Our Ungodly American Constitution

Transgenderism was always equality’s final battlefield. We simply did not see this last battlefield through the clutter of so many other deleterious, social, and political movements. The idea that the sexes are mutable was an inevitability once we – as a society – subscribed to the ungodly notion that we are all “equal.” God stated otherwise, but in our collective society’s dismissal of Him, we have replaced the Word of God with the words of man. Our veneration for a document called the Constitution has become our undoing. Our faith in the Constitution is part of the problem.

The greatest fault of the Constitution is the following: through the amendment and legislative process, the Constitution is grounded in nothing but the collective whims of the majority. The Bible is a book of unassailable truths that do not change regardless of time. Many may differ the interpretation of its words, but that is left to the courtrooms and juries of the faithful – i.e., the churches and their congregants. By contrast, the Constitution is susceptible to emotional appeals, and that is only amplified due to “equality.”

God did not make us equals. Contrary to interpretations of Galatians 3:28, the verse that states “there is neither Jew nor Greek… male nor female,” the verse was referring to equality under the law – specifically the laws of God, to which applicable sacrifices were fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ Jesus. The same author of that letter to the Galatians provides explicit directions to the faithful in the same epistle, as well as other letters, whereby Paul clearly distinguishes between men, women, slaves, slaveowners, Greeks, and Jews. Paul never stated we are equal, but the preceding line that is often forgotten provides a caveat for the application of the verse: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Galatians 3:27; emphasis my own). In other words, those who are not Christians do not enjoy the benefit of this new relationship between God and Christians. They are not our equals. Those who are Christians enjoy blanket protections provided by faith that are denied to non-Christians. Let us explore that concept further before returning to the Constitution.

At its core, Christianity establishes inequality on a sacred level. There are Christians going to Heaven through Christ and non-Christians who reject Jesus and are thus going to Hell. That is obviously not blanket equality. By definition, those are spiritual distinctions – one good (Christians) and one bad (non-Christians). The American Constitution inherently rejects this Biblical fact because it allows the non-Christian to practice a faith in a manner that is equal to the Christian. In other words, out of the gate – the First Amendment – the Constitution directly defies God’s will.

Even if it was not the original intention of the majority Christian Founding Fathers – all of whom derived from Christian ethno-nationalist communities – the Constitution codified equality of good (Christianity) and bad (anti-Christians). The fact that the states maintained Christian state faiths after the acceptance of the Constitution until 1833 did not abrogate this inherent moral divergence at a federal level. This flaw in the very first amendment creates the conditions by which the Constitution inevitably leads to a godless conclusion.

The next great failure of the Constitution was its lack of codified racial distinctions. The Constitution was written by White Christian men (some Deists) in a time when Europe was the dominant continent and Eurocentric, libertine values were on the ascendancy. The idea of Asian, African, or Indian equality was never considered by the authors. As such, their very definition of “man” did not extend to Africans – whom they enslaved – nor Indians – many of whom they slaughtered. Orientals were an entirely distinct and curious species on the other end of the world. Consequently, the document was written as a treatise on European equality, defined by European ideals and European identity. This is evident by the 3/5ths clause regarding black populations in slave holding states. Still, the Constitution never established unequal racial distinctions.

God created physical nations. God intended those nations to remain distinct. Jesus’ parting commission to His Apostles at the end of the Book of Matthew amplifies this reality: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19-20) Each nation is different. It is clear that Jesus intends us to remain separate. The Constitution attempts to use European idealism to transcend God given nationalism.

Until the 14^th Amendment, the Constitution and the Bible largely complemented one another with regard to the racial composition and definition of distinct racial nations. But this was largely by default. Free Blacks could vote throughout these United States – North and South – but they were few and far between. They were statistically insignificant, and in most cases, they faced impediments to voting similar to those of poorer, uneducated Whites. Still, the Constitution attempted to do that which the Bible never attempted to do. It sought to supplant the definition of racial and ethnic nations with a definition predicated on ideological nationality.

The Bible is clear that it wants Christians to spread the Word of Christ and convert as many souls as possible to the Good News. But it is also very explicit in its ethno-racial distinctions. From the time of the Tower of Babel, not only does God impose a division amongst mankind, He also assigns certain genetic traits to different peoples.

There is a reason, for instance, that individuals with greater levels of skin melanin also have genetically lower levels of recorded intelligence (e.g., IQ scores). Similarly, those with the presence of the genetically inherited mutation of the Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA gene) are prone to Brunner Syndrome – which manifests in a lack of impulse control, violent outbursts, and extreme aggression. This is a genetic trait nonexistent in pure Whites but found in two thirds of blacks and Polynesian males. God created mutations necessary for Africans and Polynesians to thrive within environments by which a lack of complex thought, a propensity for extreme violence, and a protection from sun exposure were critical to their survival.

In effect, when the greatest threat to one’s survival is a swift cheetah, God created people who are not sitting around dwelling upon esoteric concepts in a subdued state getting sun burned all day. Africans are genetically designed to physically react with little thought in the most aggressive manner possible to ensure their survival. Such a people are not well suited to colder climate, White societies that relied upon complex thoughts predicated on law and order. The greatest threat to Whites was not the swift cheetah, but the long, harsh deprivation of winter. God created genetic Whites to conceive and react in different ways to a distinctly different threat to survival – discipline, impulse control, and organized violence became the prevailing traits of White society.

Of course, these are small examples of the broader differences between Whites, blacks, and others. It is neither antagonistic toward them nor dismissive of their God-given design. Rather, it is simply a fact that we are built differently. Our physicality is distinct. Our blood-types were distinct until interbreeding occurred at some point, introducing levels of variety between all racial categories. Our mental acuity is different. God made those differences, and they are not equal.

