The Religious Test Part 1

by Pastor Mark Downey

Scripture Reading: Exodus 19:3-8

When Moses received the test question from God, the people answered in the affirmative.  This was a religious test even though the words religion and religious are misnomers.  A misnomer is something that is named in error.  One of the first things I learned in Christian Identity is that Christianity is not a religion; it’s a way of life.  Religions are man-made.  Christianity is made by God.  The word religion comes from the Latin ‘religio’ and means ‘to bind anew.’  This word seems originally to have signified an oath or vow to the gods, or an obligation, which was held to be very sacred during the Roman Empire.  However, 200 years ago in America, religion was often synonymous with Christianity for all intents and purposes.  It was the test itself that was the principle of controversy in more recent times.

The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary goes so far to say, “Religion, in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion.”  The modern Merriam-Webster puts a much blander rendition of defining religion: “the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.”  From these two historical perspectives of religion, we can assert that there are two distinct categories i.e. Christianity in contrast to a million other gods.

The religious test, if we can call it that, from ancient times, has been a social construct beginning with a pre-Adamic primitive veneration of nature or nature worship and became the commonly accepted belief system, which determined who was in and who was out.  One thing you can say about the anthropology of primitive tribes was that atheism was virtually unheard of.  The White race has a much more uniquely exclusive and advanced concept of God, because it is historically synchronized with the absolutes of a Deity that declares “There is none other” (Isaiah 45:5).  The test for any White man, woman or child is whether they believe that absolute exclusivity or whether they go whoring after the strange primitive gods manifested in the minds of other races.  We can say that the deification of humans was a crude and fierce theology (from Stone Age chieftains to Nimrod), which was later emulated in the Egyptian Pharaoh, the Roman Caesar and the European ‘divine right of kings.’  Of course, the test can be a minimum or maximum number of questions, which predicates the number of people in the ruling class within a society.  And this works categorically within any given nation as to its government, it religion(s) or a myriad of other institutions; even the Boy Scouts! 

Edward Snowden is a recent example of a non-conformist who places his nation above the worship of the government.  He doesn’t pass the religious test of obeisance to the state and if he remained in the United States, he would have been punished or even eliminated by those who think they have the power of life and death over people.  I had to laugh last week when the government promised the Russians that they wouldn’t kill or torture him.  The state, the federal government has become the god of a primitive religion.  The God of the Bible says that He is a jealous God when His people turn to other gods.  Therefore, it is imperative for the White race to be mindful of God’s blessings and curses.  In other words, it’s whether we pass or fail the same test Moses put before the people.  The test is whether we obey or disobey some entity other than our local jurisdiction or what has actually been established through English common law, which can be traced back to Moses.  On a state or federal or even world level, a religious test would amplify the disparity between a presbyter (bottom up) and an episcopal (top down) structure, between Rex Lex (the king is law) and Lex Rex (the law is king), between the White race and non-Whites and between true Christianity and inferior religions.  The object of this discussion is who will rule over us in behalf of the God of Israel?  Who will hold office at the top and all the way down to dog catcher?  And what about the symbiosis of church and state, being that every church or denomination has its own religious test and affects government either benevolently or maliciously? Or a religious test from government that places limits on what a church can practice when they sign on the dotted line of a 501c3 form. 

Even FGCP has its own 16 page constitution, which is, in essence, a religious test that states if a person fails to abide by our beliefs, articles of faith and admonitions to practice their new life in Christ, then their membership can be terminated.  And this is proper biblical due process, which is found in Matthew 18.  In Romans 16:17, Paul says "Mark those who cause divisions contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them."  Also, in 2 John 1:10-11, we are advised that "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 house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."  It’s a command for us to judge and separate good from evil.  Who has the responsibility to do this?  A worldwide ecumenical council deciding what’s good and evil?  Good luck with that one; the priestcraft of communism would have us in a gulag and you could say hello to the New Inquisition.  That’s only going to work on a global scale when Christ returns to reign in His Kingdom.  When you think about it, we’re taking that religious test right now; that will be used for or against us when we stand before the Lord on the Day of Judgment. 

