

        The eyes are wide open and they see that you hate the constitution and are actively working to diminish it. The summary posts that make claims of fraud based on anecdotal story telling do not persuade or dissuade those who understand the REAL meaning and history of the American constitution. Good luck with your anti-constitution, anti-American quest.

        • Question: Do you believe and accept Psalm 19:7-11–that is, that, among other things, Yahweh’s moral law is perfect and His civil judgments are altogether righteous, and that, therefore, everything (including) the Constitution must be evaluated for their legitimacy by this standard?

        • Dave says:

          Wow, you must have taken a really big gulp of that Kool-Aid. If I’m on an “anti-constitution” quest, as you claim, then I’m in right good company with the likes of Patrick Henry. Henry was a first-hand witness to the chicanery that birthed the fraud you worship. Henry adamantly refused to participate in such exercise, saying, “I smell a rat!” Anecdotal evidence? No, eye witness. America hater? No, patriot. What about you, PBB? Are you so invested in the story and the comfort of the lie that the truth is an enemy to you? Objectively, PBB, isn’t that a bit perverse?

  3. Shawn says:

    Not sure how I made it to this site….but, wow. Just wow. Hate to sound cliche, but what your aspiring to is basically, well, what the Taliban and ISIS do. You first err on the fact that all of Americans believe in the Bible (we don’t) or even if we do, would want an actual government run by a theocracy (we don’t). Politics and religion don’t mix. the founders knew this well and we can see by simple evidence of world event what happens when they do.

    • “…There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is

      “People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but
      because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being
      enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god,
      theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?…”

      For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” at

      • Shawn says:

        You start with the fallacy that morality is tied to, and owes its being, to God. That’s where we would disagree. Atheists, as an example, have morals. They can know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Assuming otherwise is egotistical and ignorant. Because we simply do not believe in the same gods you do, or any at all, you would find fault with us.

        Your inserting YOUR belief system into your desired form of government. ne which most of us would disagree with. I could as easily insert the gods of Odin and Thor and make the same case you make….but I would assume it is ONLY the Christian god that should be in government in your opinion.

        • Atheists, who are inevitably evolutions, cannot explain the origin of morals or provide reason for why one person’s ethical paradigm is better than another person’s–e.g., your own that I presume is opposed to beheadings and the Muslim who would delight in beheading you. Any true morality an atheist must borrow from the Christian paradigm as represented in the Bible.

          • Shawn says:

            So you’re basically saying before the Bible, humans had no morals? Atheists aside for a moment, there were many other religions before Christianity that had a moral code. Lets go back to my Norse gods example…whose morality was based on personal responsibility and family bonds (and how one could affect the greater good). This was well before the Bible. Same could be said of the Greeks and many others.

            I would also state that because we cannot explain something, does not make the simple solution or reason (in this case, the Bible) true. We may not understand ourselves well enough to know where the concept of morality comes from, what in our brains makes it even exist, but that does not automatically conclude it must come from god. Again, what you are doing is injecting your specific belief set and rationalizing around it, and coming to the conclusion it must be so, and that all should be ruled under it.

            And while many of the atrocities we see committed in the news are done by so-called Muslims such as ISIS and others, they neither represent all of Islam nor are they alone in history. Christianity itself was responsible for its share of atrocities throughout history.

          • The Creator and therefore only Sovereign was the same Creator and Sovereign before and after His moral code was codified.

            As Creator and Sovereign, He is also the only one who determines what is and what is not an atrocity. If truly an atrocity, then anything done as such in the name of Christian was performed in name only. For example, ungodly wars (which most are) fought in the name of Christianity, does not make such a war Christian or cause to blame Yahweh for them.

            That’s for all now. This forum is not for debating atheists, in fact, allowing you to proceed any further is to violate our policy.

          • Shawn says:

            Ted, your last sentence says it all (allowing you to proceed…violates) and shows exactly why the US should not be, and never will be, a theocracy. A dictatorship/tyranny under the guise of religion.