The ability of blacks to generally run faster than Whites is a function of genetic distinctions that are not equal. The capacity of Asians to enjoy higher IQ levels than blacks and Whites makes us unequal. The ability of Whites to create enduring, complex architectural maritime infrastructure makes us unequal. Each is more prone to different diseases than the other. We are prone to different vices. We are not the same.

The Constitution arbitrarily accounted for these distinctions while White men ruled a society built by White men designed around White laws. With the 14^th Amendment, God given racial distinctions were eliminated. Jim Crow Laws in the South tried to reconcile the federal Constitution’s “equality under the law” with the God given genetic reality of distinctions. Although it took nearly a hundred years, the collapse of Jim Crow Laws directly contributed to a complete collapse of functional, independent black communities in the South. We have since further devolved into a chaotic attempt to maintain functional White legal and judicial systems while simultaneously attempting to remain “color blind.” That is impossible.

The God given genetic construct of black people makes it more difficult for them to function under White systems of government. They lack a genetic appreciation or mentality to accept White conditions – thus, their demands to dismantle “White Privilege.” Meanwhile, well-intentioned American conservatives attempt to transpose the needs of two very different races to facilitate the ideals of a 17^th and 18^th Century Enlightenment ideology documented in the non-racialist Constitution. That is bound to fail. The Constitution was written at a time in which racialism was essentially an accepted fact that did not require codification to be understood by the parties involved. No one needed to remind James Madison or Roger Sherman of their racial primacy as White men, even if the latter never owned slaves. Regardless, they never thought to mandate racial designations because a day in which the races were considered “equal” never entered their minds. Why? They knew such a concept ran contrary to God’s Biblical law. We are designed to be separated at a minimum. How do I know? The Book of Genesis and the Curse of Ham is a start – a concept the Founders knew well.

Yet, the Constitutional Republic completely unravels on the altar of equality when it is sacrificed to the emotional appeal and dictates of women. If the First Amendment is flawed due to its imposition of equality for non-Christians, and the Fourteenth Amendment – which may be illegal due to its lack of ratification – is flawed due to its dismissal of God given, genetic distinctions, then the Nineteenth Amendment becomes the coup de grâce to the ungodly American experiment. This nail in the coffin of the ungodly Enlightenment experiment not only empowered the exploitation of emotional appeals to undermine patriarchal order, but it also directly contrasted God’s conditions of male authority.

The Bible is extremely clear that men and women are not equal. Yet, under the Constitution, they are now equals. With this equality comes a feminine form of intrusion into decisions that often require a much harder appreciation for “moral hazard.”

The concept of moral hazard is often confused with morality. It is not. It is a full appreciation for the downstream consequences of decisions. Men are more likely to consider downstream consequences when voting on policies, as evidenced by polling. Women often think of immediate returns without regard for such consequences. Again, polling bears this out in the political identities of non-LGBT male and female voters and their motivations.

The introduction of women voters comes with the introduction of female policy makers – rulers – who can then impose their will upon the people through their decision making. Returning to Galatians 3:28, “ala carte Christians” feel this power dynamic is consistent with this one verse. They seem to ignore Timothy 2: 11-14: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Paul is clear about the nature of men and women – the latter being deceived from the beginning and exploited now.

The fact that men and women are not equal does not provide license for men to be wicked toward women. By the contrary, men are required to love the women in their lives and have key obligations to care for women. Emphasizing the unique and unequal differences of men and women, Paul concludes his first epistle to Timothy, chapter two, with the following regarding women: “Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.” (1 Timothy 2:15) In other words, we are unequal, but not less important. Women have an unequal and unique ability to deliver life.

Returning to the Constitution, there are women who are clearly capable of forethought and conservation. I know them. There are women who are strong in their commitment to national integrity and moral composure. I am married to one. But there are, unfortunately, more women – especially in their youth – who are more susceptible to emotional dictates that have a negative downstream consequence – a moral hazard – than men. Thus, the admonishment from God regarding female rulership is a constant theme throughout the Bible, while great women are praised when they complement their men.

One of my favorite series of verses in the Bible is Proverbs 31:10-31.

“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.”

(KJV – emphasis my own)

The woman described in Proverbs 31 is not weak. There is nothing powerless about the wife described. But she also does not sit in her husband’s position at the gates “among the elders of the land.” The American Constitution places her in the gates.

The United States is based upon a document that is foundationally anti-Christian. It has some great components – freedoms of speech, due process, and gun rights are such examples. But the document is ripe for exploitation by antichrists.

The term antichrist is defined by John the Apostle, in 1 John 2: 22-23: “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” Ask yourself, which faiths deny the sanctity of Jesus Christ – King of Kings and Holy Redeemer? Such that deny Christ are definitionally “antichrists.” You are instructed to avoid them. Instead, we have invited them into our country and to rule over us.

The American Constitution opens the American people to ungodly exploitation through the weaponization of equality it seeks to achieve by those who deny Jesus Christ. In its quest to make us all equal, the Constitution subverts God given definitions and distinctions. This leads to an ungodly conclusion led by an ungodly people. Now you know how transgenderism under the guise of equality and “love” becomes a social and political movement in such a system. With the expansion of each subsequent definition of equality, we eventually invite demons to enjoy the equality of angels.

How would we fix the Constitution? I argue that the First Amendment should be restricted to a Freedom of Religious expression exclusively for Christians. That would fix a lot of problems almost immediately – but unfortunately, it is too late.