These admonitions (from Paul and John) would appear to be a means by which we can test whether somebody belongs in any given Christian community.  It’s the level and freedom of autonomy that is critical for every Christian to exercise their God given rights.  At what level does FGCP conduct a religious test?  Well, I would think and hope that it begins and ends with our church.  What if Boone county or let’s say the state of Kentucky were to draft a religious test for the prerequisites of holding public office?  I’d say that’s great as long as it’s Christian Identity.  But, as soon as you expand the test questions, you also whittle down the number of qualified candidates.  Right now there is no prohibition for holding public office if some people think you’re a racist. 

How many Kentuckians have heard of House Bill 279, The Religious Freedom Act?  It was the most contentious issue in this year’s General Assembly.  Ironically, a spokesman for the Catholic Conference of KY, supporting the bill said, “I want the state to meet the highest bar in its ability to interfere with one's religion," whereas Rev. Nancy Jo Kemper of Lexington says the new law "Teeters on the verge of religious fascism" and thinks it will open the doors for people to discriminate against others in the name of God.  There’s not only a race war going on in this country, but a religious one as well.  In 1990 the U.S. Supreme Court changed direction establishing a “rational basis” test meaning government only needed “a reason” to restrict religious freedom. Congress responded by overwhelmingly passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requiring federal courts to once again use the “compelling interest/least restrictive means” test.  It was then up to the states to re-establish/reaffirm the “compelling interest/least restrictive means” standard for state and local courts. Twenty six states have acted in some measure to re-establish this test. Kentucky became the 27th as of June 23rd.  The Democratic Governor vetoed the bill, bowing to pressure from “gay” rights groups and the ACLU, however lawmakers in the House and Senate, smelling the coffee and mood of Christians in this state, overwhelmingly rebuffed Gov. Beshear by overriding his veto of the bill.

The text of the new law is the following short paragraph:  “Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

In 2012, the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision sided with the U.S. Supreme Court, selecting “rational basis” as the test for religious freedom cases.  This year, our legislature told the black-robed devils “NO” by acting to insure religious freedom by re-establishing the “compelling interest/least restrictive means” test for state and local courts in the Commonwealth.  I mention all of this political wrangling, because it is still true that freedom is not free.  The religious test is still a battleground and it’s made complicated by professional antichrist agitators.  Even if we were to synthesize a perfected religious test as a Christian document, we could simply take the elements of an antichrist found in I John 4:3 and ask the question: do you confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and is of God?  But, once again the people may affirm a belief and then turn around and begin work on the social construct of golden calves. 

All the more reason to keep it at the most fundamental foundation of Christian life i.e. the family.  After all, aren’t the vows of marriage a religious test?  Do you promise to love, honor and obey?  Yes, you pass.  No, you fail.  Is the husband head of the wife? Yes, you pass.  No, you fail.  Are children a heritage from God in need of parental discipline?  Yes, you pass.  No, you fail.  We, as a nation and race, are being tested as never before.  There is a sodomite invasion for same sex marriages, there are women in rebellion to rule over men (and Hillary is at the top), there are increasing numbers of children who are wards of the state and victims of liberalism.  Here’s a religious test from an African village being promoted on MSNBC by an Affirmative Action public service announcement, which pontificates, “We have never invested as much in public education as we should have. We haven’t had a very collective notion of, these are our children. We have to break through our private idea that children belong to their parents, or children belong to their families, and recognize that children belong to whole communities.”  This isn’t a public service, it’s communist propaganda.  In fact, these are fighting words; White children do not belong to queers and mulattos.  White children belong to White communities.  That’s my sincerely held ‘religious’ belief. 

The Kentucky ‘Religious Freedom Act’ began with nine Amish men, after being fined and imprisoned for not displaying the requisite orange triangles on their vehicles (they were probably forced to wear orange jumpsuits while imprisoned); they appealed to the court to allow an alternate method of identifying their vehicles which would insure public safety without violating their sincerely held religious beliefs.  Could you imagine the government taking their Amish children and putting them in a multicultural environment?  But, that’s exactly what the communist government did in the 1960’s with school desegregation.  It should have failed.  But, the religious test in most churches at that time had already been infected by the gods of integration.  There’s nothing wrong with a religious test that requires those of your own race to hold office, especially in light of it being Scriptural.  “You shall surely set him king over you, whom the Lord your God shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set king over you: you may not set a stranger over you, who is not your brother” Deut. 17:15.  Those of another race have no jurisdiction over White Christians. 

