Search Our Site


 

 
 
 
Amendment 1 (1790) to the Constitution of the United States is one of the ten Bill of Rights. These amendments were written to protect the citizens against excessive power of the federal government. In context, Congress was never to set up a state church or take away the peoples’ right to worship God. Keep in mind the words “church” and “God”. Amendment 1 begins “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…. Note along with the words “church” and “God” the word “religion.” Modern revisionist history has perverted the meaning of words just like Humpty Dumpty, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama have attempted to do. The first amendment, for any reasonable person reading the men responsible was to stop any remote possibility of a state church ever rising up in America. By the way, it was the Baptists that pressed forth this liberty that America could indeed be free. You will be interested to research for yourself Preacher John Leland’s meeting with James Monroe and the wording that resulted in The First Amendment. 
 
BILL OF RIGHTS
AMENDMENT 1
(First ten amendments adopted June 15, 1790)
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
 
Now, you remember Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. In 1856 Carroll met Dean Liddell. Liddell wanted to modernize his college to be more like a German university. Carroll was opposed and Humpty Dumpty reveals the Liddell strategy of redefining words.
 
Modern Bible versions have redefined words. Today’s modern dictionaries have redefined words. Progressive education has dumbed-down to the extent that students do not know the meaning of words nor are they even able to spell words. Bill Clinton did not know the meaning of “is”, and Obama either ignores or perverts the meaning intended by the framers. In 1790 “Pure religion and undefiled before God…” was clearly understood in the context of the Bible, and yes, George Washington read the King James Bible.    A.J. Mapp, Jr. of Old Dominion University states in his book The Faiths of our Fathers that George Washington was probably “influenced by St. Paul’s admonition in First Corinthians 11:25-29.” Keep in mind that Professor Mapp is taking a rather revisionist position on the faiths of the founding fathers—(you will note the “s” on faith in the title of his book). So, sadly, Mapp does not necessarily present George Washington as a committed Christian. In the context of Mapp’s discussion, he states that Washington refrained from taking communion because of the Apostle Paul’s warning in the above cited passage. Mapp says, “Washington read Paul’s words in the King James version of the Bible, with their promise of damnation to those who took communion ‘unworthily.’ If he had had access to some of the translations of a later day, with their warning against eating or drinking the sacrament ‘in an unworthy manner,’ that is, without proper reverence he might have become a communicant. The modern translations are not so dauntingly minatory as the one with which he was familiar. But if he had not been accustomed to reading the King James version, his own prose would have lacked the grandeur that it sometimes attained when echoing the great masterpiece.” Note Mapp’s use of “dauntingly minatory” in describing the King James Bible. At his own admission Mapp acknowledges the “watered down” approach of modern versions. Then note the complement to the KJB.
 
 The founding fathers understood the meaning of words and language in context of God’s Word. Any religion outside of Biblical context was false religion. The U.S. Constitution was not written to give liberty, freedom, or rights to false religion. Congress was prohibited from making laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof in relation to a Biblical context. This context was in reference to the God of the Bible not Allah, or any other god other than The God of The Bible. This establishment of religion was in the context of the church not a mosque or any other false religion’s place of worship. Oh, by the way, Carroll met Liddell in 1856 and Darwin published “Origin of Species” in 1859. The Holy Bible, the dictionary, and the United States Constitution are under attack by the “Humpty Dumpty’s” of the world endeavoring to redefine and pervert the truth. The dialogue between Alice and Humpty Dumpty goes as follows:
I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ Alice said.
 Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!
But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument, Alice objected.
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master—that’s all.
 
That’s why Al Gore insisted that the U.S. Constitution was a living, breathing document emphasizing the need to reinterprete this countries founding, laws and principles. Liberals deny absolutes thus the proliferation of modern bible perversions. Sin is redefined to “isms”, syndrome, disorder even genetics and birth. Accountability and absolutes is out but mind you denial nor “private interpretation” changes THE TRUTH! All the Humpty Dumpty’s may claim “to be master—that’s all and Darwinism may deny God but they will absolutely give account and for them all too soon. 
 
 --RLW