Christian Identity is a community; at times close knit and at other times diffused and splintered.  But, like Moses entertaining a plebiscite to his kindred, we all yearn for a consensus to obey God.  With the New Covenant we have an added advantage that our Israelite ancestors did not have.  The Law is written in our heart and mind.  “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them” Heb. 10:16.  So, regardless of who is administering a religious test, we have the gift to discern its blessing or curse.  Not everybody is going to accept the Christian Identity test, because it’s predicated on race and a lot of our people have been brainwashed (from government schools and apostate churches) with a dormant racial consciousness.  And in that regard there really is no separation of church and state, a cozy cabal of conspirators to usurp Christianity. 

Our community has a message from God that says the White race is the true Israel of Scripture and that jews have never been the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  These two premises have a preponderance of truth, which will prove all things related.  We don’t need a religious test for all of the peripheral doctrines that have been dragged in by our member’s former denominations.  Understanding these two premises will awaken our hearts and minds to the righteousness of Jesus Christ and be able to better dismiss the leaven that leaveneth the whole loaf.  In other words, the unrighteousness of religious tests that, for example, promotes universalism or the Mystery Religions or immorality.  We are a work in progress, plagued by the distractions of contentious religious tests.  The only thing that counts is the Truth. 

If you look at history, the state religions were always predicated on a religious test.  Even conversely, in the old USSR, the atheist who could lick the boot of unbelief would rise in the hierarchy.  Empires always had a priestcraft to keep the people in line; to swear allegiance to whatever gods were popular.  We Christians should know better, that the only religious test that will ever matter is the Kingdom of God, where every knee will bow.  Without Christ ruling and reigning, a religious test is merely imposing one denominational pope over another.  A few people, who understood history, understood this proposition and left religious freedom to the cultural enclaves that developed naturally over time.  Shall we have a Baptist nation whereby the religious test is full body immersion for somebody to hold public office?  Does that really guarantee an absence of corruption?  Well, let’s ask Richard Land, national chairman of the Southern Baptist Conference, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Even if the founders of this fledgling nation said, ‘OK, let’s just have the Bible as our guiding document.  Forget the Constitution.  You don’t think an enemy will come in and plant a hundred different Scofield-type versions of the Bible saying all kinds of different things; planting tares among the wheat?  Which Bible determines the religious test?  Who is going to decide what the test questions are and how many of them are there going to be?  Which denomination will be the predominant power (because they certainly can’t all be ruling simultaneously)?  The one with the largest membership?  The one with the most money?  The most righteous one, whom God calls from Heaven… the Presbyterians (just kidding)?  However you slice the simplistic premise of biblical rule of an entire nation (or as it was in the founding of 13 states), is it going to be biblically just for the diverse nature of White Christians practicing their beliefs in the peace of their local communities?  How well did ancient Israel do in their Promised Land deal with only the Word of God? 

If the Bible has a just system of weights and measures to prevent financial sins and cheating, do you think the jewish bankers wouldn’t try to usurp whatever political standard good intentioned Christians might try to set up?  Let’s not forget the founder of the House of the Red Shield making the boast, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."  I guess he’s saying, “We don’t care about your stinkin’ religious test; if you make one, we will break it.”  They will circumvent the Bible just as their Talmud does.  This begs the question for our founders: how do we then apply the Law of just weights and measures for a nation born in a day fulfilling Bible prophecy.  Did they hear a divine calling?  Do you think justice crossed their minds at all concerning religious liberties?  Let’s not fool ourselves; it was through divine providence that America would be the new Promised Land, because of religious persecution in Europe, because of a religious test by the monarchs that were still quite fresh in their minds.  Religion and the traditions of man suffocate the Holy Spirit; it stunts our maturing in Christ with vicarious requisites of man; things that never entered the mind of God or that can be found in the Scriptures.  If a religious test is a canard, you will know it by its fruit or lack thereof.    

A very important historical anecdote that usually slips the minds of honest and caring patriots is that right after the Revolution, Washington kept his promise to retire his military commission; the popular current of thought was that he would become a new monarch, but he absolutely abhorred the English throne and the last thing he wanted to be was another King George.  Although some in Congress wanted him to be President for life, he said no and only served for two terms, setting a precedence that lasted for 150 years before the lust for power manifested in the jewish stooge FDR.  We came close to forgetting why White Christians came to America in the first place.  “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" – George Santayana.  Our founding fathers wanted the same thing we want today: for a federal government to keep its nose out of our business.  They didn’t want a religious dictatorship that they left behind in Europe. 

To understand the true purpose of the religious test clause in Article 6 of the Constitution, we need to look at the Corporation Act of 1661. This was the first of three Test Acts which were implemented in England and which remained in effect until 1828. Under these acts, no one could hold office in England unless he swore an oath of fealty (loyalty) not to God, but rather to the doctrines of the Church of England. This was the kind of religious test which the founders prohibited. They had no objection to biblical qualifications. What they objected to was the requirement that all government officials be forced to swear allegiance to the codified doctrines of an established church.  The founders of this nation were intellectually gifted Christians who could see through the churchianity of their day, just as we can see it in Christian Identity. 

The wisdom of this objection can be shown by merely looking at the different church doctrines on baptism.  Some churches teach that baptism is necessary in order for one to become a Christian while others teach that baptism is not necessary but merely symbolic.  Those holding to the first view often deny the Christianity of those holding to the second and vice versa.  Therefore, if the founding fathers had permitted religious tests by saying that only Christians could hold office under the new Constitution, they would have placed us in the difficult position of allowing our government to determine which of these two views on baptism is correct.  The churches would immediately have recognized that whichever church managed to obtain a majority representation in the new government would have the power to define all other denominations as non-Christians and force them out of the body politic entirely.  This would have been unbiblical because the body politic is the body of Christ and there is no excommunication for a mode of baptism.  This is exactly how the Test Acts were used in England, and it was one of the reasons that so many Christians had fled to America in the first place.  Our founding fathers realized that the only way to prevent this abuse of the power of government is to eliminate the religious test requirements altogether.  We have the same thing in Christian Identity with a mixed bag of beliefs on baptism, but thank God there is no litmus test that determines who’s in and who’s out of our movement depending on how wet or dry they are in their commitment to Christ. 

Proving that this is the view which the founders had in mind can be seen in the statement on this clause by Oliver Ellsworth.  Mr. Ellsworth was one of the pivotal drafters of the Constitution, and he later became the third Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  In his defense of the religious test clause, Mr. Ellsworth first explained what was meant by the term “religious test”:

“A religious test is an act to be done, or profession to be made, relating to religion (such as partaking of the sacrament according to certain rites and forms, or declaring one’s belief of certain doctrines,) for the purpose of determining whether his religious opinions are such, that he is admissible to a publick office.”

He then proceeded to examine the most basic religious test possible and to demonstrate that it would be wrong for us to have such a test in America.

“If any test-act were to be made, perhaps the least exceptionable would be one, requiring all persons appointed to office to declare at the time of their admission, their belief in the being of a God, and in the divine authority of the scriptures … But I answer: His making a declaration of such a belief is no security at all. For suppose him to be an unprincipled man, who believes neither the word nor the being of God; and to be governed merely by selfish motives; how easy is it for him to dissemble! how easy is it for him to make a public declaration of his belief in the creed which the law prescribes; and excuse himself by calling it a mere formality. This is the case with the test-laws and creeds in England … In short, test-laws are utterly ineffectual: they are no security at all … If they exclude any persons, it will be honest men, men of principle, who will rather suffer an injury, than act contrary to the dictates of their consciences. If we mean to have those appointed to public offices, who are sincere friends to religion [Christianity], we, the people who appoint them, must take care to choose such characters; and not rely upon such cob-web barriers as test-laws are.”

The final sentence of Mr. Ellsworth’s statement begs the question: did the founders include the religious test clause in order to establish a secular government?  Not at all.  They simply placed the responsibility for the religious character of our government on the shoulders of the people themselves.  If we have men in office today who are enemies to the Christian faith, then it is not the fault of the founding fathers but solely that of we the people.  And ‘We, the People’ is synonymous with the body of Christ, the body politic of Christian governance.  The most far out motive one can imagine is that the religious test was the opening of Pandora’s Box for multicultural diversity with non-Whites ruling over Christians.  The only substance to that effect is the historical revisionism of jewish sources.  Please understand the Orwellian nature that we find ourselves in today:  “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." Who runs the media, the flow of information?  Our enemies have divulged their strategy, "Take away the heritage of a people and they are easily persuaded" – Karl Marx.  Our Christian Israel heritage started in 1776.  Today, the White race is being prepared for the ash heap of history.  “We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter” Romans 8:36.  Psalms 94:5 warns us about an unscrupulous adversary, “They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.”  Are we to believe that after the expiration date of 1776, after 2520 years of prophetic punishment, God would not bless Israel with a Christian heritage unsurpassed in the history of mankind?  We don’t have a sadistic God that would whip us beyond 40 lashes (Deut. 25:3) and just continue on with the religious persecution of religious tests. 

White Christian men wrote the Constitution and Article 6 for a Whites only Christian society.  All historical facts prove this to be true.  There were no jews or negroes who had any influence on the signers of the Constitution.  The Haym Salomon myth is a good example of how a two bit jewish accountant somehow became the financier of the Revolution.  It’s just one more holohoax that rots our own heritage.  Got kol nidre?  The evil and tragic events we see around us today are the results of jewish perfidy fomenting a War of Northern Aggression Against the South in the 1860’s.  This can’t be blamed on the Christian heritage that Washington, Jefferson, Adams etc sacrificed their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on for a future posterity.  Posterity being a unilateral racial outlook.  Jews are the change agents of the historical record. 

We’re Americans and we have a Christian heritage and it’s White.  It’s becoming quite fashionable to refer to our founding fathers as those “dead White guys.”  It is unthinkable to suggest that China should have multicultural diversity or other indigenous countries taint their gene pool with alien races and yet it’s open season for White Christian America to claim their heritage for their posterity.  The intent of the nation wreckers is becoming overt and in your face.  Listen to this jewish professor at Harvard, Noel Ignatief, boasting out loud, what was once only whispered in the synagogue, "The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.  Keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as the white race is destroyed. Not deconstructed, but destroyed."  Keep pounding away at our founding fathers and any other White patriot who died for their race, and our heritage will disappear.  We will be persuaded to serve the gods of Baal.    

Most of the bashing parrots other misguided souls and their poor understanding of the 1700’s, gladly provided by jewish disinformation specialists; with even less appreciation for the spike in antichristian propaganda after the Civil War.  Was it wrong for the Revolutionary Christian heroes “To bind their kings [heads of state] with chains, and their nobles [officials] with shackles of iron” (Ps. 148:8) in the form of a document that would greatly reduce the chance for usurping Christianity?  Taking the religious test away from the episcopal and leaving it with the presbyter would seem to be the only logical way to protect the liberties of American churches or individual believers.  The real problem here is that there are two documents claiming to be the Constitution.  One is good and one is evil. 

All the States at the time of the original Constitution were Christian and you could not serve in a governmental capacity without being a White (Israelite) Christian, taking a Christian oath to serve under the various State Constitutions.  This is where the general government employees (public servants) came from; the free White Christian populace of the States.  No other races or religions were invited or included in this scheme of things.  Our heritage is that our dead White constitutionalists only embraced White Christian Americans, no other religions and no other races.  The historical record clearly shows that no such ungodliness was allowed, certainly not as we see it today under an adulterated constitution, a polluted church and a corrupt de facto government.  The Church of England was forced upon all British subjects in the colonies at that time.  It was the official religion under British rule in America until our founders revolted against that tyranny and kicked the English out.  And that is why we have never had a Church of America that favors one sect or denomination over the others at the national level.  It’s for the very reason that they had experienced firsthand the cruelty and depravity of religious power-hungry tyrants.  Can you imagine John Hagee or Paul Crouch as the High Priest of America?  That’s what was lurking in the shadows had a religious test been enacted at the national level.  Instead of cursing those dead White guys and the heritage they gave us, by risking their own lives and the comfort of their homes, we owe them a debt of gratitude and praise, preserving Christianity for a season. 

America was blessed more than any other nation in the history of the world up until the 1860’s, when the Christian republic was dismantled and taken over by the universalist mantra of all races, creeds and colors; joined by an apostate judaized church serving man and not God.  From that point on you can talk about secular politics and the marginalization of Christian ethics.  Our heritage was a just system of weights and measures.  Remember Andrew Jackson telling the jewish bankers in 1834, “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out.”  I’ll close with another bit of wisdom from ‘Old Hickory, when he said, “You must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.”  Isn’t that the principle that Moses brought to his people at Sinai?  The only real religious test that counts is the one between you and God.  “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begins with us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” I Peter 4:17.  I pray: may we secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, amen. 

Acknowledgment and thanks to Martin Brian.